Attempted with multiple IP's failed with every attempt.
Please define failure. Failure in terms of community perceptipn? Financially?
How would you define SUCCESS for a niche game in the infancy of the genre? Is EVE a failure?
2.) Must have meaningful Risk vs. Reward.
Again attempted numerous times, again the majority of gamers do not want ANY risk in their games. While I agree with you that a level of risk makes the rewards that much more special.
A niche PvP sandbox MMORPG is hardly catering to the "majority" of gamers. A videogame isn't an election.
Very few players want to spend all their game time running around naked with a stick or a rock.
What percentage of the mmo market is "very few"? I feel like you haven't thought this through very deeply, and instead just wrote up a bunch of quick rebuttals offhandedly. Try to avoid using vague generalizations in your arguments.
3.) Character progression must NOT be carrot-and-stick...
Reasonable Alternative?
No levels. You can acquire better gear, but your ability to use it effectively is dependent on your character's skills and attributes. Levels are for PvE games, they've never been well adapted to PvP.
5.) One large, fully persistent world, which is NOT divided by INSTANCES of ANY kind. We have the technology.
Actually we do not have the technology.
The tech is there. The money/political will is not. Same is true of feeding all humans on Earth.
6.) Zero tolerance for hacking/cheating.
These never end well.
These sometimes end poorly as a result of unintelligent design. Not by definition. Put away your crystal ball and focus on observation. Hacking has been rampant in some MMO's, and almost non-existent in others. All I'm saying is, "do it right".
I would LOVE to see a game totally geared on player crafting, maybe instead of mobs dropping gear they could drop rarer and rarer crafting materials.
Love this idea. This is exactly what I'm talking about - most of these issues are easily resolved with a modicum of thought and creativity.
----
8.) Full player clipping. No walking through each other. DEFINITELY no walking through enemy players.
HELL NO! Been there done that.. many games in the past have done this and it is ALWAYS used to exploit and grief other players.
Remember, this would be in the context of a full-loot PvP game! If someone is standing in your way, stab them. If it's griefing, that should be handled by CSR's or admins. Any self-respecting pay-to-play game should have a healthy # of CSR's online and in-game 24/7.
9.) Players can directly affect/alter/shape the world. See Shadowbane, Dark Age of Camelot, and Star Wars Galaxies for good examples. The ideal of this would be a system like Wurm Online's, wherein players can actually alter the shape of the LAND itself through TERRAFORMING, pretty much with 0 limits.
Not worth doing unless it is done right, and sadly technology is not quite there yet to do it right. Close
See Divergence Online, 200+ player Minecraft servers, and Wurm Online
Bonus points if... 10.) The gear I see an enemy wearing is the gear that enemy will drop when defeated. For both mobs/NPC's and players.
This has been done to a degree and what ends up happening is a majority of players will only fight bosses that drop the item they want, they will not ever help anyone else.
That's the 2nd time you have, for some unknown reason, responded to my statement in the context of a PvE, themepark-style MMO with "bosses".
As per the "Players first, NPCs second" theme of my entire post, all the best gear in the game would be player-crafted. Uber-badass mobs can be in the game (hey, that's fun!), especially if put in dungeons similar to DAoC's outstanding Darkness Falls.
Every "boss" style mob should only be killable once, and then it (and it's lootz) are gone from the gameworld. Forever. Uber-mobs should be dynamic, rare, persistent (no respawning/resetting), and organic (evolving over time + getting stronger as they kill players/other mobs).
Certain species should have the potential to grow exceptionally large / live exceptionally long, and may or may not reach a state of "uber-badass-giant-mob-ness". See how cool that sounds? Combine SWG's diversity of species with Wurm's monsters-grow-and-age system, and you're onto something truly awesome. Leave the respawning, camping, and scheduled-weekly-NPC-raiding to WoW and its many clones.
By the way, this has nothing to do with human nature, and everything to do with putting humans in a situation of competition + limited resources + respawning NPC's who drop phat lewtz. As an aside, I can assure you that you know little-to-nothing about the true nature of Homo Sapiens. Modern civilization alters our nature in the same way poisoned soil will alter a plant which grows there. Here's a hint: Bonobo Chimpanzees.
11.) There is only one, massive server for the entire game world. Servers are, after all, just larger versions of instances. CCP got this aspect right in EVE online.
