Is it? My experiences may have differed from yours, but I've found "group content" rather exclusive.
Not the right class? too bad.
Not right the level? too bad.
Not the right Guild association? too bad.
Why do players complain about how long groups take to form up in the "olden times?"
Then you have the "travel as a group" mentality that "dislikes" when a player steps up to help someone NOT in the group, either with a run-by heal or even collecting resources as the group travels.
Inclusive? Like most "groups", they can be rather exclusive, like "cliques."
PS:
I'm not pushing either way, just noting differences
Is it? My experiences may have differed from yours, but I've found "group content" rather exclusive.
Not the right class? too bad.
Not right the level? too bad.
Not the right Guild association? too bad.
Why do players complain about how long groups take to form up in the "olden times?"
Then you have the "travel as a group" mentality that "dislikes" when a player steps up to help someone NOT in the group, either with a run-by heal or even collecting resources as the group travels.
Inclusive? Like most "groups", they can be rather exclusive, like "cliques."
PS:
I'm not pushing either way, just noting differences
Well, you are absolutely right. (Although, I don't think that's what laserit meant.) It's an "MMO", a "WORLD", not a SP game with multiplayer.
MMORPGs have gotten so sanitized to other Players that they don't play like an MMO. And too many Gamers have gotten sanitized to other Players too. There's something wrong with that design.
I think that the traditional MMORPG design based off of the Everquest model has proven itself over the long term to be a bad design.
Time to re-think the wheel.
Yep. That design is from the D&D model, which was made for small groups of gamers. It was never intended for a world of simultaneous players. Nor could it ever work that way. So what we see is so called "MMORPGs" that are divided into many separate games, something that fits the D&D model.
The problem has been recognized, and they started adding Scaling. But that's so artificial that it still doesn't quite feel like a world (and with many other players). Because the very world itself changes, for each and every one.
I think that the traditional MMORPG design based off of the Everquest model has proven itself over the long term to be a bad design.
Time to re-think the wheel.
levels, hard classes, and the tank/dps/healer system are the worst offenders but the dungeons need to change as well and not be so boss centric and linear. I would even merge pvp and raiding into indirect pvp warzones, at least in a casual pve game.
the sad part is that no special technology is required to make the games better.
should the games ever get better, which is doubtful, i think it will have the following components.
1) skill capture instead of levels. This means that you have to find all your skills and there would be numerous ways to collect them and improve them. 2) achievement based alternate advancement system. 3) radial dungeons to replace the linear ones. 4) Situational mitigation to replace the classic trinity. 5) Indirect pvp warzones (realm vs realm style) combining pvp and raiding elements together. This makes those activities more accessible to casual players. 6) flexible archetype (like rogue, mage, fighter) instead of specific classes. 7) fleshed out npc guilds for every activity. 8) item system similar to eso's system though i would do it slightly differently using a magic toxicity system and crafted/found and cursed items. I would keep the set bonus structure and multiple set synergies though. 9) 3 man standard group but with built in flexibility for 4 and scalable to 6 and 9 when needed.
This is for a casual pve game though. You have to know your audience.
I think that the traditional MMORPG design based off of the Everquest model has proven itself over the long term to be a bad design.
Time to re-think the wheel.
levels, hard classes, and the tank/dps/healer system are the worst offenders but the dungeons need to change as well and not be so boss centric and linear. I would even merge pvp and raiding into indirect pvp warzones, at least in a casual pve game.
the sad part is that no special technology is required to make the games better.
should the games ever get better, which is doubtful, i think it will have the following components.
1) skill capture instead of levels. This means that you have to find all your skills and there would be numerous ways to collect them and improve them. 2) achievement based alternate advancement system. 3) radial dungeons to replace the linear ones. 4) Situational mitigation to replace the classic trinity. 5) Indirect pvp warzones (realm vs realm style) combining pvp and raiding elements together. This makes those activities more accessible to casual players. 6) flexible archetype (like rogue, mage, fighter) instead of specific classes. 7) fleshed out npc guilds for every activity. 8) item system similar to eso's system though i would do it slightly differently using a magic toxicity system and crafted/found and cursed items. I would keep the set bonus structure and multiple set synergies though. 9) 3 man standard group but with built in flexibility for 4 and scalable to 6 and 9 when needed.
