Nope, this is not one of those threads that bashes anyone. I have been playing the game from day one and enjoy it still. What I am saying is that I think that as great as GW is, the pay to play option forces the game to become competitive with the current spat of PTP games like..well you know the ones in talking about.
Anet in my unlearned opinion is in between a rock and a hard place. Sure we got addicted to the pve side of prophecies, but the game wasn’t designed around that. So it seems that anet has to reevaluate and recreate a portion of the game that was never meant to be at the forefront. Again this is my speculation and opinion only
A good company listens to the demands of the people (within reason) and tried to give its customers what they want. The pve folks wants to see anet push the envelope it seems to bring us as close as possible to getting all the goodies of a ptp game without having to ptp.
Sure gw wasn’t designed to be pve, But I wonder what would have happened if it was. Even with that in mind prophecies was a very good pve experience, i just wonder what anet would do if they had the resources of a ptp game at their disposal. I cant control what anyone will say or do in response to this post, I can only say that my thought is clear and not intended to flame or get into the "this is better than that argument" its simply if anet designed gw to be as played equally as pve and pvp, I wonder what would have produced. Personally I think that product would have revolutionized the gaming world as much as anets business model for gw did.
I wish guild wars was pay to play
blakk
Doomlord_Slayermann
This has already been beaten to death, resurrected a few times, and then beaten to death again.
Honestly, Guild Wars will essentially be PtP if they release a new chapter every few months, which is what they're doing now.
Honestly, Guild Wars will essentially be PtP if they release a new chapter every few months, which is what they're doing now.
majoho
LMAO, go read the WoW forums and see how very wrong you are.
1,000,000 pages of people whining about having things changed
http://forums-en.wow-europe.com/
http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/
Personally I feel people here whine too much, but WoW forums almost makes me have an aneurysm.
1,000,000 pages of people whining about having things changed
http://forums-en.wow-europe.com/
http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/
Personally I feel people here whine too much, but WoW forums almost makes me have an aneurysm.
EPO Bot
Nonsense. If GW was pay to play, everyone, including myself would defect to WoW because Blizzard is the best game company in existence and no one can possibly argue that fact. I do think Anet isa great contender, but the only trumph card they have to fend of the briliance of blizzard is the no montly fees for a mmorpg, wich is a powerfull argument to pick it over WoW.
blakk
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Doomlord_Slayermann
This has already been beaten to death, resurrected a few times, and then beaten to death again.
Honestly, Guild Wars will essentially be PtP if they release a new chapter every few months, which is what they're doing now. |
well then close the thread =(
i guess its difficult to post something new and refreshing when your posting in forums with well over 40000 threads. sry for wasting anyones time.
lacasner
no monthly fee= woopee!!!
Honestly though, in all fairness many people do stay with Guild Wars because there are no monthly fees.
Honestly though, in all fairness many people do stay with Guild Wars because there are no monthly fees.
Kakumei
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by EPO Bot
because Blizzard is the best game company in existence and no one can possibly argue that fact.
|
Mordakai
From http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=14931 (an old article, but explains very well the niche Anet wanted to fill with Guild Wars)
Quote:
|
GamesIndustry.biz: You're running an MMO without a subscription fee, and using an episodic content model instead - but it seems that basically, you're accepting less revenue for providing an MMO service than other firms are, since many of them release paid-for expansion packs as well as charging a monthly fee. How do you justify that, economically? Jeff Strain: First of all, it costs us far less to operate Guild Wars than a traditional MMO. The technology team behind our server technology is the team that built the original Battle.net. At that time, there was no broadband, so the whole thing was built around 28.8 modem assumptions - so we learned a tremendous amount about latency masking and bandwidth optimisation. When we built the core network technology behind Arena.net, of which Guild Wars is one game that uses that technology, it was really designed with those principles in mind. Even though we knew that broadband was growing and that most people would have it, we wanted to make a game that was very bandwidth-light, because we knew from the beginning that we were not going to charge a subscription fee, and that - bandwidth - is one of your primary operating costs. Obviously you pay for the server infrastructure up front, but your ongoing cost is bandwidth, and we use substantially less bandwidth than almost any online game out there. So, right up front, we've cut our support cost that way. The other big factor, though, and by far the larger factor, is that we just think that if you have a game that requires a subscription fee, you're going to have fewer customers. Obviously, there are examples out there of very big MMOs that have done well and have lots of customers - but they're building on established franchises and large existing customer bases. Guild Wars was a new product, and we wanted to come out of the gate really strongly and capture a very large number of players right off the bat. We just believed that we could be more effective at that without a subscription fee. With a subscription fee, you're going to cut twenty, thirty, forty, maybe even sixty per cent of your total potential customers right off the bat. So our goal is to create this game, create this business model, have a large and thriving community - and then sell content directly to them. Really, if you think about it, if I make two games a year and I do a good job, make sure that they're really cool and really strong, and that you want to buy them; that's about the same as what I would get if I was paying a subscription fee for one game over that year. You're right, it's a little bit less - but fundamentally, it's in the same ballpark. So, that's our goal - make sure that we make enough content, that it's cool enough, fun enough, and released on a regular schedule, so that we're just as profitable and can support the game to the same degree that a traditional MMO can. |
EPO Bot
Dissing Blizzard is a way to carve yourself an identity. The fact is that WoW is basically synomimous for mmorpg. And if Blizzard makes a game that has a risk to jump the shark they simply cancel it (SG:Ghost) before it has any chanse to do it's long-term damage, despite the fact it would be a guaranteed million seller. Gotta respect that.