EVE was thousands of servers using gate illusion to make you think it was all one big server or world when in reality it is a crap ton of them.
Videogames are virtual reality. EVERYTHING about them is an illusion. Calling it out as such, is tantamount to insulting a cow for producing milk. EvE's "one massive, persistent world" works because the illusion is done well enough that we believe it. When you have glowy-portaly-bubbles that bring up a loading screen, the illusion is broken and we the player is thrust back into reality, for however long the instance takes to load.
Like reality TV, it's piss-poor and lazy design, and gamers deserve better.
13.) Pretty graphics and beautiful world design.
Pretty much a given, a lot of games tank over crappy graphics/engines. A few of the hugely hyped kickstarter games coming down the line are going to crash and burn massively on this issue alone.
Are you thinking of any specific games in particular? I've backed a few on Kickstarter...
14.) Day/night cycle where nighttime is ACTUALLY dark...
Turn off the outside lights at midnight and go outside. Give your eyes a few minutes to adjust then think about it. Is nighttime really pitch black? Never has been for me..
I know this. You are a young thing, and unlearned in the ways of the forest.
I really do get where you are coming from and I am with you, but dreams and realities are still a long way apart.
Only for as long as we continue to shell out $$$ for shitty realities instead of holding out for the game(s) of our dreams.
Only for as long as we continue to shell out $$$ for shitty realities instead of holding out for our dreams. Why do you think I'm here trying to educate you people? You have money, and thus power. I want that power. But first I need your minds (to open).
Please stop. I don't know who you think you are really but we don't need your education .
You can hardly make one coherent point worth reading.
Turn off the outside lights at midnight and go outside. Give your eyes a few minutes to adjust then think about it. Is nighttime really pitch black? Never has been for me, even on my sailboat out in the middle of the ocean with only stars, and the reflection of stars on the water. It's so bright you can see miles.
Depends on the level of cloud cover / amount of light available. In a field, or forest, at night with cloud cover you really can't make anything out (I live near a national park).
Even so unless inside an enclosed space there is no absolute pitch black.
Our eyes evolved the way they did the size and shape when we were still prey animals.
Open them suckers up and they will find any and all light they can.
Mountains and forest can get pretty dark. I've been out many times where I couldn't see 2 feet in front of me.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
You know honestly it all comes down to greed. Lies, and ,more greed.
I was watching a making of video the other day, and a production manager is talking and he is like ya know we don't mind spending millions because we make billions.
I paused and was like wait did he say billions, no game has ever reported making billions. I was shell shocked, why would a AAA studio manager use such a ludicrous word.
If these games were making billions the regulatory boards, commerce division, IRS, everyone would be involved and controlling the industry.
If these games make billions where is all the money going, and why are many of these games reporting to the IRS and investors that they are in the red.
Billion is a word that governments use, that money launders for drug cartels use, that the top 1% richest people in the world use.
I would agree that SOE is...iffy. They bought EQ and never have done anything solid with any MMORPG.
I would agree that F2P is utter shit and isn't suited to quality MMORPG gameplay.
I disagree on PvP since I consider MMORPG PvP to be equal trash to F2P. Truly competitive PvP occurs in other genres. MMORPGs are the bastion of PvE. PvP in an MMORPG can only ever be unbalanced, grief-based garbage. The very fact that the OP lists looting other players just shows the grief-orienteation of MMORPG PvP thought. Miserable people being miserable to other people isn't good gaming.
Premium MMORPGs do not feature built-in cheating via cash for gold pay 2 win. PLAY to win or don't play.
What the OP is looking for already exists. It is called Darkfall and Mortal Online. Both are Pay to Play PvP centric games with relatively little to do PvE wise. I suggest the OP put his money where his mouth is a sub up so he can experience what this type of game is really like.
I do agree that PvP shouldn't be something that isn't just tacked on but to say the PvE shouldn't exist is going too far. A pure PvP game is generally not very successful or fun to play. There needs to be good ballance between PvP and PvE. Lineage II was the first game to really get this right. Globally L2 was rewarded with 2 million subs that were maintained for almost a decade. Pre-NGE Star Wars Galaxies did a good job with PvP as well. If you are looking for a NEW game with balanced PvP and PvE try Age of Wushu. AoW does a lot of things right in terms of balancing PvP with PvE.