This is for a casual pve game though. You have to know your audience.
I want to say although I often disagree with your design recommendations, at least you provide some alternatives rather than just state the original D&D designs are bad which I think is more a case of just being worn out after so many years.
Good for a spell, but definitely time for something different, alas I am one of those who can't well articulate what that might be so I'm left to critique the ideas of others.
Keep sharing, not sure we'll ever see such but one can always dream.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
So the issue here with the core concept of EQ and DnD design is that we've reached a point where we are at it's logical conclusion. You have linear dungeons/raids with scalability, that on it's face seems okay, but when you lock gear behind hard group content where players have to be in-sync with one another what you wind up with is an inequality that's not in DnD at all.
What needs to change in this equation is either adding a horizontal progression system accessible to all players regardless of content, or increasing the actual scripted options of AI, meaning AI is never the same no matter or how many times you run a particular dungeon.
Think about what DnD is--if DnD operated like WoW did with it's progression system, DnD would die instantly because it's too linear, and eventually it removes the elements of the RPG elements in lieu of competitive elements. Think about it, how many times on the WoW forums do we see players talk about needing to be competitive in an MMORPG. There is no thought like that at any DnD table that I know of, and where there's a player who thinks like that, normally they get asked to leave the game.
AoC is leaning in the right direction with (at least my understanding) of how cities, are developed. That's more like how DnD does operate. Imagine if one day you login into Azeroth and you find out the AI in Stormwind took a Horde territory because the AI has that ability now the Horde has to deal with the fact that the alliance, through no player action, has lost territory and their stories quests change as a result, that's a DnD component.
So the issue here with the core concept of EQ and DnD design is that we've reached a point where we are at it's logical conclusion. You have linear dungeons/raids with scalability, that on it's face seems okay, but when you lock gear behind hard group content where players have to be in-sync with one another what you wind up with is an inequality that's not in DnD at all.
What needs to change in this equation is either adding a horizontal progression system accessible to all players regardless of content, or increasing the actual scripted options of AI, meaning AI is never the same no matter or how many times you run a particular dungeon.
I would say there's an additional major benefit of horizontal progression, the reduction of toxicity by directly exterminating most elitism.
Elitism defined such as "the delusional belief of superior because you get power/gear that others dont have, or according to elitists others "CANT" have to further inflate their achievement of clearing high end GROUP content.
By letting everyone have access to max power level via the content of their choice, you are literally exterminating a huge chunk of elitists which is a great thing, elitists have been a huge toxic problem since they first appeared since they wrongly connected their self worth with their ingame speshiul status.
Not that horizontal progression completely removes elitists, but many of those will be gone, because they are many of the people today who fight against the idea that "everyone should have access to max power level", because they are incredibly scared of the idea that the "casuals" are gonna get access to the same toys as them, therefore making said toys less special.
A thing some people seem to forget, by the nature of the gear grind, often to have fun, you have to achieve a decent level of gear/power.
Meaning without gear you cant really have fun in a lot of areas of the game, and when your only choice if to do high end group content in order to get said gear and thus be forced to socialize in your limited time, you can again understand why people arent fond of that design and dont like oldschool devs forcing group content down our throat.
You are just rationalising your envy now and make your motives clear. It's not about having fun or enough content as a solo, just jealousy.
If you want solo gear progression competition, there's BDO.
Have I not multiple times in this thread mentioned the fact that I was doing high m+(21+) and raiding? I never implied that I am a pure solo casual that does literally nothing but world quest, only that I actually enjoy their playstyle as well, a playstyle which is treated like an afterthought and I know cuz I am also doing high end group content.
