I did the math once, and in a best-case scenario, it would have taken about three years to completely max out the skills for any one specific frigate. (If you're not familiar, frigates are the easiest combat ships to train for.)
This was my experience as well. I think part of it was because I was hoping the skill system would be more like the original Guild Wars, and as a result too many of the skills just seemed like copies of each other with very little variety.
EQ Next is also the only one I'm actually looking forward to right now. All the rest that recently released disappointed me for many reasons.
Almost 100% skill-based. There's "classes", but they only determine where you start on the skill-wheel.
Got it. Tried it. Thought it sucked, HARD. Combat in particular feels like early alpha.
Well first, WoT is not an MMO, which is what the guy is looking for.
Also, it can be very frustrating and does have some pay-to-win elements.
I just quit playing it again myself. Just always gets too frustrating, between horribly implemented artillery, ridiculously grindy upgrades and crew, and overpriced premium crap.
WarThunder is coming out with their own tanks in the near future, which should be at least somewhat better if that's what you're into.
Back on topic, I don't really know what MMO to recommend right now. I'm kind of in the same place as the person who asked the question. GW2 just didn't cut it for me. Combat is too bland, exploration is all pre-scripted, and there's really nothing to it but combat and a very small side-show of crafting.
Just tried the Elder Scrolls Online beta, and was quickly disappointed. The game world is visually impressive, but that's about it. The combat is SO bad. Of course, I expected it to be a bit lackluster since it's designed around consoles, but it doesn't even meet those standards.
Not enough range, refueling takes too long.
Gotta fix one or the other.
Great to see people downmodding posts because they can't handle the truth.
And if you hit them, you will be the one in the wrong.
No, you won't. Not if they haven't taken the proper steps to be visible.
Here, for example, is the California law that includes what cyclists must do to legally ride on the road after dark.
I must also apologize. I overreacted. Upon going back and rereading the quote, it was worded somewhat poorly and it's easy to see why you took it as you did.
And if you choose the option that take five times as long, you are putting yourself in harm's way five times as long.
Both accident/injury rates per mile AND per hour need to be considered.
Wow, don't they teach Driver's Ed in schools any more? Here's a legal definition of prudent speed:
And like many legal definitions, it's a broad blanket definition to make sure they have something on the books just in case. If I'm doing 20mph in a 25 and you suddenly drive your bike out of a side street and I hit you, technically I violated the prudent speed definition you gave. That's never going to hold up in court though, especially if there were any witnesses.
So your problem isn't in avoiding cyclists, it's that it's hard to see them? How could you see a pedestrian in the road if you can't see a cyclist, since they are about the same size?
Cayenne gave a specific example about stupid cyclists being on the road in poor visibility conditions. That's what this is about. And yes, pedestrians doing the same are equally stupid and equally likely to get hit.
As you said, cyclists already face *far* more punishment and face disproportionate risk for traffic accidents.
And yet they refuse to obey the laws of the road and do stupid shit all the time, and want to blame car drivers if they get hit.
I'm sorry, did I use words that were too big for you?
Condescend much?
What did you think I meant when I said "Oh, I understand my mortality when I'm on my bike, and since I know i'm not going to change the laws of physics
I thought you meant exactly what you said. You know you can get killed, and yet you'd still rather point fingers and yell about your rights than do the prudent thing. What did you think I meant when I said your attitude about it was stupid?
otherwise drivers will continue to do things like drive when the sun is in their eyes
Yes, drivers will on occasion drive with the sun in their eyes because they have no other reasonable choice.
and they can't see safely ahead of them
Even if the sun is in your eyes, you can see safely enough ahead of you to see things that should be on the road.
and then if they hit a cyclist
If you're on the road in traffic with your bike when it's hard to see you, that's on YOU.
The context of the quote was about ALL biking injuries, not specifically bike-car collisions.
Yes, no car driver is ever going to see everything. Yes, they will occasionally not stop completely before making a right turn on red. Car drivers will do even far more stupid things than this. But guess who will get killed? Not the car driver. It will be you on your bike or your theoretical pedestrian.
It's not about moral superiority. It's about realizing that you're the only one in the position to lose anything, and not being stupid.
That appears to be a problem with your driving. You don't drive at a speed that's safe for the automobile traffic around you, you drive at a speed that's safe for the road you're on, and apparently you're on a road that's frequented by cyclists. If you were on a limited access highway, maybe you could get away with your style of driving, but anywhere else you need to drive at a safe and prudent speed and expect obstacles in the road - bikes, pedestrians, stalled cars, dogs, cows, etc. I once narrowly avoided a refrigerator that was left in the middle of the road after it fell off a truck.
So basically, you expect drivers to do 15mph in a 35 just because you're too much of a dick to get the fuck out of the way.
I wouldn't lump all drivers in with yourself, not all drivers have such little control of their vehicle they fear running over cyclists.
All drivers have trouble avoiding something unexpected in the road when it's hard to see.
Actually, many roads were first built because of lobbying by cyclists -- it wasn't until cars came later that bikes were pushed off to the shoulders.
Actually, roads were first built for horse-drawn vehicles. Then they were improved for automobiles. If you want to make extraordinary claims, you need some actual data to back it up. Otherwise, it's just bullshit.
Oh, I understand my mortality when I'm on my bike, and since I know i'm not going to change the laws of physics, I've continued to encourage my legislators to write laws that hold cars more responsible when they are at-fault in collisions with cyclists. If car drivers thought they might face jail time for side swiping a cyclist, or hitting a cyclist "because I didn't see him" or "I was going too fast to stop", then perhaps they'll drive a little more carefully.
And if cyclists thought they might face jail time for not obeying the laws of the road as the majority constantly do, then perhaps they'd bike a little more intelligently. (Actually, that's obviously not true because cyclists already face serious injury and death for being stupid on the road, and they do it all the time anyway.) But no, let's make legislature with outrageous penalties to punish people for using the roads as they were intended. After all, your right to bike is clearly more important than the right of ANYONE to drive a car.
Bottom line though is you're being quite stupid about all this.
I've seen drivers in the wrong on both sides of the issue. I've seen car drivers be way too aggressive, and I've seen bikers do things that are totally illegal by the laws of the road, almost get hit, and then yell at the car driver as if it were their fault. People are people. There are good and bad on BOTH sides. But you know what the difference is? If you're on your bike and you get in an accident with a car, YOU WILL ALWAYS LOSE. And that's why your attitude on this is quite stupid.
We want to create puppets that pull their own strings. - Ann Marion
