Off-topic Discussions from 'we have a new lead game designer bill trost'

This discussion was created from comments split from: We have a new Lead Game Designer: Bill Trost.

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Mag7spy wrote: »

You didn't say people left BDO due to pvp, yet you are bringing up games as if people re leaving them? That makes 0 sense to me.

That seems like a "you" issue to me.

I pointed out a known issue in MMO's, and gave two examples of games that had attempted to prevent that issue. The point of that was not to say it was or was not working, it was merely to illustrate that it is an issue that developers are trying to solve.

As to your comment about what games people are playing- yes, short form (ie, lobby) PvP is indeed the most popular. That has been the case for a good 20 years - PvP games have been far more popular than PvE, yet PvP MMO's have simply not been as popular as PvE dewpite many attempts at making it work.

Are you advocating for Ashes becoming a lobby game? If not, I'm not sure what you are saying.

Noaani

Kilion wrote: »

"Competing with" doesn't equal exact replication of the circumstances. A raid can be just as epic as by being in an open dungeon, that is not mutually exclusive.

Actually, it is mutually exclusive.

Two reasons for that. The first is that if a games raid content is all open world, only two or three raid guilds can be supported per server. Second, raid content when PvP is to be expected can not be built nearly as intricately or with as much of a challenge.

True, but I have yet to see the evidence that points to Ashes actually running the explicit risk of that happening.

Since it has been observed in every persistent world PvP game, you shouldnt be looking for reasons as to why it wod happen in Ashes, you should be looking for reasons why it wouldnt.

Mag7spy

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

You didn't say people left BDO due to pvp, yet you are bringing up games as if people re leaving them? That makes 0 sense to me.

That seems like a "you" issue to me.

I pointed out a known issue in MMO's, and gave two examples of games that had attempted to prevent that issue. The point of that was not to say it was or was not working, it was merely to illustrate that it is an issue that developers are trying to solve.

As to your comment about what games people are playing- yes, short form (ie, lobby) PvP is indeed the most popular. That has been the case for a good 20 years - PvP games have been far more popular than PvE, yet PvP MMO's have simply not been as popular as PvE dewpite many attempts at making it work.

Are you advocating for Ashes becoming a lobby game? If not, I'm not sure what you are saying.

I've yet to see how you answer my question on what pearl abyss does to prevent people from leaving in pvp besides you simply just saying it just cause.

Yes a pvp mmo that lacks decent content is not going to last, as any game. It isn't something that just relates to a mmorpg that has pvp, hense why i brought you the fact far more pve games have failed / are dead than pvp ones.

It is so easy to say something without considering more than just the surface level and the reasons why something failed.

Noaani

Mag7spy wrote: »

I've yet to see how you answer my question on what pearl abyss does to prevent people from leaving in pvp besides you simply just saying it just cause.

I answered the question before you asked it.

Noaani wrote: »

This is why BDO had the server structure it had

Mag7spy wrote: »

It is so easy to say something without considering more than just the surface level and the reasons why something failed.

I mean, it is - but the point I was making that you are arguing is that this is a known phonomenon. My point is that it is a known thing that developers have witnessed, and are trying to find ways to reduce.

The point is, developers of PvP MMO's are able to see players leave games faster than PvE games, and are able to see that the people leaving tend to be either those that have a very low w/l ratio, or those that experienced a massive loss recently.

Even FPS and MOBA games have this same phenomonon. When people feel a match is lost, they will often just leave. Not everyone, but enough that most of those games attempted to come up with a system to prevent it. Sure, people in those games often come back - often just start a new match straight away. In an MMO though, that isn't an option. The world is persistent - if you have found yourself in a position where you are unable to win, that isn't going to just change any time soon.

Mag7spy

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

I've yet to see how you answer my question on what pearl abyss does to prevent people from leaving in pvp besides you simply just saying it just cause.

I answered the question before you asked it.

Noaani wrote: »

This is why BDO had the server structure it had

Mag7spy wrote: »

It is so easy to say something without considering more than just the surface level and the reasons why something failed.

I mean, it is - but the point I was making that you are arguing is that this is a known phonomenon. My point is that it is a known thing that developers have witnessed, and are trying to find ways to reduce.

