BlueRaptorRay Posted November 3, 2017 Share Posted November 3, 2017 Does Anyone know who/what the nameless are? In an ARK digest someone asked about mutating creatures and the devs left us wondering with the question:"What developed into the nameless?".Ive Seen stuff online about them being mutated jerboas and the king and queen being allosaurs,but that makes no sense as they are not different species but diffirent varients of one species. Id like to get some closure on this matter. If anyone knows, please tell me. Thanks :] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaypak Posted November 3, 2017 Share Posted November 3, 2017 None even look close to allos, a would say hyenadons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BipedTadpole Posted November 3, 2017 Share Posted November 3, 2017 Everything in Aberration looks like a blacklight made a baby with a bad LSD trip. Awesome, but weird. The mutated jerboa things are a different Aberration creature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ep1cM0nk3y Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 I think the nameless are hyenadon and the reaper are yuts.. both work with pack like behaviors and yuts call on none yuts to pack up so it makes sense in a way... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DinoDash Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 Ahh my mutant jerboas theory is catching on. They do look kind of like hyenadons but that seems like a random creature to make one of the most purposeful monsters out of...plus the feet man, the FEET. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meshi Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 I think nameless are mutated pegomastax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDoDoLife Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 4 minutes ago, Meshi said: I think nameless are mutated pegomastax. lol i hate them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RowletAlex Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 Am I literally the only one who has figured out that they’re mutated survivors/homo Deus, or both? The steam description describes the Nameless as humanoid/human-like, and the Reapers as “somewhat familiar” It could be one or the other, or the reapers are h.deus, and the Nameless are h.sapiens. Whichever one it is, they’re obviously descended from humans, because why would they make the most important (story wise) creatures in the expansion just hyenas and yuty’s? They may LOOK like them, but plot wise, it makes very little sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meshi Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 2 hours ago, TheDoDoLife said: lol i hate them I and nameless will be same annoying cheeky bastards as pegos are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDoDoLife Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 remove troodons and pegos make ark great again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warzonebeta Posted November 18, 2017 Share Posted November 18, 2017 Mutant jerboa... that sounds like a joke but it’s not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RowletAlex Posted November 18, 2017 Share Posted November 18, 2017 Ok, here’s my 2 cents on why the Nameless are NOT jerboas: Looking at the new Nameless dossier, we can see multiple things. Firstly, the Nameless has a short head with large canine teeth (jerboas have buck teeth according to the dossier, since they are rodents, but this is absent from the in game model, likely due to buck teeth clipping through the model too much) Secondly, the Nameless, while it does have large, somewhat triangular ears, the Nameless’ are shorter and set on the sides of the head (in the same place as a human, hmmm...) while the jerboa’s are set high on the head, and are longer, and more rabbit like. The Nameless has leathery skin that is strikingly like that of a human, and jerboas without fur would more closely resemble the Molerat. The Nameless also has no body hair except for quill like structures on its elbows, placed on its legs, along its spine, and in areas jowls and facial hair would grow in humans. Now, to take care of the bipedal, kangaroo-like locomotion issue. Firstly, the Nameless has a noticeable hunch back, something that a jerboa does not have. Secondly, Nameless and jerboas actually have some differences in foot structure (different numbers of toes, no paw pads, etc) And the Nameless’ leg structure is not vastly different to that of humans, they essentially stand on their toes and crouch (try it yourself, see what I mean) The Nameless also have webbed fingers, which I doubt one would see in the paw of a jerboa, and if you were to spread your fingers on one hand far apart, you will probably be able to see this little flap of skin that could easily develop into the Nameless’ webbing. And the Nameless do only have four fingers and 3 toes (and possibly