Hence knowing how absolutely trash and worthless the solo casual rewards are and how it is treated as inferior. If I ever want to relax and do something casually solo, there is nothing that progresses my power and that is by oldschool dev design.
So when I was playing WoW I did have mythic gear because i FORCED myself to deal with one of the worst communities in gaming. And because at the end of the day I enjoy dps meter competition, nowhere did I imply that group content should disappear, only that it should be treated as yet another playstyle, no the be all end all of mmorpgs like many oldschool devs keep trying to force.
You see I am completely fine with EVERYONE getting access to mythic gear like me, the elitists though who choose to put their self worth on having something others dont have absolutely hate that idea, kinda shows an unhealthy and insecure nature which is why they are so vehemently against the idea of "casuals" getting mythic gear as well.
I want everyone to be able to reach max gear power because then, the only difference will be skill ;^)
Elitists are the same crowd that screeches and despises boosting with a passion in WoW, because they hate the idea that others who have enough gold/irl money get to have the same special gear/status as them, because they unironically thought having better gear than others makes them special xD
Playing solo is giving solo rewards. Enough to play the solo content.
Group content mostly gives rewards which are needed to play other group content.
Now some Solo players want to get the rewards which are needed to play group content without the need to play group content.
It's like demanding a playing piece, game money, streets and hotels but not playing monopoly with the others or even at all. That's what my little kid is doing.
Its something different if I would need this gear to enjoy something different I want to play (need to play PvE to be geared for PvP, need gear from raids to be able to play normal group content)
It's like if you would need to earn monopoly money to be able to play chess.
eso did the best job of this by far. As previously said, for the most part raid stuff is best suited for raids, pvp stuff suited for pvp, and dungeons and overland best suited for dungeons and overland.
you actually dont have to step foot in a dungeon to make an effective set of gear and the secret to is is to not have gear progression at all. They just keep introducing new unique sets all the time in their respective theme. The synergy between the interactions of the different sets is what makes it fun. Unlike other games armor sets works together and there are many content forms available from crafted, overland, dungeons, trials, pvp, arenas and antiquities.
if only they had of fixed the combat system.
I totally feel you.
ESO has so many good system which I bring up very often. If not the combat -and for me the trading system- were so horribly bad.
ESO also has some Solo content (Arenas) where you might need the best gear, but most games as pure solo player you also can achieve everything solo without the need to do group content.
And that's the main thing. Are you really really forced to do group content to be able to do the solo content, or do you just want to have the gear from group content because it is (mostly) stronger even though you don't need that power at all?
You are just rationalising your envy now and make your motives clear. It's not about having fun or enough content as a solo, just jealousy.
If you want solo gear progression competition, there's BDO.
Have I not multiple times in this thread mentioned the fact that I was doing high m+(21+) and raiding? I never implied that I am a pure solo casual that does literally nothing but world quest, only that I actually enjoy their playstyle as well, a playstyle which is treated like an afterthought and I know cuz I am also doing high end group content.
Hence knowing how absolutely trash and worthless the solo casual rewards are and how it is treated as inferior. If I ever want to relax and do something casually solo, there is nothing that progresses my power and that is by oldschool dev design.
So when I was playing WoW I did have mythic gear because i FORCED myself to deal with one of the worst communities in gaming. And because at the end of the day I enjoy dps meter competition, nowhere did I imply that group content should disappear, only that it should be treated as yet another playstyle, no the be all end all of mmorpgs like many oldschool devs keep trying to force.
You see I am completely fine with EVERYONE getting access to mythic gear like me, the elitists though who choose to put their self worth on having something others dont have absolutely hate that idea, kinda shows an unhealthy and insecure nature which is why they are so vehemently against the idea of "casuals" getting mythic gear as well.
I want everyone to be able to reach max gear power because then, the only difference will be skill ;^)
Elitists are the same crowd that screeches and despises boosting with a passion in WoW, because they hate the idea that others who have enough gold/irl money get to have the same special gear/status as them, because they unironically thought having better gear than others makes them special xD
You sound like this guy here
Oh, and those players who spend countless hours clearing raids or trials are actually somewhat special and should be rewarded above and beyond for their extra effort.