Kakumei
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by EPO Bot
Dissing Blizzard is a way to carve yourself an identity. The fact is that WoW is basically synomimous for mmorpg.
|
I don't have to "respect" Blizzard, nor am I trying to "carve myself an identity". I mostly certainly already have an identity.
Starcraft was a good game. But nothing else they made has been. I would rather give my respects to the game companies that earn it by consistently releasing amazing games.
Metanoia
The lack of P2P is probably their biggest selling point at the moment. They have no competition with the exception of perhaps Diablo II (hah). I doubt that, even if designed as such from day 1, Guildwars could have competed with WoW in the P2P market. Personally, I think it would have been masochistic to try.
It's true that their original dream of a finely tuned tactical skill-based game is all but dead. There are an awful lot of compromises being made just to stay afloat. Personally, I think they were pretty niave to 'compare/contrast' their game so heavily to MMORPGs and act surprised that the only thing keeping their PvP-orientated game afloat are the masses of PvE players.
I'm kind of surprised they haven't introduced randomisation into their PvE content to increase it's longevity... I wonder if they just don't bother as it could just lose them money? What I mean by that is... It might increase their server costs by increasing the average play-time per customer while gaining them relatively few extra sales.
You might want to find a recording of this week's Weapon of Choice. After the innitial emo-drama there were some things worth listening to, especially towards the end.
It's true that their original dream of a finely tuned tactical skill-based game is all but dead. There are an awful lot of compromises being made just to stay afloat. Personally, I think they were pretty niave to 'compare/contrast' their game so heavily to MMORPGs and act surprised that the only thing keeping their PvP-orientated game afloat are the masses of PvE players.
I'm kind of surprised they haven't introduced randomisation into their PvE content to increase it's longevity... I wonder if they just don't bother as it could just lose them money? What I mean by that is... It might increase their server costs by increasing the average play-time per customer while gaining them relatively few extra sales.
You might want to find a recording of this week's Weapon of Choice. After the innitial emo-drama there were some things worth listening to, especially towards the end.
blakk
hey mordakai thats a very very good post, gives me a better perspective, a far better perspective.
Doomlord_Slayermann
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Metanoia
It's true that their original dream of a finely tuned tactical skill-based game is all but dead. There are an awful lot of compromises being made just to stay afloat. Personally, I think they were pretty niave to 'compare/contrast' their game so heavily to MMORPGs and act surprised that the only thing keeping their PvP-orientated game afloat are the masses of PvE players.
|
Guild Wars (1) is still skill-based (in PvP at least), (2) is not making "compromises" to stay "afloat", (3) is not held together by PvE players. They do indeed make changes to the game (which will become progressively less necessary as more chapters are added) to keep it balanced, but this doesn't exactly "compromise" much, except of course someones precious farming build or something that was exploiting the game for more money. If you think PvP is dead player base-wise, well, you must not PvP.