I think it's fair to say Everquest-Next is not for you.
But, Smedley said it was a SANDBOX!!
Unfortunately someone forgot to cc all the Open world FFA full loot PvP guys in the memo explaining that a sandbox doesn't need Open world PvP, FFA PvP, full Loot PvP...or PvP for that matter...to mean a game is a sandbox.
I agree with a lot of your stipulations OP but I have to say I think your lack of regard for PvE is a big mistake. The reason the full loot/ow pvp in UO is so great is because there's an eco system of crafters/harvesters/pve farmers (tamers/bards/etc)/and murderers. Part of the reason I can't really get into darkfall (though I love almost everything about it!) is the lack of meaningful pve and more importantly the lack of sandbox level professions. Everybody's just a fighter/crafter. It's boring.
I feel like pvp-only games won't really mesh well with full loot because then it's ONLY about who is the better pvper or who has the bigger numbers. In UO the most profitable profession wasn't PK, it was probably some kind of crafter (either smithing or alchemy I think), or a tamer. That gives people a chance to make money without taking money. That really is the closest thing to a system that "caters to all playstyles."
What you are searching for is an MMO tailored specifically for YOU. You can search long and hard for the MMO that meets all your criteria but even in 2013 you won't find it. So good luck there.
Just to add to the point-by-point criticisms that others above rightly made:
- You likened EQN to WoW and other themeparks when it is anything but.
- I can assure you the progression system is more than simply "collect gear."
- Collision with other characters may be fun for you but not for players who gets blocked in the doorway by trolls.
- You may like a crowded massive server holding the entire MMO population but I certainly don't!
- You may hate all instances (even in limited situations), but can you propose a better mechanic for population control for content?
- You may hate all instances (even in limited situations), but can you propose a better mechanic for population control for content?
Well that one's pretty simple (not easy). Design your game around tasks and progression, not single-playerish content. At that point you build a world with an appropriate amount of mobs/towns/wilderness/harvesting nodes so that it can sustain a certain level of players. Then you have separate shards.
What OP is asking for isn't entirely reasonable. You can't have no instances and everybody on the same server without growing the world as the population grows. I think the solution to that is just don't force everybody onto the same server. I've never really understood this demand from people.
- You may hate all instances (even in limited situations), but can you propose a better mechanic for population control for content?
Well that one's pretty simple (not easy). Design your game around tasks and progression, not single-playerish content. At that point you build a world with an appropriate amount of mobs/towns/wilderness/harvesting nodes so that it can sustain a certain level of players. Then you have separate shards.
What OP is asking for isn't entirely reasonable. You can't have no instances and everybody on the same server without growing the world as the population grows. I think the solution to that is just don't force everybody onto the same server. I've never really understood this demand from people.
Yep. The game should be primarily designed to be a giant persistent world that everyone can explore together. But it also should not restrict itself solely to remain true to this ideal.
There is nothing wrong with using instancing in LIMITED situations, when it's simply not viable for a thousand players to share the same game space. For example, PvE content aside, how else could a duel arena or a minigame be managed?
- You may hate all instances (even in limited situations), but can you propose a better mechanic for population control for content?
Well that one's pretty simple (not easy). Design your game around tasks and progression, not single-playerish content. At that point you build a world with an appropriate amount of mobs/towns/wilderness/harvesting nodes so that it can sustain a certain level of players. Then you have separate shards.
What OP is asking for isn't entirely reasonable. You can't have no instances and everybody on the same server without growing the world as the population grows. I think the solution to that is just don't force everybody onto the same server. I've never really understood this demand from people.
Yep. The game should be primarily designed to be a giant persistent world that everyone can explore together. But it also should not restrict itself solely to remain true to this ideal.
There is nothing wrong with using instancing in LIMITED situations, when it's simply not viable for a thousand players to share the same game space. For example, PvE content aside, how else could a duel arena or a minigame be managed?
By not having them, basically. I'd prefer a game that doesn't have instanced minigames or artificial duel arenas. I think player run pvp tournaments are cool though. I keep thinking about all of the amazing things people have done in UO. Like having a Tower and decorating the top as a fighting pit. Then organizing player run tournaments with entry fees and prizes.
Originally posted by nerovipus32 We know nothing about EQnext, all we have seen are building videos and a bit of free running. How exactly can you extrapolate wow from that?