The point is, developers of PvP MMO's are able to see players leave games faster than PvE games, and are able to see that the people leaving tend to be either those that have a very low w/l ratio, or those that experienced a massive loss recently.

Even FPS and MOBA games have this same phenomonon. When people feel a match is lost, they will often just leave. Not everyone, but enough that most of those games attempted to come up with a system to prevent it. Sure, people in those games often come back - often just start a new match straight away. In an MMO though, that isn't an option. The world is persistent - if you have found yourself in a position where you are unable to win, that isn't going to just change any time soon.

.... Please don't tell me you are taking them having shards as a reason to prevent people leaving the game do to pvp as your proof....

Mag7spy

That is not them acknowledging anything that is you just looking at a feature and assuming based on personal or bias feelings. That is not backed by any kind of facts.

Noaani

Mag7spy wrote: »

.... Please don't tell me you are taking them having shards as a reason to prevent people leaving the game do to pvp as your proof....

It is one of the reasons they gave for it - assuming my Korean was accurate enough.

Their thinking was that one of the main ways people leave an MMO is when they get themselves in to a situation where a guild or an alliance is able to stop them doing anything. Being stuck on a server with such a guild or alliance never ends well. They also wanted a system where players were able to always play with their friends, and so settled on the system they have as an attempt to assist both issues.

Keep in mind, the people behind Pearl Abyss had a background in publishing, not developing.

Azherae

Mag7spy wrote: »

That is not them acknowledging anything that is you just looking at a feature and assuming based on personal or bias feelings. That is not backed by any kind of facts.

This is the reason they gave for it.

It is the reason they still give.

It would take me forever to find the video, of course, so you can take my word for it, or do your usual, but for data for those who track me, I watched BDO's community streams and design stuff and developer notes for a while to study.

This is absolutely one of the reasons for their 'whole single world' thing, and it's an explicit part of the game loop to 'change servers if you are not able to win at your PvE grindspot'. The idea being that you 'move around every time you lose until you find someone you can beat', because it lowers the 'pain point' ratio (and if you always win, move to the 'PvP' server where there is no 'Corruption' but 50% more loot, since you have 'earned' it by being the best).

Instead of the strongest player making 9 people have the all-loss experience, 9 people get the 'well, I beat someone' experience and only one gets the all-loss, if the 'intended flow' is followed (in the optimal case).

The paragraph directly above this is an extrapolation, not part of what they said. They only said the 'move around every time you lose to get other/fairer matches' part. It's pretty ingenious, as retention mechanics go, but it is still only about as effective as matchmaking is, which is to say, not very effective long term.

Mag7spy

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

.... Please don't tell me you are taking them having shards as a reason to prevent people leaving the game do to pvp as your proof....

It is one of the reasons they gave for it - assuming my Korean was accurate enough.

Their thinking was that one of the main ways people leave an MMO is when they get themselves in to a situation where a guild or an alliance is able to stop them doing anything. Being stuck on a server with such a guild or alliance never ends well. They also wanted a system where players were able to always play with their friends, and so settled on the system they have as an attempt to assist both issues.

Keep in mind, the people behind Pearl Abyss had a background in publishing, not developing.

Pearl abyss didn't publish the game, that was kakao games but this is kind of pointless and not really important to the discussion.

Having shards is not them trying to stop people from leaving do to pvp, that is skipping over all other relevant design to just assume that. Them saying we have shards so people aren't forced to pvp in a shard, does not = them escaping pvp in another shard. You can shard hope all you want and there will be people around and you will still get pvp and same thing would happen. That doesn't make people quit the game.

What is important about the shards has to do that there is one server for everyone, meaning there is very limited grind spots. In order to ensure there is enough content for players and it is not over crowded it is a solution that has to be used. As well as keeping the community tighter together than splitting it based off servers.

The game wouldn't have places for people to grind without them as everywhere would be over crowded and not work. If you are grinding a popular spot you aren't going to avoid pvp, people are going to be at those points on the shards.

So i can't really chalk that up to dev's acknowledging players leaving over pvp, that is issues within their game for lack of content and area space to support the large amount of players. So it is over reaching to think devs are "aware" of this issue in terms of that and coming with some strong unmovable point without considering the bigger picture.

Now for the other side of things

Now there always needs to be a balance to stop griefing and such, but I don't relate PvP to = to griefing. Having measures in place to foster a balanced pvp environment not based on heavy griefing is important based on what those rules would be for the game that design intends. Any dev is going to look at the limit of griefing being something that makes people leave. But why it is important you have good design and such so that won't be the case and people can avoid it if needed and have other options.

If griefing is so bad and the game isn't designed to reduce and prevent it yes you will have a issue with pvp. But that is not because of pvp but lack of designs to foster a good game design. If something is lacking design players will leave for both PvP and PvE if it is bad. Both have their unique challenges. When it comes to pvp and players being unpredictable it is always more work.

Azherae

Mag7spy wrote: »

Having shards is not them trying to stop people from leaving do to pvp, that is skipping over all other relevant design to just assume that. Them saying we have shards so people aren't forced to pvp in a shard, does not = them escaping pvp in another shard. You can shard hope all you want and there will be people around and you will still get pvp and same thing would happen. That doesn't make people quit the game.

What is important about the shards has to do that there is one server for everyone, meaning there is very limited grind spots. In order to ensure there is enough content for players and it is not over crowded it is a solution that has to be used. As well as keeping the community tighter together than splitting it based off servers.

For clarity this is not only untrue, it is very untrue.

It would take me too long to detail why, so as usual, I hate to have to make this post type, but I hope people can forgive me for not engaging with Mag7 on this matter in this way. The unfair allotment of time between the 'Here is the exact reason with references, design doc equivalents, and statistics" and "nuh uh!" is just not tenable.

Mag7spy

Azherae wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

That is not them acknowledging anything that is you just looking at a feature and assuming based on personal or bias feelings. That is not backed by any kind of facts.

This is the reason they gave for it.

It is the reason they still give.

It would take me forever to find the video, of course, so you can take my word for it, or do your usual, but for data for those who track me, I watched BDO's community streams and design stuff and developer notes for a while to study.

This is absolutely one of the reasons for their 'whole single world' thing, and it's an explicit part of the game loop to 'change servers if you are not able to win at your PvE grindspot'. The idea being that you 'move around every time you lose until you find someone you can beat', because it lowers the 'pain point' ratio (and if you always win, move to the 'PvP' server where there is no 'Corruption' but 50% more loot, since you have 'earned' it by being the best).

Instead of the strongest player making 9 people have the all-loss experience, 9 people get the 'well, I beat someone' experience and only one gets the all-loss, if the 'intended flow' is followed (in the optimal case).

The paragraph directly above this is an extrapolation, not part of what they said. They only said the 'move around every time you lose to get other/fairer matches' part. It's pretty ingenious, as retention mechanics go, but it is still only about as effective as matchmaking is, which is to say, not very effective long term.

I explain the server swapping things above, except bringing corruption up. You don't need to pvp to win a spot you can just karma bomb until they leave. Though this gets into the other discussion about feeding players to mobs, etc.

But on surface level you can grind any spot without much worry, it just won't be optimal there isn't really a threat to pvp. They kill you a few times and leave or both you waste your time. Not to mention you get to attack them freely if they attack you, and if they kill you, there are tears to get up and attack them for "free".

Long story short there is no reason to fight back in bdo they can pvp you so many times and have to leave eventually. When you die you respawn 2 feet where you were farming.

Mag7spy

Azherae wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Having shards is not them trying to stop people from leaving do to pvp, that is skipping over all other relevant design to just assume that. Them saying we have shards so people aren't forced to pvp in a shard, does not = them escaping pvp in another shard. You can shard hope all you want and there will be people around and you will still get pvp and same thing would happen. That doesn't make people quit the game.

What is important about the shards has to do that there is one server for everyone, meaning there is very limited grind spots. In order to ensure there is enough content for players and it is not over crowded it is a solution that has to be used. As well as keeping the community tighter together than splitting it based off servers.

For clarity this is not only untrue, it is very untrue.

It would take me too long to detail why, so as usual, I hate to have to make this post type, but I hope people can forgive me for not engaging with Mag7 on this matter in this way. The unfair allotment of time between the 'Here is the exact reason with references, design doc equivalents, and statistics" and "nuh uh!" is just not tenable.

Its ok we both have our ways and just generally won't come to an understanding with each other that is fine. I've tried in my way but some people don't mesh. You can believe what you want, and i will with mine and how i explained it and that is fine.

Noaani

Mag7spy wrote: »

Pearl abyss didn't publish the game, that was kakao games

I didnt sat Pearl Abyss published BDO, I said the people behind Pearl Abyss had a background in publishing.

If you are going to get in to a discussion, you need to read the actual words people write.

Azherae

Mag7spy wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

That is not them acknowledging anything that is you just looking at a feature and assuming based on personal or bias feelings. That is not backed by any kind of facts.

This is the reason they gave for it.

It is the reason they still give.

It would take me forever to find the video, of course, so you can take my word for it, or do your usual, but for data for those who track me, I watched BDO's community streams and design stuff and developer notes for a while to study.

This is absolutely one of the reasons for their 'whole single world' thing, and it's an explicit part of the game loop to 'change servers if you are not able to win at your PvE grindspot'. The idea being that you 'move around every time you lose until you find someone you can beat', because it lowers the 'pain point' ratio (and if you always win, move to the 'PvP' server where there is no 'Corruption' but 50% more loot, since you have 'earned' it by being the best).

Instead of the strongest player making 9 people have the all-loss experience, 9 people get the 'well, I beat someone' experience and only one gets the all-loss, if the 'intended flow' is followed (in the optimal case).

The paragraph directly above this is an extrapolation, not part of what they said. They only said the 'move around every time you lose to get other/fairer matches' part. It's pretty ingenious, as retention mechanics go, but it is still only about as effective as matchmaking is, which is to say, not very effective long term.

I explain the server swapping things above, except bringing corruption up. You don't need to pvp to win a spot you can just karma bomb until they leave. Though this gets into the other discussion about feeding players to mobs, etc.

But on surface level you can grind any spot without much worry, it just won't be optimal there isn't really a threat to pvp. They kill you a few times and leave or both you waste your time. Not to mention you get to attack them freely if they attack you, and if they kill you, there are tears to get up and attack them for "free".

Long story short there is no reason to fight back in bdo they can pvp you so many times and have to leave eventually. When you die you respawn 2 feet where you were farming.

Ok you should probably just go back to whatever it was you were trying to argue with Noaani about design now.

The entire reason I said anything was to clarify just this:

The Developers and Community Managers have said things that support Noaani's point both explicitly and implicitly, and counter the claim you are making, which is:

"This isn't why they designed it this way."

Whether or not it is working is subjective in some perspectives apparently (I did not expect this, but I accept it). The question is if they did it for that reason. The answer is yes.

Noaani

Mag7spy wrote: »

Long story short there is no reason to fight back in bdo they can pvp you so many times and have to leave eventually. When you die you respawn 2 feet where you were farming.

We are not debating the quality of PvP in BDO here - the only reason we have for talking about it is that their server structure is the way it is in part to combat PvP players leaving games.

Mag7spy

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Pearl abyss didn't publish the game, that was kakao games

I didnt sat Pearl Abyss published BDO, I said the people behind Pearl Abyss had a background in publishing.

If you are going to get in to a discussion, you need to read the actual words people write.

no Pa didn't publish BDO. kakao games did. Though they made some deal around 3 years ago or such, hard to keep track but now they are publishing BDO themselves and they transitioned over.

People blamed kakao games and thought bdo would have less p2w with the change. Though it is hard to judge what it would have been like is Pa published from the start.

Mag7spy

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Long story short there is no reason to fight back in bdo they can pvp you so many times and have to leave eventually. When you die you respawn 2 feet where you were farming.

We are not debating the quality of PvP in BDO here - the only reason we have for talking about it is that their server structure is the way it is in part to combat PvP players leaving games.

I'm not I'm just stating a fact. If a player knows they will get attacked 3 times and the player has a high chance they will stop attacking it has a huge effect on player mind set with pvp. This isn't about quality it is just about that the system in place to prevent griefing. Swapping shards doesn't have you escape from pvp either, I don't view shards as a big way devs had a master plan or does not feel like a very strong point that that is them acknowledging players leaving from normal pvp over losing.

Mag7spy

Azherae wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

That is not them acknowledging anything that is you just looking at a feature and assuming based on personal or bias feelings. That is not backed by any kind of facts.

This is the reason they gave for it.

It is the reason they still give.

It would take me forever to find the video, of course, so you can take my word for it, or do your usual, but for data for those who track me, I watched BDO's community streams and design stuff and developer notes for a while to study.

This is absolutely one of the reasons for their 'whole single world' thing, and it's an explicit part of the game loop to 'change servers if you are not able to win at your PvE grindspot'. The idea being that you 'move around every time you lose until you find someone you can beat', because it lowers the 'pain point' ratio (and if you always win, move to the 'PvP' server where there is no 'Corruption' but 50% more loot, since you have 'earned' it by being the best).

Instead of the strongest player making 9 people have the all-loss experience, 9 people get the 'well, I beat someone' experience and only one gets the all-loss, if the 'intended flow' is followed (in the optimal case).

The paragraph directly above this is an extrapolation, not part of what they said. They only said the 'move around every time you lose to get other/fairer matches' part. It's pretty ingenious, as retention mechanics go, but it is still only about as effective as matchmaking is, which is to say, not very effective long term.

I explain the server swapping things above, except bringing corruption up. You don't need to pvp to win a spot you can just karma bomb until they leave. Though this gets into the other discussion about feeding players to mobs, etc.

But on surface level you can grind any spot without much worry, it just won't be optimal there isn't really a threat to pvp. They kill you a few times and leave or both you waste your time. Not to mention you get to attack them freely if they attack you, and if they kill you, there are tears to get up and attack them for "free".

Long story short there is no reason to fight back in bdo they can pvp you so many times and have to leave eventually. When you die you respawn 2 feet where you were farming.

Ok you should probably just go back to whatever it was you were trying to argue with Noaani about design now.

The entire reason I said anything was to clarify just this:

The Developers and Community Managers have said things that support Noaani's point both explicitly and implicitly, and counter the claim you are making, which is:

"This isn't why they designed it this way."

Whether or not it is working is subjective in some perspectives apparently (I did not expect this, but I accept it). The question is if they did it for that reason. The answer is yes.

You are free to link it so we can view it in context. Pa says a lot of things, also things can get lost in translation . For example their meaning was about a single player griefing not avoiding general pvp. Shard swapping does not avoid pvp, the main point of context is about doing so to avoid pvp.

(though im aware if you are in a dead grinding spot with lack of players and one shows up and kills you. You could shard swap and not get pvp'd. But a dead spot where no one goes shouldn't be used as the high bar or average experience)

Azherae

Mag7spy wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

That is not them acknowledging anything that is you just looking at a feature and assuming based on personal or bias feelings. That is not backed by any kind of facts.

This is the reason they gave for it.

It is the reason they still give.

It would take me forever to find the video, of course, so you can take my word for it, or do your usual, but for data for those who track me, I watched BDO's community streams and design stuff and developer notes for a while to study.

This is absolutely one of the reasons for their 'whole single world' thing, and it's an explicit part of the game loop to 'change servers if you are not able to win at your PvE grindspot'. The idea being that you 'move around every time you lose until you find someone you can beat', because it lowers the 'pain point' ratio (and if you always win, move to the 'PvP' server where there is no 'Corruption' but 50% more loot, since you have 'earned' it by being the best).

Instead of the strongest player making 9 people have the all-loss experience, 9 people get the 'well, I beat someone' experience and only one gets the all-loss, if the 'intended flow' is followed (in the optimal case).

The paragraph directly above this is an extrapolation, not part of what they said. They only said the 'move around every time you lose to get other/fairer matches' part. It's pretty ingenious, as retention mechanics go, but it is still only about as effective as matchmaking is, which is to say, not very effective long term.

I explain the server swapping things above, except bringing corruption up. You don't need to pvp to win a spot you can just karma bomb until they leave. Though this gets into the other discussion about feeding players to mobs, etc.

But on surface level you can grind any spot without much worry, it just won't be optimal there isn't really a threat to pvp. They kill you a few times and leave or both you waste your time. Not to mention you get to attack them freely if they attack you, and if they kill you, there are tears to get up and attack them for "free".

Long story short there is no reason to fight back in bdo they can pvp you so many times and have to leave eventually. When you die you respawn 2 feet where you were farming.

Ok you should probably just go back to whatever it was you were trying to argue with Noaani about design now.

The entire reason I said anything was to clarify just this:

The Developers and Community Managers have said things that support Noaani's point both explicitly and implicitly, and counter the claim you are making, which is:

"This isn't why they designed it this way."

Whether or not it is working is subjective in some perspectives apparently (I did not expect this, but I accept it). The question is if they did it for that reason. The answer is yes.

You are free to link it so we can view it in context. Pa says a lot of things, also things can get lost in translation . For example their meaning was about a single player griefing not avoiding general pvp. Shard swapping does not avoid pvp, the main point of context is about doing so to avoid pvp.

(though im aware if you are in a dead grinding spot with lack of players and one shows up and kills you. You could shard swap and not get pvp'd. But a dead spot where no one goes shouldn't be used as the high bar or average experience)

I have no doubt that even if I slogged through everything to find it, managed to pin it down, and linked it, you'd still just claim 'that's not really what they meant though'. Such is the deep and meaningful rapport we two have.

I'll do my usual and trust that at least some people know that I take my studies/data more seriously than you. Carry on.

Mag7spy

Azherae wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

That is not them acknowledging anything that is you just looking at a feature and assuming based on personal or bias feelings. That is not backed by any kind of facts.

This is the reason they gave for it.

It is the reason they still give.

It would take me forever to find the video, of course, so you can take my word for it, or do your usual, but for data for those who track me, I watched BDO's community streams and design stuff and developer notes for a while to study.

This is absolutely one of the reasons for their 'whole single world' thing, and it's an explicit part of the game loop to 'change servers if you are not able to win at your PvE grindspot'. The idea being that you 'move around every time you lose until you find someone you can beat', because it lowers the 'pain point' ratio (and if you always win, move to the 'PvP' server where there is no 'Corruption' but 50% more loot, since you have 'earned' it by being the best).

Instead of the strongest player making 9 people have the all-loss experience, 9 people get the 'well, I beat someone' experience and only one gets the all-loss, if the 'intended flow' is followed (in the optimal case).

The paragraph directly above this is an extrapolation, not part of what they said. They only said the 'move around every time you lose to get other/fairer matches' part. It's pretty ingenious, as retention mechanics go, but it is still only about as effective as matchmaking is, which is to say, not very effective long term.

I explain the server swapping things above, except bringing corruption up. You don't need to pvp to win a spot you can just karma bomb until they leave. Though this gets into the other discussion about feeding players to mobs, etc.

But on surface level you can grind any spot without much worry, it just won't be optimal there isn't really a threat to pvp. They kill you a few times and leave or both you waste your time. Not to mention you get to attack them freely if they attack you, and if they kill you, there are tears to get up and attack them for "free".

Long story short there is no reason to fight back in bdo they can pvp you so many times and have to leave eventually. When you die you respawn 2 feet where you were farming.

Ok you should probably just go back to whatever it was you were trying to argue with Noaani about design now.

The entire reason I said anything was to clarify just this:

The Developers and Community Managers have said things that support Noaani's point both explicitly and implicitly, and counter the claim you are making, which is:

"This isn't why they designed it this way."

Whether or not it is working is subjective in some perspectives apparently (I did not expect this, but I accept it). The question is if they did it for that reason. The answer is yes.

You are free to link it so we can view it in context. Pa says a lot of things, also things can get lost in translation . For example their meaning was about a single player griefing not avoiding general pvp. Shard swapping does not avoid pvp, the main point of context is about doing so to avoid pvp.

(though im aware if you are in a dead grinding spot with lack of players and one shows up and kills you. You could shard swap and not get pvp'd. But a dead spot where no one goes shouldn't be used as the high bar or average experience)

I have no doubt that even if I slogged through everything to find it, managed to pin it down, and linked it, you'd still just claim 'that's not really what they meant though'. Such is the deep and meaningful rapport we two have.

I'll do my usual and trust that at least some people know that I take my studies/data more seriously than you. Carry on.

The world we live in where we cant link an article and both look at it subjective from both points of view including you understanding mine and come to common ground.

Child Item