Not everyone can or should be a winner...
And I say this as a casual who hasn't done top end content in many years, but I can still acknowledge those who do without letting personal envy get the better of me.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Oh, and those players who spend countless hours clearing raids or trials are actually somewhat special and should be rewarded above and beyond for their extra effort.
And that is when I remind people that this is a VIDEO GAME designed from the ground up to be beaten and make you feel like you achieved something, especially pve content.
Really it comes down to who will be catered to. My opinion is that pvp games should cater to pvpers and raiding games cater to raiders but there should also be games that cater to the casual player.
i wouldnt get rid of pvp and raiding entirely in these games though. I would combine it to make it more palatable to casual pver's (who are the bulk of any game).
this is where the indirect realm vs realm style pvp warfronts idea comes from. It has campaigns like pvp does where anyone can join and pitch in, its still competitive with other realms but not directly (you fight a common enemy) and has a raid component built into it.
players have to earn that shot at the raid through the campaign, not hide away in some instance rolling over and over until all the dance steps are learned. Failure gives the other realms a chance. Who gets to go on the raid is determined by your efforts in campaign.
this is a much better system for casual pver's who usually dont pvp, any may like to participate in bigger events but in a casual way.
Really it comes down to who will be catered to. My opinion is that pvp games should cater to pvpers and raiding games cater to raiders but there should also be games that cater to the casual player.
That is definitely an option, to have a game solely cater to one type of player but it doesnt seem it is something they go with.
What we currently get is often the game mostly catering to one group and treating the other groups as inferior or an afterthought, or in the process of trying to cater to everyone fail to cater to anyone.
But I would much prefer an mmorpg that treats all types of playstyles equally without treating high end group content as special.
-Raiding, with its own cosmetics and titles.
-PvP, with its own cosmetics and titles .
-Dungeons, with its own cosmetics and titles.
-Casual solo content, with its own cosmetics and titles.
A common power progression would be vital though because many of us dont just do one type of content, I often do raiding, dungeons, casual pvp and solo content but if I need to have separate gear sets I am not gonna bother because that is an obstacle.
Plus, for us who do high end content, in this design doing casual solo content to relax also progresses us power wise, unlike now where power progression is solely locked behind group content and nothing else turning certain games into lobby raidlogging games.
And all that content should be treated equally, something that currently due to oldschool devs it isnt.
In WoW, even with m+ being incredibly popular, they are still to scared to give 259 gear to it. And before its popularity dungeons were treated as a stepping stone to raiding, not their own separate content group.
Casual pvp is treated as inferior and a stepping stone to rated arenas meaning if you enjoy casual pvp but not rated arenas you are out of luck
While solo content has always been used as the first stepping stone for players to move to high end group content.
This is a major issue, oldschool devs keep treating casual content as a stepping stone rather than legitimate fun content people enjoy.
What bothers me the most when talking RPG's, it can be MMO or otherwise. There seems to be such an emphasis around the gear. Everything seems to be centered around the gear, gear, gear.
Imagine the Fellowship of the Ring if all they cared about was the gear they were going to personally collect along the way.
A payday is a powerful carrot but I don't know if its helping in the design of a good game.
What bothers me the most when talking RPG's, it can be MMO or otherwise. There seems to be such an emphasis around the gear. Everything seems to be centered around the gear, gear, gear.
Imagine the Fellowship of the Ring if all they cared about was the gear they were going to personally collect along the way.
A payday is a powerful carrot but I don't know if its helping in the design of a good game.
There's also gold.
I don't agree it is always about gear or gold. It really depends on the player.
Some do it for the exploration or story. Others for the social elements. Those do not really care about the gear and rewards, just about the experience.
Many players of course do it for the progression or competition aspects. Those do care about the gear or the gold or the rewards. Nothing wrong about that either.
And then you have mixtures, caring for both in all sorts of ratios. It is the "explorers vs achievers" personas that we mentioned with DalaiBomba before.
In a well made virtual world, we can do all those things
edit: I don't know if its technically possible yet.
In a well made virtual world, we can do all those things
True, but it does not mean that games that support only one or the other are bad either. Just different designs more focused on a particular aspect. Also the same answer that I gave to OP, it is sometimes a matter of dev bandwidth or design incompatibilities that you cannot satisfy everyone.
If you look at it like an addiction, what do you see?
I see lots of similar traits. Now we can think about the reasons that the gear treadmill design might be popular with game publishers.
I fear that in these times the Goal of the design is too conflicted.
edit: I'm also including the negative "feeling shitty" traits that come with addiction
vertical gear systems like wow feed off of more basic desires ( get something better) and are as simple as the desires themselves while horizontal systems like eso feed off more more complex desires (make something work) and thus are more complex.
I prefer more complex systems but its obvious not everyone does.
If you look at it like an addiction, what do you see?
I see lots of similar traits. Now we can think about the reasons that the gear treadmill design might be popular with game publishers.
I fear that in these times the Goal of the design is too conflicted.
edit: I'm also including the negative "feeling shitty" traits that come with addiction
vertical gear systems like wow feed off of more basic desires ( get something better) and are as simple as the desires themselves while horizontal systems like eso feed off more more complex desires (make something work) and thus are more complex.
I prefer more complex systems but its obvious not everyone does.
Personally my most enjoyable phase in a game is the learning phase.
I find that once I've mastered something, I begin to become bored.
I would love to incorporate that into a games design. But then again I know that some people hate to learn new things.
a game imo requires shallow vertical systems designed to keep your attention for a limited amount of time. I think were near the limits of what this model can achieve as more and more players become familiar with it
worlds on the other hand require horizontal and deep systems that can keep your attention indefinitely. Like building your own home or base.
i think there is a shift from games to worlds but not sure it will amount to much.
a game imo requires shallow vertical systems designed to keep your attention for a limited amount of time. I think were near the limits of what this model can achieve as more and more players become familiar with it
worlds on the other hand require horizontal and deep systems that can keep your attention indefinitely. Like building your own home or base.
i think there is a shift from games to worlds but not sure it will amount to much.
I entirely agree with you. We need more worlds and less levels. Instead of levels what we need is specializations.
Specialization means that I can do what you cannot and I need you for the reciprocal reason.
In order for such a system to be interesting we need a set of possible actions that goes way beyond the usual bashing/gathering loop.
a game imo requires shallow vertical systems designed to keep your attention for a limited amount of time. I think were near the limits of what this model can achieve as more and more players become familiar with it
worlds on the other hand require horizontal and deep systems that can keep your attention indefinitely. Like building your own home or base.
i think there is a shift from games to worlds but not sure it will amount to much.
I think we're on the totally same wave length here.
Comments
edit: I agree with you by the way
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
It's an "MMO", a "WORLD", not a SP game with multiplayer.
MMORPGs have gotten so sanitized to other Players that they don't play like an MMO.
And too many Gamers have gotten sanitized to other Players too.
There's something wrong with that design.
Once upon a time....
Time to re-think the wheel.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
That design is from the D&D model, which was made for small groups of gamers.
It was never intended for a world of simultaneous players. Nor could it ever work that way.
So what we see is so called "MMORPGs" that are divided into many separate games, something that fits the D&D model.
The problem has been recognized, and they started adding Scaling. But that's so artificial that it still doesn't quite feel like a world (and with many other players).
Because the very world itself changes, for each and every one.
Once upon a time....
the sad part is that no special technology is required to make the games better.
should the games ever get better, which is doubtful, i think it will have the following components.
1) skill capture instead of levels. This means that you have to find all your skills and there would be numerous ways to collect them and improve them.
2) achievement based alternate advancement system.
3) radial dungeons to replace the linear ones.
4) Situational mitigation to replace the classic trinity.
5) Indirect pvp warzones (realm vs realm style) combining pvp and raiding elements together. This makes those activities more accessible to casual players.