a dewclaw) that is easily explained by the fact that the human pinky toe is vestigial, and in a few million years humans may only have four toes. This can thusly be extended to the pinky finger, which the Nameless wouldn’t need since they now have claws and less of a need to grip things (the long claws are the only thing that has stumped me so far) The tail can be explained by the Nameless needing a way to balance themselves in their hunched stance, and thus the tail vertebrae grew out again over their sped up evolutionary period. It also seems that their two middle fingers are somewhat stuck together (for some reason this, and the Nameless’ thumbs are absent as far as I can see in the dossier) A few last points: Firstly, the Nameless’ nose is much more reminiscent of those of humans and other apes, and not jerboas. They seem as if they just have less cartilage and thusly more closely resemble the bones of the skull. Also, the Nameless’ skull, as far as I can see, is EXTREMELY reminiscent of that of humans and their ancestors (somewhat like Australopithecus without the brow ridge) And, they are presumed to be intelligent (they appear to have a hatred for people and light that seems to go deeper than being light sensitive and unduly aggressive. It could be that they are aware they were once humans, or they have some other reason to hate people) The reapers are more difficult to explain. Due to the name change from Nameless Queen/king to Reaper Queen/king, they could be biologically unrelated, though with similar hands and eyes, I honestly doubt this. It’s easy to explain them as just being more mutated than the Nameless, but they could also be homo Deus (if the Nameless are homo sapiens’ descendants) My final point for reapers and the Nameless is; Why would these story-central creatures, that are supposedly element-infused (something either species of Homo in the ark universe could end up doing, but would be unlikely for regular creatures) be just a plain old jerboa and theropod, when they are talked about as humanoid, “somewhat familiar” (in a fashion that CLEARLY does not mean familiar in the way it would be if they were jerboas/theropods [familiar since survivors would likely have seen said creatures]) and have an odd rivalry of sorts with humans that just makes more SENSE if they are mutant humans, and not just friggin jerboas. But that’s just my two cents. EDIT: here’s the Nameless dossier. Look over it closely with a human in mind, and you will see the similarities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTrickshot Posted November 18, 2017 Share Posted November 18, 2017 The scientific term for them are "Space Monkeys" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DinoDash Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 18 hours ago, RowletAlex said: Ok, here’s my 2 cents on why the Nameless are NOT jerboas: Looking at the new Nameless dossier, we can see multiple things. Firstly, the Nameless has a short head with large canine teeth (jerboas have buck teeth according to the dossier, since they are rodents, but this is absent from the in game model, likely due to buck teeth clipping through the model too much) Secondly, the Nameless, while it does have large, somewhat triangular ears, the Nameless’ are shorter and set on the sides of the head (in the same place as a human, hmmm...) while the jerboa’s are set high on the head, and are longer, and more rabbit like. The Nameless has leathery skin that is strikingly like that of a human, and jerboas without fur would more closely resemble the Molerat. The Nameless also has no body hair except for quill like structures on its elbows, placed on its legs, along its spine, and in areas jowls and facial hair would grow in humans. Now, to take care of the bipedal, kangaroo-like locomotion issue. Firstly, the Nameless has a noticeable hunch back, something that a jerboa does not have. Secondly, Nameless and jerboas actually have some differences in foot structure (different numbers of toes, no paw pads, etc) And the Nameless’ leg structure is not vastly different to that of humans, they essentially stand on their toes and crouch (try it yourself, see what I mean) The Nameless also have webbed fingers, which I doubt one would see in the paw of a jerboa, and if you were to spread your fingers on one hand far apart, you will probably be able to see this little flap of skin that could easily develop into the Nameless’ webbing. And the Nameless do only have four fingers and 3 toes (and possibly a dewclaw) that is easily explained by the fact that the human pinky toe is vestigial, and in a few million years humans may only have four toes. This can thusly be extended to the pinky finger, which the Nameless wouldn’t need since they now have claws and less of a need to grip things (the long claws are the only thing that has stumped me so far) The tail can be explained by the Nameless needing a way to balance