Stopped reading after this. People calling F2P P2W just never realize that we aren't in 2006 anymore and/or just doesn't understand what P2W mean like 90% of the MMO players. If you were a real PvP player, you would understand that nearly every single good/decent MMO aren't P2W at all. But I guess logic isn't the main force of most people here.
Here's the response he got [warning: extreme nerdrage]:
I have 3 major problems with this game:
1.) Sony Online Entertainment? SOE? No. Not happening. 2.) It's a PvE game, with some PvP tacked on. Just like WoW & every other shitty themepark mmo. 3.) It's free to play. AKA pay-to-win.
As a PvP-minded gamer, my minimum requirements for an MMORPG in 2013+ are:
1.) Must be a PvP game FIRST, with PvE tacked on (if at all!), NOT the other way around.
2.) Must have meaningful Risk vs. Reward. That means lootable corpses. That means there's a reason to fear death. It means I get to burn your [weee!]ing house down.
3.) Character progression must NOT be carrot-and-stick bs like "get better gear" so you can level up, so you can get more, even better gear.
4.) Compelling and fun combat that is SKILL BASED. NO tab targeting. NO heat-seeking magic spells. Aim your arrow or gun properly or you do NO damage. Combat should be, at its most basic, easy to learn, but difficult to master.
Mount & Blade: Warband, and Chivalry: Medieval Warfare are good examples. So are BF3 and Super Smash Bros, and Street Fighter.
5.) One large, fully persistent world, which is NOT divided by INSTANCES of ANY kind. We have the technology.
6.) Zero tolerance for hacking/cheating. Want to hack our game? Cool. YOU'RE BANNED FOR [weee!]ING LIFE VIA IP ADDRESS, MAC ADDRESS, PHYSICAL ADDRESS, CREDIT CARD #, NAME, PHONE #, AND EVERY OTHER POSSIBLE METHOD SIMULTANEOUSLY AND PERMANENTLY. WE WILL ALSO POST ALL YOUR CONTACT INFO ONLINE AND REWARD PLAYERS WITH EXCLUSIVE, RARE, AND POWERFUL ITEMS FOR BREAKING THE BONES IN YOUR FACE IN REAL LIFE. This should all be in the TOS, along with full legal protection for the developer.
7.) A robust, player-driven economy, with many trades/skills players can use to aid themselves and each other. No one player should be able to do everything. Nor should dungeon-raiding or PvE in ANY form be a requirement for staying competitive in the PvP endgame.
MAJOR Bonus points if... 8.) Full player clipping. No walking through each other. DEFINITELY no walking through enemy players.
9.) Players can directly affect/alter/shape the world. See Shadowbane, Dark Age of Camelot, and Star Wars Galaxies for good examples. The ideal of this would be a system like Wurm Online's, wherein players can actually alter the shape of the LAND itself through TERRAFORMING, pretty much with 0 limits.
Bonus points if... 10.) The gear I see an enemy wearing is the gear that enemy will drop when defeated. For both mobs/NPC's and players. If I go into a dungeon and see a badass demon of human-raping lvl 99, and that demon is wielding a flaming-[wee!]ing [woo]-sword, and I manage to slay that demon, I WANT MY FLAMING [wee!]ING [woo!]SWORD. I also want all that glowing armor the demon was wearing.
WHAT I DO NOT WANT, is what these themeparks games shove up my [waa!]. random-shitty [waa]loot that may or may not be useful to me. I DO NOT want RANDOMLY generated loot tables, so I have to kill the same [wee!]ing monster 88 times before I get my magical-hat-of-not-getting-my-ass-kicked-in-that-instanced-battleground-anymore.
11.) There is only one, massive server for the entire game world. Servers are, after all, just larger versions of instances. CCP got this aspect right in EVE online.
12.) One character per account, per player - linked to IP address, MAC address, player name, physical address, etc.
13.) Pretty graphics and beautiful world design.
14.) Day/night cycle where nighttime is ACTUALLY dark. DayZ dark. "Dark nights, bright lights." Make torches give off a good amount of light so they'll be easy to spot from a distance. This will force players to adapt strategically as the game changes from day to night, and allows for an entire stealth meta-game on dark nights. Include a real lunar cycle so that no moon = full dark /and/ full moon = almost twlight in visibility.