Mr_T_bot
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by blakk
Anet in my unlearned opinion is in between a rock and a hard place. Sure we got addicted to the pve side of prophecies, but the game wasn’t designed around that.
|
Quote:
| A good company listens to the demands of the people (within reason) and tried to give its customers what they want. |
Guild Wars does not need to be pay to play, Arena Net needs management that realizes that due to every chapter being unique and a standalone they are capable of selling every chapter indefinately as long as updates are provided for them, however minor. The idiotic idea right now is, release new chapter, bury old ones 10 feet under and cover them in concrete - but keep producing the cds and boxes and such. That will kill Guild Wars.
GloryFox
Quote:
|
posted by Kakumei Blizzard's best (and only enjoyable) product was Starcraft. Blizzard is nowhere near the best game company in existence. |
EPO Bot
But Diablo2, WC3 and WoW ARE awesome games, you are simply not sensitive to their glory. 
Seriousley: Crappy games rareley sell well, unless the expectations were all too inflated before release, but the sales always drop vertically after a couple of bad reviews.Not so for WoW and GW.
GW is a success because it has three things:
-Exellent values, skill based combat and graphics.
-No monthly fees.
-Eve on the box to catch peoples attention in store.
Take one away, and it's a still born baby.
Seriousley: Crappy games rareley sell well, unless the expectations were all too inflated before release, but the sales always drop vertically after a couple of bad reviews.Not so for WoW and GW.
GW is a success because it has three things:
-Exellent values, skill based combat and graphics.
-No monthly fees.
-Eve on the box to catch peoples attention in store.
Take one away, and it's a still born baby.
Skyy High
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by EPO Bot
Dissing Blizzard is a way to carve yourself an identity. The fact is that WoW is basically synomimous for mmorpg. And if Blizzard makes a game that has a risk to jump the shark they simply cancel it (SG:Ghost) before it has any chanse to do it's long-term damage, despite the fact it would be a guaranteed million seller. Gotta respect that.
|
There is nothing innovative about WoW. It's successful because of who Blizzard is and how they marketed the game, not because of any inherent quality of the game that puts it above and beyond competing MMORPGs.
Kakumei
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GloryFox
And the developers of StarCraft and Battle.net are the same ones who bring you Guild Wars...
|
Honestly, I hated Diablo and its sequel as enormous item-hunting grinding clickfests; the original Warcraft was decent, though generally meh; Warcraft II turned me off due to the fact that the two sides were so finely balanced to the point of being absolutely identical; and I wasn't a fan of the hero-based RTS style of Warcraft III.
I'd much rather praise a company like Konami, which is consistently released several series' worth of amazing products.
blakk
friends you wasting your time and energy arguing about blizzard and thier stuff. before you post again ask yourself can a game or anything at all be good without having to be the best. it is possible and it happens all the time. and yep the guys who helped put blizzard on the map are the guys who made gwars.
EPO Bot
Now who needs innovation if there is so much polishing to do to a genre?
I agree that Starcraft is Blizzards best, but saying Diablo2, WC3 and WoW are bad games is like saying The Beatles where a terrible band: You won't find to many long time gamers who agree.
I agree that Starcraft is Blizzards best, but saying Diablo2, WC3 and WoW are bad games is like saying The Beatles where a terrible band: You won't find to many long time gamers who agree.
Doomlord_Slayermann
I think we're way off topic here. Nevertheless, Warcraft 3, in the opinion of many strategy gamers (including me) sucked. WoW, in the opinion of many MMO players (including me) sucks. Diablo 2 is undeniably awesome, really, but the other two are less universally praised.
frickett
If GW was pay to play I wouldnt be playing. I dont think a game company needs my credit card information. Never have, that is why I never played eq or wow or ffXI even though i have played all the other ones. I don't believe in the concept of buying a game, only to pay for it again every month. I think that is just a way for game companies to rip you off. If you own the game, you should be able to play the game. Fee free.
Superdarth
Indeed,i have my opinions about blizz but this is no place to argue,lets get back ontopic and leave the fanboi V.S hater discussion behind
EPO Bot
Yet the communities of all Blizzards games continue to thrive anyway.Despite the "godawfulness" of the games themselves.
Ahem: Point was, introducing fees in Guildwars would be fatal. And then there would be tons of VERY pissed players who would never buy another Anet game. Bad bad idea...
Ahem: Point was, introducing fees in Guildwars would be fatal. And then there would be tons of VERY pissed players who would never buy another Anet game. Bad bad idea...