themselves in their hunched stance, and thus the tail vertebrae grew out again over their sped up evolutionary period. It also seems that their two middle fingers are somewhat stuck together (for some reason this, and the Nameless’ thumbs are absent as far as I can see in the dossier) A few last points: Firstly, the Nameless’ nose is much more reminiscent of those of humans and other apes, and not jerboas. They seem as if they just have less cartilage and thusly more closely resemble the bones of the skull. Also, the Nameless’ skull, as far as I can see, is EXTREMELY reminiscent of that of humans and their ancestors (somewhat like Australopithecus without the brow ridge) And, they are presumed to be intelligent (they appear to have a hatred for people and light that seems to go deeper than being light sensitive and unduly aggressive. It could be that they are aware they were once humans, or they have some other reason to hate people) The reapers are more difficult to explain. Due to the name change from Nameless Queen/king to Reaper Queen/king, they could be biologically unrelated, though with similar hands and eyes, I honestly doubt this. It’s easy to explain them as just being more mutated than the Nameless, but they could also be homo Deus (if the Nameless are homo sapiens’ descendants) My final point for reapers and the Nameless is; Why would these story-central creatures, that are supposedly element-infused (something either species of Homo in the ark universe could end up doing, but would be unlikely for regular creatures) be just a plain old jerboa and theropod, when they are talked about as humanoid, “somewhat familiar” (in a fashion that CLEARLY does not mean familiar in the way it would be if they were jerboas/theropods [familiar since survivors would likely have seen said creatures]) and have an odd rivalry of sorts with humans that just makes more SENSE if they are mutant humans, and not just friggin jerboas. But that’s just my two cents. EDIT: here’s the Nameless dossier. Look over it closely with a human in mind, and you will see the similarities. Hmm.. the dossier makes it look like a monkey, MESOPITHECUS!!! but Im Thinking they retconned the nameless since I discovered that they were jerboas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J0hnnySw1f7 Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 lol i hate them I hate the seagulls more. I ourposely dismount and snipe them now just because i have had to deal with losing way to much stuff...and yes, it is VERY satisfying watching it fall...er, rubberband, to the ground Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J0hnnySw1f7 Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 Ok, here’s my 2 cents on why the Nameless are NOT jerboas: Looking at the new Nameless dossier, we can see multiple things. Firstly, the Nameless has a short head with large canine teeth (jerboas have buck teeth according to the dossier, since they are rodents, but this is absent from the in game model, likely due to buck teeth clipping through the model too much) Secondly, the Nameless, while it does have large, somewhat triangular ears, the Nameless’ are shorter and set on the sides of the head (in the same place as a human, hmmm...) while the jerboa’s are set high on the head, and are longer, and more rabbit like. The Nameless has leathery skin that is strikingly like that of a human, and jerboas without fur would more closely resemble the Molerat. The Nameless also has no body hair except for quill like structures on its elbows, placed on its legs, along its spine, and in areas jowls and facial hair would grow in humans. Now, to take care of the bipedal, kangaroo-like locomotion issue. Firstly, the Nameless has a noticeable hunch back, something that a jerboa does not have. Secondly, Nameless and jerboas actually have some differences in foot structure (different numbers of toes, no paw pads, etc) And the Nameless’ leg structure is not vastly different to that of humans, they essentially stand on their toes and crouch (try it yourself, see what I mean) The Nameless also have webbed fingers, which I doubt one would see in the paw of a jerboa, and if you were to spread your fingers on one hand far apart, you will probably be able to see this little flap of skin that could easily develop into the Nameless’ webbing. And the Nameless do only have four fingers and 3 toes (and possibly a dewclaw) that is easily explained by the fact that the human pinky toe is vestigial, and in a few million years humans may only have four toes. This can thusly be extended to the pinky finger, which the Nameless wouldn’t need since they now have claws and less of a need to grip things (the long claws are the only thing that has stumped me so far) The tail can be explained by the Nameless needing a way to balance themselves in their hunched stance, and thus the tail vertebrae grew out again over their sped up evolutionary period. It also seems that their two middle fingers are somewhat stuck together (for some reason this, and the Nameless’ thumbs are absent as far as I can see in the dossier) A few last points: Firstly, the Nameless’ nose is much more reminiscent of those of humans and other apes, and not jerboas. They seem as if they just have less cartilage and thusly more closely resemble the bones of the skull. Also, the Nameless’ skull, as far as I can see, is EXTREMELY reminiscent of that of humans and their ancestors (somewhat like Australopithecus without the brow ridge) And, they are presumed to be intelligent (they appear to have a hatred for people and light that seems to go deeper than being light sensitive and unduly aggressive. It could be that they are aware they were once humans, or they have some other reason to hate people) The reapers are more difficult to explain. Due to the name change from Nameless Queen/king to Reaper Queen/king, they could be biologically unrelated, though with similar hands and eyes, I honestly doubt this. It’s easy to explain them as just being more mutated than the Nameless, but they could also be homo Deus (if the Nameless are homo sapiens’ descendants) My final point for reapers and the Nameless is; Why would these story-central creatures, that are supposedly element-infused (something either species of Homo in the ark universe could end up doing, but would be unlikely for regular creatures) be just a plain old jerboa and theropod, when they are talked about as humanoid, “somewhat familiar” (in a fashion that CLEARLY does not mean familiar in the way it would be if they were jerboas/theropods [familiar since survivors would likely have seen said creatures]) and have an odd rivalry of sorts with humans that just makes more SENSE if they are mutant humans, and not just friggin jerboas. But that’s just my two cents. EDIT: here’s the Nameless dossier. Look over it closely with a human in mind, and you will see the similarities.Looking at it. I want nothing to do with it lol. Especialy early game. Fml. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meshi Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 Same eyes, nose, jaw, teeth, quills, 3 toes, claws, overhaul posture and being the ass to humans. They aren't related to reaper's because nameless has red blood and repairs green. Also it can't be Jerboa for one more reason. We saw exactly 0 SE creatures in Aberration in videos. So we can assume SE creatures never spawned there aka didn't mutate. I also highly doubt nameless are humans. Other argument I have for that theory are claws. We have nails same as all primates. Same with tail. Even Glum as closer humanoid to nameless I can think of had nails and no tail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaRex Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 On 11/16/2017 at 11:33 AM, RowletAlex said: Am I literally the only one who has figured out that they’re mutated survivors/homo Deus, or both? The steam description describes the Nameless as humanoid/human-like, and the Reapers as “somewhat familiar” It could be one or the other, or the reapers are h.deus, and the Nameless are h.sapiens. Whichever one it is, they’re obviously descended from humans, because why would they make the most important (story wise) creatures in the expansion just hyenas and yuty’s? They may LOOK like them, but plot wise, it makes very little sense. I was reading this thread and I am so glad to see that someone else has figured it out. The devs have dropped a lot of hints about the origins of The Nameless. Survivor PuffyPony asks, "A big part of Aberration is the idea that a malfunctioning ARK led to mutations in its population. Are we getting/can we get lore into what developed into what? Like the Lantern Pug appears to be a mutated Angler, the Rock Drake could be a Megalania, the crazy Mysterious Mysteries #1 a Thylacoleo... I'd love to get some of the background on that, since it'd tie the DLC into the base game nicely." Quote Yes, there will be some indications along those lines. What developed into the Nameless? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueRaptorRay Posted November 29, 2017 Author Share Posted November 29, 2017 On 2017/11/19 at 12:01 AM, RowletAlex said: Ok, here’s my 2 cents on why the Nameless are NOT jerboas: Looking at the new Nameless dossier, we can see multiple things. Firstly, the Nameless has a short head with large canine teeth (jerboas have buck teeth according to the dossier, since they are rodents, but this is absent from the in game model, likely due to buck teeth clipping through the model too much) Secondly, the Nameless, while it does have large, somewhat triangular ears, the Nameless’ are shorter and set on the sides of the head (in the same place as a human, hmmm...) while the jerboa’s are set high on the head, and are longer, and more rabbit like. The Nameless has leathery skin that is strikingly like that