So yeah, I'm hard to please. But this is also 2013 and there's precisely ZERO reasons why a game fitting the above could not be made (aside from it probably won't make as much money as the shitty WoW-clones). Frankly, I give precisely zero fucks about any game which does not at least ATTEMPT to meet my basic requirements.
Star Citizen, Camelot Unchained, and Embers of Caerus are really the only MMORPG's I know of that are worth my attention. Star Citizen is the only one of those 3 that has a release window within the next 18 months.
Wow. Minimum requirements, huh? I have one minimum requirement for an MMO: fun
Regarding EQ:N, the most exciting aspect of that game is the AI, in my opinion. If they deliver on that, I don't know how you can call it a theme park. Most theme parks I've been to don't have rides that move themselves to a different location, or decide that they are going to be a roller coaster instead of a merry-go-round. I think the requirement for PVP decreases in importance as the intelligence of the NPCs increases.
I'm just waiting for a F2P overhyped sandbox WoW clone with full PVP, epic raid bosses, instanced group content, and Crysis-quality graphics to come out. That, or something fun.
The majority of the MMORPG crowd is NOT PVP core people. Yes many of them enjoy the odd bit of controlled pvp that they can do when they feel like it but the vast majority do NOT want a full pvp world, lootable corpses of those you killed, and all that nonsense. You find much of that in Asian games but it is not the style for western markets and western players.
I'm not happy about EQNext being F2P but its the way the market is swinging currently. Have to see if they make it a P2W or not. EQ2 from the little I saw after they grew the station cash thing didn't seem that bad.
Comments
Please stop. I don't know who you think you are really but we don't need your education .
You can hardly make one coherent point worth reading.
Mountains and forest can get pretty dark. I've been out many times where I couldn't see 2 feet in front of me.
Why is it a terrible mistake on your brother's part that you get your knickers in a twist so easily?
You know honestly it all comes down to greed. Lies, and ,more greed.
I was watching a making of video the other day, and a production manager is talking and he is like ya know we don't mind spending millions because we make billions.
I paused and was like wait did he say billions, no game has ever reported making billions. I was shell shocked, why would a AAA studio manager use such a ludicrous word.
If these games were making billions the regulatory boards, commerce division, IRS, everyone would be involved and controlling the industry.
If these games make billions where is all the money going, and why are many of these games reporting to the IRS and investors that they are in the red.
Billion is a word that governments use, that money launders for drug cartels use, that the top 1% richest people in the world use.
Billions is not a word game studios use.
I would agree that SOE is...iffy. They bought EQ and never have done anything solid with any MMORPG.
I would agree that F2P is utter shit and isn't suited to quality MMORPG gameplay.
I disagree on PvP since I consider MMORPG PvP to be equal trash to F2P. Truly competitive PvP occurs in other genres. MMORPGs are the bastion of PvE. PvP in an MMORPG can only ever be unbalanced, grief-based garbage. The very fact that the OP lists looting other players just shows the grief-orienteation of MMORPG PvP thought. Miserable people being miserable to other people isn't good gaming.
Premium MMORPGs do not feature built-in cheating via cash for gold pay 2 win. PLAY to win or don't play.
Judging a game way before it is even released?
It is F2P. I will just check it out when it is released.
What the OP is looking for already exists. It is called Darkfall and Mortal Online. Both are Pay to Play PvP centric games with relatively little to do PvE wise. I suggest the OP put his money where his mouth is a sub up so he can experience what this type of game is really like.
I do agree that PvP shouldn't be something that isn't just tacked on but to say the PvE shouldn't exist is going too far. A pure PvP game is generally not very successful or fun to play. There needs to be good ballance between PvP and PvE. Lineage II was the first game to really get this right. Globally L2 was rewarded with 2 million subs that were maintained for almost a decade. Pre-NGE Star Wars Galaxies did a good job with PvP as well. If you are looking for a NEW game with balanced PvP and PvE try Age of Wushu. AoW does a lot of things right in terms of balancing PvP with PvE.
I think it's fair to say Everquest-Next is not for you.
But, Smedley said it was a SANDBOX!!
The above is my personal opinion. Anyone displaying a view contrary to my opinion is obviously WRONG and should STHU. (neener neener)
-The MMO Forum Community
All I took away from the OP was that his brother doesn't know him very well haha.
Poor guy was probably like, "Hey man check out this video of EQ Next!"
NNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Unfortunately someone forgot to cc all the Open world FFA full loot PvP guys in the memo explaining that a sandbox doesn't need Open world PvP, FFA PvP, full Loot PvP...or PvP for that matter...to mean a game is a sandbox.
I agree with a lot of your stipulations OP but I have to say I think your lack of regard for PvE is a big mistake. The reason the full loot/ow pvp in UO is so great is because there's an eco system of crafters/harvesters/pve farmers (tamers/bards/etc)/and murderers. Part of the reason I can't really get into darkfall (though I love almost everything about it!) is the lack of meaningful pve and more importantly the lack of sandbox level professions. Everybody's just a fighter/crafter. It's boring.
I feel like pvp-only games won't really mesh well with full loot because then it's ONLY about who is the better pvper or who has the bigger numbers. In UO the most profitable profession wasn't PK, it was probably some kind of crafter (either smithing or alchemy I think), or a tamer. That gives people a chance to make money without taking money. That really is the closest thing to a system that "caters to all playstyles."
What you are searching for is an MMO tailored specifically for YOU. You can search long and hard for the MMO that meets all your criteria but even in 2013 you won't find it. So good luck there.
Just to add to the point-by-point criticisms that others above rightly made:
- You likened EQN to WoW and other themeparks when it is anything but.
- I can assure you the progression system is more than simply "collect gear."
- Collision with other characters may be fun for you but not for players who gets blocked in the doorway by trolls.
- You may like a crowded massive server holding the entire MMO population but I certainly don't!
- You may hate all instances (even in limited situations), but can you propose a better mechanic for population control for content?
Well that one's pretty simple (not easy). Design your game around tasks and progression, not single-playerish content. At that point you build a world with an appropriate amount of mobs/towns/wilderness/harvesting nodes so that it can sustain a certain level of players. Then you have separate shards.
What OP is asking for isn't entirely reasonable. You can't have no instances and everybody on the same server without growing the world as the population grows. I think the solution to that is just don't force everybody onto the same server. I've never really understood this demand from people.
Yep. The game should be primarily designed to be a giant persistent world that everyone can explore together. But it also should not restrict itself solely to remain true to this ideal.
There is nothing wrong with using instancing in LIMITED situations, when it's simply not viable for a thousand players to share the same game space. For example, PvE content aside, how else could a duel arena or a minigame be managed?
Hey OP - It sounds like you're looking for Mortal Online. Pretty much exactly...
Go check it out. It has a free trial.
By not having them, basically. I'd prefer a game that doesn't have instanced minigames or artificial duel arenas. I think player run pvp tournaments are cool though. I keep thinking about all of the amazing things people have done in UO. Like having a Tower and decorating the top as a fighting pit. Then organizing player run tournaments with entry fees and prizes.
When your a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Stopped reading after this. People calling F2P P2W just never realize that we aren't in 2006 anymore and/or just doesn't understand what P2W mean like 90% of the MMO players. If you were a real PvP player, you would understand that nearly every single good/decent MMO aren't P2W at all. But I guess logic isn't the main force of most people here.
Wow. Minimum requirements, huh? I have one minimum requirement for an MMO: fun
Regarding EQ:N, the most exciting aspect of that game is the AI, in my opinion. If they deliver on that, I don't know how you can call it a theme park. Most theme parks I've been to don't have rides that move themselves to a different location, or decide that they are going to be a roller coaster instead of a merry-go-round. I think the requirement for PVP decreases in importance as the intelligence of the NPCs increases.
I'm just waiting for a F2P overhyped sandbox WoW clone with full PVP, epic raid bosses, instanced group content, and Crysis-quality graphics to come out. That, or something fun.
The majority of the MMORPG crowd is NOT PVP core people. Yes many of them enjoy the odd bit of controlled pvp that they can do when they feel like it but the vast majority do NOT want a full pvp world, lootable corpses of those you killed, and all that nonsense. You find much of that in Asian games but it is not the style for western markets and western players.
I'm not happy about EQNext being F2P but its the way the market is swinging currently. Have to see if they make it a P2W or not. EQ2 from the little I saw after they grew the station cash thing didn't seem that bad.
This is why one should not send their five year old brother youtube videos.
We thank you for this emulation and shall use it as valuable reference when we think of showing our siblings anything.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin