That was what completely killed it for me. I play MMOs for the virtual world experience; I couldn't care less about instances other than running them a couple times for the experience of doing it.

The battlegrounds were bad enough, but arenas were one of the worst PvP ideas they implemented during the time I played (I quit early during Cata).

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.

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.

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21201.htm

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.

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.

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.

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.

Condescend much?

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?

Yes, drivers will on occasion drive with the sun in their eyes because they have no other reasonable choice.

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.

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.