of a human, and jerboas without fur would more closely resemble the Molerat. The Nameless also has no body hair except for quill like structures on its elbows, placed on its legs, along its spine, and in areas jowls and facial hair would grow in humans. Now, to take care of the bipedal, kangaroo-like locomotion issue. Firstly, the Nameless has a noticeable hunch back, something that a jerboa does not have. Secondly, Nameless and jerboas actually have some differences in foot structure (different numbers of toes, no paw pads, etc) And the Nameless’ leg structure is not vastly different to that of humans, they essentially stand on their toes and crouch (try it yourself, see what I mean) The Nameless also have webbed fingers, which I doubt one would see in the paw of a jerboa, and if you were to spread your fingers on one hand far apart, you will probably be able to see this little flap of skin that could easily develop into the Nameless’ webbing. And the Nameless do only have four fingers and 3 toes (and possibly a dewclaw) that is easily explained by the fact that the human pinky toe is vestigial, and in a few million years humans may only have four toes. This can thusly be extended to the pinky finger, which the Nameless wouldn’t need since they now have claws and less of a need to grip things (the long claws are the only thing that has stumped me so far) The tail can be explained by the Nameless needing a way to balance themselves in their hunched stance, and thus the tail vertebrae grew out again over their sped up evolutionary period. It also seems that their two middle fingers are somewhat stuck together (for some reason this, and the Nameless’ thumbs are absent as far as I can see in the dossier) A few last points: Firstly, the Nameless’ nose is much more reminiscent of those of humans and other apes, and not jerboas. They seem as if they just have less cartilage and thusly more closely resemble the bones of the skull. Also, the Nameless’ skull, as far as I can see, is EXTREMELY reminiscent of that of humans and their ancestors (somewhat like Australopithecus without the brow ridge) And, they are presumed to be intelligent (they appear to have a hatred for people and light that seems to go deeper than being light sensitive and unduly aggressive. It could be that they are aware they were once humans, or they have some other reason to hate people) The reapers are more difficult to explain. Due to the name change from Nameless Queen/king to Reaper Queen/king, they could be biologically unrelated, though with similar hands and eyes, I honestly doubt this. It’s easy to explain them as just being more mutated than the Nameless, but they could also be homo Deus (if the Nameless are homo sapiens’ descendants) My final point for reapers and the Nameless is; Why would these story-central creatures, that are supposedly element-infused (something either species of Homo in the ark universe could end up doing, but would be unlikely for regular creatures) be just a plain old jerboa and theropod, when they are talked about as humanoid, “somewhat familiar” (in a fashion that CLEARLY does not mean familiar in the way it would be if they were jerboas/theropods [familiar since survivors would likely have seen said creatures]) and have an odd rivalry of sorts with humans that just makes more SENSE if they are mutant humans, and not just friggin jerboas. But that’s just my two cents. EDIT: here’s the Nameless dossier. Look over it closely with a human in mind, and you will see the similarities. I can see the similarities between the two EXCEPT does that mean that we will turn into Nameless? Unless the survivors turned into reapers because of element radiation+ the raidiation that the ARK produced when it first malfunctioned. Thanks for posting on the thread everyone. KEEP IT UP!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueRaptorRay Posted November 29, 2017 Author Share Posted November 29, 2017 Where did the tail come from though. Hmmmmm.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RowletAlex Posted November 29, 2017 Share Posted November 29, 2017 10 hours ago, BlueRaptorRay said: Where did the tail come from though. Hmmmmm.... The tail was likely from an ancient, unused gene that was activated by element radiation, thus causing the growth of a tail. In addition to that, the hunched stance you often see the Nameless in isn’t really the most balanced stance they could have, thus a tail is useful as it helps the Nameless balance themselves (I actually tested this myself). And no, we will not become Nameless (I don’t know for sure. As far as I know, this could be a yet to be revealed feature) as they came to exist over several generations, though with a rapidly sped up evolutionary period, due to the element and radiation. On 11/20/2017 at 3:05 AM, Meshi said: Same eyes, nose, jaw, teeth, quills, 3 toes, claws, overhaul posture and being the ass to humans. They aren't related to reaper's because nameless has red blood and repairs green. Also it can't be Jerboa for one more reason. We saw exactly 0 SE creatures in Aberration in videos. So we can assume SE creatures never spawned there aka didn't mutate. I also highly doubt nameless are humans. Other argument I have for that theory are claws. We have nails same as all primates. Same with tail. Even Glum as closer humanoid to nameless I can think of had nails and no tail. Good to know about the blood color, I had never noticed that. Also, the claws thing is the one thing that has stumped me, but the tail argument is invalid, as the vast majority of primates have tails, it’s just a few odd ones out (pig tailed macaques, things like that. Even they have tails, just very short ones) and the apes, which includes gibbons (lesser apes) gorillas, orangutans, chimpanzees, and humans (great apes) Thus I came to the conclusion that considering all the crazy sci-fi radiation and element mutation stuff, humans mutating and re-evolving a tail is perfectly reasonable (Also the dinosaur’s predecessors, the archosaurs, split off from the reptiles that eventually became mammals, synapsids, long before even the Triassic period, thusly they are insanely distantly related, too distantly for a dinosaur to convergently evolve mammal features, in this case the pegomastax. They do probably have a common ancestor group, but that was so long ago it’s irrelevant to the evolution of the Nameless) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueRaptorRay Posted December 1, 2017 Author Share Posted December 1, 2017 On 2017/11/29 at 6:27 PM, RowletAlex said: The tail was likely from an ancient, unused gene that was activated by element radiation, thus causing the growth of a tail. In addition to that, the hunched stance you often see the Nameless in isn’t really the most balanced stance they could have, thus a tail is useful as it helps the Nameless balance themselves (I actually tested this myself). And no, we will not become Nameless (I don’t know for sure. As far as I know, this could be a yet to be revealed feature) as they came to exist over several generations, though with a rapidly sped up evolutionary period, due to the element and radiation. Good to know about the blood color, I had never noticed that. Also, the claws thing is the one thing that has stumped me, but the tail argument is invalid, as the vast majority of primates have tails, it’s just a few odd ones out (pig tailed macaques, things like that. Even they have tails, just very short ones) and the apes, which includes gibbons (lesser apes) gorillas, orangutans, chimpanzees, and humans (great apes) Thus I came to the conclusion that considering all the crazy sci-fi radiation and element mutation stuff, humans mutating and re-evolving a tail is perfectly reasonable (Also the dinosaur’s predecessors, the archosaurs, split off from the reptiles that eventually became mammals, synapsids, long before even the Triassic period, thusly they are insanely distantly related, too distantly for a dinosaur to convergently evolve mammal features, in this case the pegomastax. They do probably have a common ancestor group, but that was so long ago it’s irrelevant to the evolution of the Nameless) Thanks fora answering. Thought it came from somewhere else Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwistMind7 Posted December 3, 2017 Share Posted December 3, 2017 hairless pegomastax Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vaskur Posted December 8, 2017 Share Posted December 8, 2017 On 29.11.2017 at 6:38 AM, BlueRaptorRay said: I can see the similarities between the two EXCEPT does that mean that we will turn into Nameless? Unless the survivors turned into reapers because of element radiation+ the raidiation that the ARK produced when it first malfunctioned. Thanks for posting on the thread everyone. KEEP IT UP!!! reffering to the island ending and the hall of history and thinking about the trasnlated text at the human projection, it seems, that humans are artificial generated by the controll centre of the ark. so, maybe the malfunction of the ark itself led to some serious damage in the data. so that it from that point on just generated malformed humans, creating a new species of mutants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meshi Posted December 9, 2017 Share Posted December 9, 2017 11 hours ago, Vaskur said: reffering to the island ending and the hall of history and thinking about the trasnlated text at the human projection, it seems, that humans are artificial generated by the controll centre of the ark. so, maybe the malfunction of the ark itself led to some serious damage in the data. so that it from that point on just generated malformed humans, creating a new species of mutants. Good one. But if human spawner is malfunctioning, then we as players should be malformed too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.