Cherno
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by blakk
Sure we got addicted to the pve side of prophecies, but the game wasn’t designed around that.
|
Superdarth
I agree with epo on the fees part,the first part of his post..*points at superdarths post before this one*
gabrial heart
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Doomlord_Slayermann
This has already been beaten to death, resurrected a few times, and then beaten to death again.
Honestly, Guild Wars will essentially be PtP if they release a new chapter every few months, which is what they're doing now. |
Looking at PTP for GW will mean the death of the game, with no possible rez in sight.
led-zep
monthly fee= bye bye gw, hello wow
but then pay per content and previous chapters beng unsupported = bye bye gw, hello wow too
but then pay per content and previous chapters beng unsupported = bye bye gw, hello wow too
Curse You
I find that because Guild Wars is free once I buy it, I don't feel that I MUST play. With WoW, I would be constantly thinking, "I'm spending money and not using it" and so I would be even more addicted.
I really wonder, how can Arena Net run their servers from just selling game copies, and yet Blizzard has to charge everyone who plays? It seems to me that they might not be using all that money for the servers, or their servers are stupidly expensive.
I really wonder, how can Arena Net run their servers from just selling game copies, and yet Blizzard has to charge everyone who plays? It seems to me that they might not be using all that money for the servers, or their servers are stupidly expensive.
Metanoia
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Doomlord_Slayermann
Please.
Guild Wars (1) is still skill-based (in PvP at least), (2) is not making "compromises" to stay "afloat", (3) is not held together by PvE players. They do indeed make changes to the game (which will become progressively less necessary as more chapters are added) to keep it balanced, but this doesn't exactly "compromise" much, except of course someones precious farming build or something that was exploiting the game for more money. If you think PvP is dead player base-wise, well, you must not PvP. |
First, don't assume I'm a PvE player just being I'm not ignorant of the fact that they make up the vast majority of the player base, and thus revenue of Guildwars. Yes, that's right, the vast majority of Guildwars players ARE PvE, that's not to say they never PvP, but they're certainly not at a serious competitive level such as GvG. The serious competitive player base isn't dead, yet. But it's certainly in decline.
Of course it's still, litterally, a skill-based game. But I never said it wasn't, did I? It's certainly not fine-tuned as they keep throwing out hundreds of unneccicary new skills, most of which are just 'filler', every 6 months. It's not healthy for a serious competitive PvP game. I'd consider that a pretty big compromise to the "finely tuned tactical skill-based PvP game" to stay "afloat" as their current business model depends on the sales of chapters, and new skills/professions sell chapters.
Edit: Curse You, WoW make an obscene profit. They even have their special "patch technology" which basically uses customer's bandwidth for patches Napster-style rather than their own. The money saved via this is generously passed on to their cust-- share holders. Seriously, they're printing money.
Ps. Doesn't WoW have a per hourly payment system? Or is it just so expensive that it's usually cheaper to pay the full $15.00/month?
Edit II: Almost forgot, WoW does actually use more bandwidth as it's a true MMO is the sense that it has a persistant world. Guildwars is also missing the Z axis, which is a money-saver, I suppose.
Kaguya
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Curse You
I find that because Guild Wars is free once I buy it, I don't feel that I MUST play. With WoW, I would be constantly thinking, "I'm spending money and not using it" and so I would be even more addicted.
I really wonder, how can Arena Net run their servers from just selling game copies, and yet Blizzard has to charge everyone who plays? It seems to me that they might not be using all that money for the servers, or their servers are stupidly expensive. |
50 bux every six months comes to 8.3 bux a month, add on any chara slots you might want to buy, and whatever tricks they have up their sleeve for the future, the price is somewhere close to WoW.
Of course the player may not buy the expansions and keep playing, but..
And of course Blizzard, or any other company running a MMO takes more money from the players than they need to run the game. The companies need to make profit, after all. You don't make profit by getting just enough money from your customers to keep the servers up.
ForgeWhelp
I played the 10 day trial of WoW for 8 days and decided that it may have been fun but not nearly enough to warrant a monthly fee. I can get all of the same content and annoyances from playing Runescape for free. Granted the graphics a a BIT lower, but for the most part it has much of the same content. I then started playing GW based upon a recommendation of a friend and thouroghly enjoy it. Would I pay monthly for it? No. I like how it is a effectivly a single player game that 'could' be played with others. But for my likings how could I even begin to think about paying a monthly for a single player game?
Yes many people like hte PvP aspect, but to me it just feel like any other multiplayer game, where there are a handful of decent players, a lot of players that play just to pwn people (rudely), and a lot of new people that just don't know what they are doing. For someone like me it is very unfun and frustrating trying to play the PvP. So I stick to PvE with the occasion guild-mate and enjoy the game quite a bit.
Yes many people like hte PvP aspect, but to me it just feel like any other multiplayer game, where there are a handful of decent players, a lot of players that play just to pwn people (rudely), and a lot of new people that just don't know what they are doing. For someone like me it is very unfun and frustrating trying to play the PvP. So I stick to PvE with the occasion guild-mate and enjoy the game quite a bit.
Mithie
See, the thing with Guild Wars is: with all these expansions, YOU, the player, have the choice of not buying them. If you stop paying for your next month of WoW fix, guess what? You can't play anymore. But, in Guild Wars, after the FPE, you find Cantha's not for you, hey, guess what, you don't have to shell out money for it! You'll still be able to play with the features you've paid for in Prophecies.
Doomlord_Slayermann
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Metanoia
Please? Do you even know what you're talking about?
First, don't assume I'm a PvE player just being I'm not ignorant of the fact that they make up the vast majority of the player base, and thus revenue of Guildwars. Yes, that's right, the vast majority of Guildwars players ARE PvE, that's not to say they never PvP, but they're certainly not at a serious competitive level such as GvG. The serious competitive player base isn't dead, yet. But it's certainly in decline. Of course it's still, litterally, a skill-based game. But I never said it wasn't, did I? It's certainly not fine-tuned as they keep throwing out hundreds of unneccicary new skills, most of which are just 'filler', every 6 months. It's not healthy for a serious competitive PvP game. I'd consider that a pretty big compromise to the "finely tuned tactical skill-based PvP game" to stay "afloat" as their current business model depends on the sales of chapters, and new skills/professions sell chapters. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Metanoia
It's true that their original dream of a finely tuned tactical skill-based game is all but dead.
|
ArenaNet is getting better at balancing their game as it progresses, and the new skills reflect this. Just because you can't think of a use for them does not make them "filler". If we actually start seeing game-unbalancing new content (that ArenaNet doesn't fix) in new chapters, then yes, of course the game will die. The fact that it hasn't yet is evidence enough that it has yet to be unbalanced.
Sir Skullcrasher
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by blakk
Nope, this is not one of those threads that bashes anyone. I have been playing the game from day one and enjoy it still. What I am saying is that I think that as great as GW is, the pay to play option forces the game to become competitive with the current spat of PTP games like..well you know the ones in talking about.
Anet in my unlearned opinion is in between a rock and a hard place. Sure we got addicted to the pve side of prophecies, but the game wasn’t designed around that. So it seems that anet has to reevaluate and recreate a portion of the game that was never meant to be at the forefront. Again this is my speculation and opinion only A good company listens to the demands of the people (within reason) and tried to give its customers what they want. The pve folks wants to see anet push the envelope it seems to bring us as close as possible to getting all the goodies of a ptp game without having to ptp. Sure gw wasn’t designed to be pve, But I wonder what would have happened if it was. Even with that in mind prophecies was a very good pve experience, i just wonder what anet would do if they had the resources of a ptp game at their disposal. I cant control what anyone will say or do in response to this post, I can only say that my thought is clear and not intended to flame or get into the "this is better than that argument" its simply if anet designed gw to be as played equally as pve and pvp, I wonder what would have produced. Personally I think that product would have revolutionized the gaming world as much as anets business model for gw did. |
Bane of Worlds
extra profit=motivation and is true for most people IRL
Pay to Play could bring extra motivation, more content for GW, and the extra revenue to start up another game.
Pay to Play could bring extra motivation, more content for GW, and the extra revenue to start up another game.
I pwnd U
If i remember correctly i do believe Gaile Gray said that GW will never be a PtP game. I could be wrong but i seem to remember that question coming up during a Factions preview weekend and her saying that GW will not become PtP. But like i said i could be wrong.
ibex333
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kaguya
It has been pointed out many times, that you are playing as much per month for playing GW, as you would be paying to play WoW.
50 bux every six months comes to 8.3 bux a month, add on any chara slots you might want to buy, and whatever tricks they have up their sleeve for the future, the price is somewhere close to WoW. Of course the player may not buy the expansions and keep playing, but.. And of course Blizzard, or any other company running a MMO takes more money from the players than they need to run the game. The companies need to make profit, after all. You don't make profit by getting just enough money from your customers to keep the servers up. |
I agree with Curse You 100%.
One does not pay as much per month playing GW, as they would be paying to play WoW.
And, one does not pay 50 bucks for GW every 6 months, because GW expantions are NOT released every 6 months. At least it hasnt been done yet.
As for the character slots, I dont know about you, but that's plenty for me, FOR THE PRICE. And tricks? What tricks? Even if there is trickery, there's definately not as much as there is in the case of greedy Blizzard.
I'm glad GW doesnt have monthly fees. It is THE reason why I bought it in the first place. For the price, it offers more than enough fun and entertainment.
I cannot pay the monthly fees for WoW because I find it too expencive.
$15x12months=$180(new nice video card, or motherboard, or processor, or a new video game like Elder Scrolls:Oblivion)
vs.
about $100 per year for GW, mabe less...(AND IT'S MINE FOREVER)
The other thing about monthly fees that I HATE is the concept of it...
I also believe, like Curse You, that because Guild Wars is free once I buy it, I don't feel that I MUST play. With WoW, I would be constantly thinking, "I'm spending money and not using it" and so I would be even more addicted.
Paying for my ISP is the same thing. But the internet is so much more important and useful than playing WoW.(which is why that's different)
And Curse You made a good point: "How can Arena Net run their servers from just selling game copies, and yet Blizzard has to charge everyone who plays?"
Another annoying thing is there's the contract which i cannot just cancel instantly. I have to call them, or go online, and go through the process of cancellation. I hate doing this kind of stuff. Call me a freak, but I hate credit cards, contracts, loans, paying per month, financing, etc. It is for this reason that I either pay the whole price right away, or I dont buy "it" unless I have the money to buy it straight up.
Ninna
GW players pay much cheaper than WoW
18 Months of playing Guild Wars
- Prophecies, Factions $100.00 (assuming buying GW on release)
- 3 extra slots $30.00
======================
approx total price: $130
18 months of playing WoW
- World of Warcraft: $50.00 (assuming buying WoW when 1st released)
- 15.00/mo or 13/mo if you buy 6 months in chunks ($225)
======================
approx total price: $275 (*double* the cost of what Ive spent on GW)
both games have an expansion due this year, that will cost you another $50.00 (Nightfall/Burning Crusade)
the most critical difference is
- GW players dont have to pay anything to keep playing content they already bought
18 Months of playing Guild Wars
- Prophecies, Factions $100.00 (assuming buying GW on release)
- 3 extra slots $30.00
======================
approx total price: $130
18 months of playing WoW
- World of Warcraft: $50.00 (assuming buying WoW when 1st released)
- 15.00/mo or 13/mo if you buy 6 months in chunks ($225)
======================
approx total price: $275 (*double* the cost of what Ive spent on GW)
both games have an expansion due this year, that will cost you another $50.00 (Nightfall/Burning Crusade)
the most critical difference is
- GW players dont have to pay anything to keep playing content they already bought
Metanoia
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Doomlord_Slayermann
No, serious PvPers do not make up the majority of the GW population but that is not at all what you said in your original post.
Yes, you did say it was no longer a skill-based game, although from your second post it is evident that that was not the meaning of your first. ArenaNet is getting better at balancing their game as it progresses, and the new skills reflect this. Just because you can't think of a use for them does not make them "filler". If we actually start seeing game-unbalancing new content (that ArenaNet doesn't fix) in new chapters, then yes, of course the game will die. The fact that it hasn't yet is evidence enough that it has yet to be unbalanced. |
"Yes, you did say it was no longer a skill-based game, although from your second post it is evident that that was not the meaning of your first."
I apologise, I should have explained it better the first time. Although, I don't see the point of replying with "but I didn't understand the first time". Feigning ignorance is no way to prove a point, assuming you have one.
"Just because you can't think of a use for them does not make them "filler"."
Izzy himself has acknowledged the plethora of 'useless' skills. Insinuating that I am merely inept for not finding a situation where Savage Pounce is more useful than Beastial Pounce is rather obtuse.