6) flexible archetype (like rogue, mage, fighter) instead of specific classes.
7) fleshed out npc guilds for every activity.
8) item system similar to eso's system though i would do it slightly differently using a magic toxicity system and crafted/found and cursed items. I would keep the set bonus structure and multiple set synergies though.
9) 3 man standard group but with built in flexibility for 4 and scalable to 6 and 9 when needed.
This is for a casual pve game though. You have to know your audience.
Good for a spell, but definitely time for something different, alas I am one of those who can't well articulate what that might be so I'm left to critique the ideas of others.
Keep sharing, not sure we'll ever see such but one can always dream.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
What needs to change in this equation is either adding a horizontal progression system accessible to all players regardless of content, or increasing the actual scripted options of AI, meaning AI is never the same no matter or how many times you run a particular dungeon.
Think about what DnD is--if DnD operated like WoW did with it's progression system, DnD would die instantly because it's too linear, and eventually it removes the elements of the RPG elements in lieu of competitive elements. Think about it, how many times on the WoW forums do we see players talk about needing to be competitive in an MMORPG. There is no thought like that at any DnD table that I know of, and where there's a player who thinks like that, normally they get asked to leave the game.
AoC is leaning in the right direction with (at least my understanding) of how cities, are developed. That's more like how DnD does operate. Imagine if one day you login into Azeroth and you find out the AI in Stormwind took a Horde territory because the AI has that ability now the Horde has to deal with the fact that the alliance, through no player action, has lost territory and their stories quests change as a result, that's a DnD component.
ESO has so many good system which I bring up very often.
If not the combat -and for me the trading system- were so horribly bad.
ESO also has some Solo content (Arenas) where you might need the best gear, but most games as pure solo player you also can achieve everything solo without the need to do group content.
And that's the main thing.
Are you really really forced to do group content to be able to do the solo content, or do you just want to have the gear from group content because it is (mostly) stronger even though you don't need that power at all?
1997 Meridian 59 'til 2019 ESO
Waiting for Camelot Unchained & Pantheon
Oh, and those players who spend countless hours clearing raids or trials are actually somewhat special and should be rewarded above and beyond for their extra effort.
Not everyone can or should be a winner...
And I say this as a casual who hasn't done top end content in many years, but I can still acknowledge those who do without letting personal envy get the better of me.
Well, most of the time...
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
i wouldnt get rid of pvp and raiding entirely in these games though. I would combine it to make it more palatable to casual pver's (who are the bulk of any game).
this is where the indirect realm vs realm style pvp warfronts idea comes from. It has campaigns like pvp does where anyone can join and pitch in, its still competitive with other realms but not directly (you fight a common enemy) and has a raid component built into it.
players have to earn that shot at the raid through the campaign, not hide away in some instance rolling over and over until all the dance steps are learned. Failure gives the other realms a chance. Who gets to go on the raid is determined by your efforts in campaign.
this is a much better system for casual pver's who usually dont pvp, any may like to participate in bigger events but in a casual way.
Imagine the Fellowship of the Ring if all they cared about was the gear they were going to personally collect along the way.
A payday is a powerful carrot but I don't know if its helping in the design of a good game.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
edit: I don't know if its technically possible yet.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
If you look at it like an addiction, what do you see?
I see lots of similar traits. Now we can think about the reasons that the gear treadmill design might be popular with game publishers.
I fear that in these times the Goal of the design is too conflicted.
edit: I'm also including the negative "feeling shitty" traits that come with addiction
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
I prefer more complex systems but its obvious not everyone does.
I find that once I've mastered something, I begin to become bored.
I would love to incorporate that into a games design. But then again I know that some people hate to learn new things.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
worlds on the other hand require horizontal and deep systems that can keep your attention indefinitely. Like building your own home or base.
i think there is a shift from games to worlds but not sure it will amount to much.
I can't see it going any other way.
It's the natural progression imho
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
That's Immersion
imho
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee