Curse

Snow Bunny · Jun 11, 2008, 06:47 PM // 18:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Way Out

FYI. DEAD MEANS NO NEW CONTENT (Anet has stated NO NEW CONTENT)

Starcraft is the same.

Hi.

Starcraft is legendary for being one of the most (if not top) competitive games of all time.

There's a reason it's a national sport in Korea. It's anything BUT dead.

Guild Wars, through the GWWC and GWFC, could have achieved the same had it upheld balance.

But it didn't, and continued to degenerate.

englitdaudelin · Jun 11, 2008, 06:49 PM // 18:49

Great posts.
/signed blahdy blah.

The game looks, feels, plays way differently now than the first day I bought it. And I think, in retrospect, it's not a "fault" of anyone's, but a weird "mission creep" that's come along

here's a definition)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_creep

The game was wildly successful, no doubt, at even luring former NON-RPG gamers, to come play. But success bred its own problems--the need to add to success, to mess with the formula-- with the BMP, with PvE-only skills, with the addition of classes and their power creep (possible 41 damage to 3 foes, no pressing a skill required, anyone?).

And now we get the long slow outraged dying howls of a community that's uncertain, that's PHILOSOPHICALLY concerned with the game as they know it--concerned not with the economy, or the weapon skins, or the skills, but the FUNDAMENTAL idea underpinning the game. Every Ursan thread, every paragon thread, every economy thread, every title thread, every end of game as we know it thread, every farming thread, every mission thread, every PvP thread, every quest thread...all address, at their heart, the following concern: Does Skill still beat Time and Grind?

Sometimes this is an explicit gripe: I don't want to grind for a skill effect. Sometimes it's explicit advice: Max your [title here] and use [title skill]. Sometimes it's a direct aversion: I refuse to use...

And so, like the very definition of mission creep--We fear a game we love has tried to do too much. And there's usually just one outcome to a mission crept too far: failure at the drastically changed objectives, and bitterness that what had started so well, could go so wrong.

DarkNecrid · Jun 11, 2008, 06:50 PM // 18:50

Haha, I actually skipped over the StarCraft quote.

ya StarCraft is dead, it just saved a country from bankruptcy, is a national sport in a country, has (last time I checked) 10 TV channels dedicated to it world wide, cereal, etc.

I'm pretty sure Super Mario Bros. isn't dead either. These things can become timeless if they are genuinely excellent games.

**cosyfiep** · Jun 11, 2008, 06:53 PM // 18:53

having reread sha's letter (and part of that thread) and then this one....

welll let me just say...anet didnt reply to sha's letter..(and the thread is closed so no way to now either)...and there is a dang pretty high likelihood that this thread will get the same response....NONE.

Since Gaile left there has been a great decrease in responses from their team....I guess they have given up repeating their recent mantra "we are working on gw2"....

and with that...I will say again...I wont be buying gw2...so they have all the money from me that they will get which means they will listen to me like we listen to little children who say the sky is falling---

it was a great idea to try to get some feedback to anet---however, (2 responses here---the sarcastic one--there is just too much to read or the other one--they really dont care)....I dont see an answer forthcoming anytime soon....
(you can really do foundry with a 600 smiter? will need to try that one---).....
good post avarre...

Ravious · Jun 11, 2008, 06:55 PM // 18:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by englitdaudelin

The game looks, feels, plays way differently now than the first day I bought it. And I think, in retrospect, it's not a "fault" of anyone's, but a weird "mission creep" that's come along

here's a definition)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_creep

Why have I not heard that term before? *glares at the internets*

That is exactly what happened, but as I stated above I think some of the creep was entirely experimental.

I am confident that ArenaNet now knows who plays their games because they have people like Jeff Strain, James Phinney, and that other Sacrifice guy (I'm sorry I forgot your name Sacrifice guy, but you made one of my favorite games ever... so that should sooth the burn a bit) who are intelligent game developers.

The Way Out · Jun 11, 2008, 06:56 PM // 18:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkNecrid

Haha, I actually skipped over the StarCraft quote.

ya StarCraft is dead, it just saved a country from bankruptcy, is a national sport in a country, has (last time I checked) 10 TV channels dedicated to it world wide, cereal, etc.

I'm pretty sure Super Mario Bros. isn't dead either. These things can become timeless if they are genuinely excellent games.

I don't care who it saved, it is still dead. I didn't say the game sucked. I didn't say the game was horrible. It is a dead game.

netniwk · Jun 11, 2008, 06:57 PM // 18:57

We could hold some massive strike to get some attention
(doubt they will note drop in active playerbasse of 0.2% though)

FlamingMetroid · Jun 11, 2008, 06:59 PM // 18:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Way Out

I don't care who it saved, it is still dead. I didn't say the game sucked. I didn't say the game was horrible. It is a dead game.

There are probably more people still playing Starcraft, than half of the games recently released. It is an old game, not a dead game, there is a difference.

moriz · Jun 11, 2008, 07:00 PM // 19:00

Quote:

I lol'd at this.

Diablo II has severe server downtime and gets hacked more than any other game I know. It was a great game back when I owned a PIII. The game died. Yes people still play it, however, the game is effectively dead.

FYI. DEAD MEANS NO NEW CONTENT (Anet has stated NO NEW CONTENT)

Starcraft is the same.

Blizzard's epic game atm is WoW. Guess what... a subscription fee!!!

however, starcraft is effectively not dead. instead, it is a gigantic cash cow. even a full 11 years after its release, it is STILL making money. in fact, it probably makes more money than guildwars. it has attracted a fanatical worldwide following. it has 3rd party tournaments being run almost every month it seems. in korea, it has TV stations dedicated in broadcasting games.

how much does blizzard invest in starcraft nowadays? zilch, except to upkeep battle.net which they're doing anyways. how much money are they making from it? millions (if not billions). the key here is that starcraft is player-driven, with player-driven content that will never become stale. blizzard has effectively created a game that feeds itself, and continues to make them $$$ in the process.

the sad part to all this, is that GW has every potential to become such a game. it has an extremely deep pvp structure that is unheard of in mmos even today. it even has a built-in tournament systems. if a 3rd party wants to organize a tournament, all it takes is a few phone calls to anet for it to happen. and yet, it didn't. the only party that can be blamed for this is anet, because of their poor management and inane changes. if anet managed their game properly, we can see by what's going on with starcraft, that time can be NO FACTOR in a game's demise.

will starcraft die one day? most definately. however, that death will be brought about by starcraft II and the mass exodus it will induce. however, it will be the "riding off gloriously into the sunset" kind of death, not the "pathetic long whimpering sob" that is the kind of deathpath that GW is currently on.

Inde · Jun 11, 2008, 07:01 PM // 19:01

Just a reminder to please stay on topic and contributing. This is not a thread about starcraft, blizzard, or guru.

DreamWind · Jun 11, 2008, 07:13 PM // 19:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Way Out

I don't care who it saved, it is still dead. I didn't say the game sucked. I didn't say the game was horrible. It is a dead game.

Your definition of dead is ridiculous. By your definition, every offline game ever released is dead on release date.

Epic games never die. Guild Wars had the potential to be in this category. I believe people like Avarre make these type of posts because they believed that.

Rift · Jun 11, 2008, 07:15 PM // 19:15

Firstly I'd like to say that this post isn't directed at anyone in particular, especially not Avarre. However, heed this warning: I will be very blunt, and if the following strikes an internal chord, prehaps it is because there is some truth to the statement.

I feel the environment is being increasingly poisoned by arm chair developers and jaded has-beens that dictate, through a wrongful sense of entitlement, what should be happening to this game. I think I could count on two hands the people who could actually bring constructive and valuable feedback without being biased by selfish motives, and possibly on one hand those who are still active in the game and not ivory tower theorycrafters.

Working in the software industry, I know there is a big push to work colser to clients, closer to communities, but sifting through piles upon piles of daily bile and justifying every decision is just not a good use of development time. Not every idea out there fits in the design, not every suggestion is technically, timely or economically feasable, and certainly not everyone has the domain knowledge to be making these calls.

On the topic of opening up to the community, everytime they have tried to open up to this particular comunity, it has always somehow backfired. Just look at the aggro Izzy got (and is still getting) for saying he enjoyed playing TF2 when it came out. People fail to realize that these individuals are just normal people after all, normal people with a passion for gaming.

In fact, it's not uncommon for developers in this industry to put in 80 hour weeks. When GW is your job, and you know all its intricacies months before it is released to the public, it is normal to look for release mechanisms elsewhere. But you can rest assured that their design meetings are still filled with passionate disagreements about vision and direction of the game.

Releasing a successful game in this industry is rare. Creating a game with the success level of GW is even rarer. They must have done something right. Sure there are deficiencies and re-arrangements due to the changing landscape in market demands, but people still need to learn to trust their vision, and see the game for what it brought them -- hours upon hours of entertainment, friends and fun.

mafia cyborg · Jun 11, 2008, 07:18 PM // 19:18

inde
dont try and look for an excuse to close the thread.
the time has come for the silent majority to speak out.

YOU pushed for pvp/pve divide, consumables , pve skills and so on.....when it was not what WE wanted.

Snow Bunny · Jun 11, 2008, 07:19 PM // 19:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inde

Just a reminder to please stay on topic and contributing. This is not a thread about starcraft, blizzard, or guru.

Inde, is it not comparable though?
Despite the complete difference in game genre, Starcraft and Guild Wars share the seed of potential for serious replayability as well as highly competitive Player versus Player action.
Both are free to play, and where starcraft is capitalizing on the decisions of its developers 10 years after release, Guild Wars is struggling to attract new players 3 years after release.

So much potential has been wasted, that's the sad thing.

Also, on a slightly related note - where's the CR been lately. I mean, is Regina the CR manager or not? Gaile's departure (for better or worse) has left us with a rather tight-lipped and absent alternative.

Inde · Jun 11, 2008, 07:20 PM // 19:20

I didn't have any intention on closing the thread mafia cyborg. I give reminders frequently in long threads such as this. And Snow Bunny, it is indeed related. I meant to the discussion and debate following on whether Starcraft is a dead game... which is not really the point of this thread....

I'm also confused on who you mean by "YOU" mafia cyborg? Care to clarify? Are you referring to the community in general? Which would kind of contradict.

Rocky Raccoon · Jun 11, 2008, 07:29 PM // 19:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snow Bunny

Inde, is it not comparable though?
Despite the complete difference in game genre, Starcraft and Guild Wars share the seed of potential for serious replayability as well as highly competitive Player versus Player action.
Both are free to play, and where starcraft is capitalizing on the decisions of its developers 10 years after release, Guild Wars is struggling to attract new players 3 years after release.

So much potential has been wasted, that's the sad thing.

Also, on a slightly related note - where's the CR been lately. I mean, is Regina the CR manager or not? Gaile's departure (for better or worse) has left us with a rather tight-lipped and absent alternative.

May I see your figures upon which you base this statement? When you make such statements you should have the figures to back this up. So please may I see them.

-Sonata- · Jun 11, 2008, 07:32 PM // 19:32

***Warning: I'm long winded. tl;dr'ers just skip now***

About 90% of the Topic post I can agree with. The rest I have a tendancy to shake my head at for various reasons, but to explain them is just splitting hairs and would cause a vicious circle of "back-and-forth".

There is an area though I would like to respond to with all due respect and for the health of the discussion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avarre

1. Firstly, go ahead with Guild Wars 2. You need that fresh start so badly, and if you take all the mistakes you made in what can only be called ‘trial and error development’ in Guild Wars 1 and learn from them, you could release a game that fixes the problems of Guild Wars from the ground up, exactly what needed to be done but was, perhaps, beyond possibility in the original. Keep all the mistakes in mind, because they are what will help you avoid the design flaws that hurt now.

Any existing game, online or not, that is moving in the direction of a series (FF, GTA, Unreal, Halo; the list goes on and on for both console and PC/online) needs to refresh itself. All games in a series are a learning curve from a developers standpoint. You learn what works, what doesn't work, what succeeds at high levels and what falls flat on its face. This doesn't change in Guild Wars.

We all know Guild Wars has made its mistakes. That's not a secret and it never will be. When Guild Wars 2 arrives it will not be without its mistakes. No matter how much we, the players, in whatever game we play, desire to have a "Perfect game", the perfect game will never exist. A players perfect game only exists in our heads. One that has no errors, has all the features and designs we imagine in our heads, and the one we can alter at will, or request.

While you mention that Anet is hurting players faith in their product for Guild Wars 2, I respectfully disagree from my standpoint. This is not to state I agree with recent changes in the game. However, it's a signal to me that developers are figuring out parts of the puzzle. It has occurred to me that some changes are done knowingly (see your Ursan example) as a way of gauging the impact for knowledge in future development.

None of us, to this day, know anything about what Guild Wars 2 will be. I've stated that many times. So to say I won't buy it, or I won't play it, or that the current state of Guild Wars 1 is destroying my faith isn't true - for me. It could very well turn out to be a flop with a fanbase solidified only by hype (see LOTRO that, as far as I'm concerned really dropped the ball. AoC, as well, has not lived up to its hype either, but it's long-term success is unknown being so new). It could also be the best thing to come to online gaming in many years.

Much like Final Fantasy games there are some I dislike with a passion. However, previous titles do not prevent me from, at minimum, experiencing the newest release.

Quote:

2. Community relations. You need this. Players need to understand why you are doing things, and they need to see clearly what you attempt to achieve, right from the start, with the game. This will increase our trust in you as a developer, and make us more willing to help and provide community feedback regarding changes. This was brought out in Sha Noran’s letter, and it needs to be said again.

I think it's fair to say, from where I sit, they already have this. From CR interactions here on GWG, or on the wiki. Also it should point out that on most days, at least once, I see a Red name on the viewers lists in threads. However, there is a flipside to the Community Relations coin - The community itself.

Often, a large group of players (not all, but a significant portion) will take any CR post, or bite of information, as a sole reason for flame-baiting, or twisting words. Far too often, especially on this forum, CR posts turned into nothing but "Lost in translation" discussions because some choose to either a) not read the information or b) Don't care about the information.

We bare equal responsability in Community Relations. 50% on Anet, in providing us with information in the most clear and responsible manner as possible. 50% on us for relaying our concerns in a respectful manner (see your OP).

It's easy to point out Anet's fault in dropping the ball in some area's, but we the community also drop the ball as well on failing to communicate with clarity and reason in some of our replies.

Gaile was often dragged in the mud for being too involved in the community. Regina has been dragged around for not being involved enough. When they do post it is often turned into a conspiracy theory and the twisting of information on our part. When they don't post it's more conspiracy theories.

I would like to state that this does not mean Anets side of CR isn't without fault, but to err is human. The point I just want to make is when a community such as ours has a CR team, both sides have equal share in the communication.

Your post, if anything, is a clear example of how to effectively share that communication in a manner that is enjoyable to read from all sides and perspectives.

Quote:

3. Organize community feedback. Devs spend time developing, and maybe not playing the game. Ok. Most of you probably, if not definitely, are not spending the same amount of time understanding and excelling at Guild Wars as parts of your playerbase. Find out which parts of the community are experienced and have valuable feedback, and listen to it, because these are the people who know the game better than you do and want to make it a success. Do not just pick GWO or GWG members that just have the highest post count.

This is one portion I have a tendancy to disagree with greatly. For starters, unless any of us are sitting in Anets offices on a daily basis, any statement on what they're doing is nothing more than just assumption. It is no more fair for me to agree with your statement on what they do on a daily basis as it would be for me to state what you do on a daily basis.

It is true that they don't spend the same amount of hours playing as we do, but that's expected. Their job isn't to play the game as much as we do. They job is to keep it breathing with the resources and capabilities at their disposal.

Also I disagree with finding out who the most experienced portion. If we're going to relate back to your second point about community relations, then that means everyone. A community is not just our most experienced, it also includes new players, middle of the road players, PvP only players, PVE only players, young players, old players, females, males, from all Countries in service.

Yes, a player who has been here since Alpha is going to know more about the game, but to cater to only their feedback alienates another portion of the community. A veterns concern about end-game PvP issues should be treated with equal importance to that of "New-Blood" who has issues with learning curves. Both are vital customers and a parts of our community and as such both are at risk of either leaving, or staying.

In a current state of the game where player bases are already feeling neglected it would be unwise to continue that if we're seeking to remedy the situation. All players should have equal voice.

In the end, once again, Anet has to find middle ground and that's not easy to do with a large community.

Organization of feedback shouldn't be based on who plays the longest, but should be ordered on criteria as to what can be feesable in which a middle ground can be met with the resources available.

Quote:

4. Make amends with the GW1 community. You need their support, and putting all your effort into finding new ways to piss them off is not good for you. This doesn’t mean revert all changes, it means find ways to appease all the players you can to some degree. This is impossible, but you got yourselves into this situation.

I often believe some of us piss ourselves off more and just use Anet as the butcher boy excuse.

Again, I will not sit here at my desk and say Anet is perfect, hasn't done anything wrong, or questionable. They have. However, the "Cry me a Riverside" got its name for a reason. Far too often in a gaming community (and Guild Wars is not the exception) players will make mountains out of ant hills. We can't have a bug update, or a minor fix without at least a handful of players saying "3 years too late! jeeez!"

I do believe they are trying to appease as many as they can, but like you said it's impossible. How do you appease PvP, PvE, grinders, non-grinders, casuals, hardcore, title hunters, gear hunters, farmers, the slow & steady, the rush-rush, the highly adaptable and skilled, the unskilled, the players who only have 1 chapter vs. ones who have all, the 3+ year vets and the 2 month beginner all at the same time?

How do you make dozens of play styles happy and content?

Like you said and I agree; You can't.

What is a fix for one player is another thing ignored for another player. What a balance is to one player is a nerf to another. Close an exploit is a sign of caring about security to one player; to another it's "They're lazy to even let it happen". It's an endless circle that is part of every online game.

So how does Anet make amends? A letter of apology? If such a thing happened you and I both know it would turn into another GWG flame fest. Andrew Patrick made amends for the silly 3rd year incident and that turned out...well, not so well to many.

This is a sincere and honest question: How does Anet go about making amends to a community that is highly diverse?

Quote:

5. Sit down with your staff, and really, finally, work out what you want to achieve. This is the basis of developing a build in Guild Wars, and it is what you need to do – unless you know exactly what you’re aiming for, you’ll end up building the game poorly. I get the impression that your view of the game’s goal wavers, and that makes me uneasy.

Don't let it make you uneasy. Far too many games stick with a single goal in mind for years and as a result the game never changes. Even the king-kong MMO, WoW, changes its goals and ideas for the direction of their game. If a games goals don't waver, even in the slighest, the game becomes far too stagnant far too quickly.

To speak only for myself, the fact that we're in development for a second Guild Wars says to me that there is direction, some new, some old, that they want to take this franchise. I would be more worried if Guild Wars never changed anything. That would be my signal that Guild Wars 2 would be the same thing and hence pointless to even pursue.

While I don't always agree with certain changes in our current game, I do view it as a sign that Anet is willing to adapt, change, try and even take the risk of "Failing" to help improve future quality.

People often ask the questions why so many MMO's flop. It is my belief they do so, sequel or not, is beause they're unwilling to try something new and too scared to fail at a different change.

Guild Wars could have followed the same generic MMO model all its ancestors chose. 100 levels, locked in stats, skill trees, requirements on equipment, and a true "grind-fest". Instead they tried something unheard of. In a market at the time where anything short of a monthly subscription, high level style game would be your destiny to fold as a game maker, we got a game that, to this day, is mentioned in the top tier of online games.

This is something we should be proud of and not something we should be scared of. Again, I think we'd be more unsettled if Anet didn't try, success or failure, at different approaches and how they tie into their creation.

You don't always like them. I don't always like them. For all of us though it should send a signal that, at least, someone out there is trying new things, new ideas, actually experimenting and not afraid to fail at a change to gain the knowledge needed for future improvement.

Now, I'll apologise for writing such a novel, but let me close with this summary:

Avarre, I do in fact agree with most of all you've said. It's a great post and shows how members of this community can show reason, compassion, concern, and convey ideas.

While it does not, 100%, speak for me as an individual, I still applaud it.

I have to state again because I know people will just skip over everything; ADD and all - I do not always agree with changes made by Anet to this game.

I do believe Anet is learning from its errors and mistakes. With the mere invention of Guild Wars itself, Anet has shown its willingness to think outside the box, see the errors in its competition, and improve on many levels of development that other games have lacked.

While I do believe some changes made by Anet have hurt portions of this community and gameplay, I do not believe they are beyond repair, nor are they as significant as often made out to be.

We the community have our own part to play in healthy community relations. The entire burden of the apparent bad relations cannot be solely placed on Anets shoulders. We demand, far too often, that Anet must listen to us. Yet, far too often in the past, we refuse to listen to Anet when they talk to us.

Organizing feedback is a wonderful idea and I believe it's being done already. It should not be limited to one demographic and I will agree that an overhaul of that organization should be looked into. If not for our current game, but for our future game.

I've said this before; As developers, the only thing they can do is provide constant middle ground to avoid as much alienation of any given base as possible. However we have to keep in mind that all games have life cycles. As developers they can only squeeze as much life out of a single product before that cycle becomes complete.

Yes, most of us have spent well over $100 on thier product. I'm in that picture with you. However, I've gotten more than my money's worth out of those purchases. There has never, ever, been a game I've played at least once a day, even if for 20 minutes, for near 20 months.

As such, Anet is a business. A business must, without hesitation, move forward. Players are free, without cost, to cling to 3 years ago. Noone can stop you. However, Anet can't cling to Guild Wars as was 3 years ago. Their only choice is to take what they've learned, look forward, and keep moving forward to Guild Wars 2.

We often demand so much from Anet because we've spent $100+ dollars on their product. Anet has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on making that product for us without ever making a single demand on us. If there's one thing I think we do owe them, through thick and thin, is some amount of faith in what they do for the product we know they've spent years and years making for us.

Sincere thanks to those who actually read,

-Sonata

Bryant Again · Jun 11, 2008, 07:34 PM // 19:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Risky Ranger

May I see your figures upon which you base this statement? When you make such statements you should have the figures to back this up. So please may I see them.

I think he meant in terms of replayability, and how GW has lost a lot of it's veteran players yet SC has been able to retain them. But it is a very interesting point, showing that you don't need to stoop low in order to keep your game appealing. However, we are talking about two slightly different camps here.

Guild Wars has always been selling happily...which makes even less sense of why ANet had to revert the original principles of their game (the principles that sold it next to being tagged as "free to play"). Which makes even more non-sense is the people who head ANet: they're damned smart people.

Regarding "veteran players" and "nostalgia": Be careful when you coin the latter term. I want current GW to be more like the Prophecy days because it lacked all of this "junk", not because of "ye good olde days".

Ravious · Jun 11, 2008, 07:43 PM // 19:43

Yup last quarter they made more gross money for NCSoft than CoX. People are still buying Guild Wars.

sindex · Jun 11, 2008, 07:44 PM // 19:44

I think the main problem has been the critics and the hypocrisy that has come out of them. Let’s face it, the real issue here is people who play GW don’t really know what they want. Yes, there has been poor execution on A-net’s part of fixing certain features. However, there is no general consensus to how GW should be. Instead, there are too many conflicting views.

I mean does anyone remember this guy from 1up, or that person (initials are I.L.T.) from Gamespot (GW forums) who constantly degrades Guild Wars for not being like “it’s beta form of greatness?” Unfortunately, these people are taken seriously. Even the reviewers who were ticked off that EotN was not for the casual crowd are taken with the same degree of prowess about their understanding of GW. Yet some of these reviewers don’t even take what we consider a proper skill bar (case in point = "this"). This of course happened way before the bad press, when even prophecies was out there. Some people stated that the game was all about the PvP factor of the game, and PvE was just a second hand feature that should be re-tooled. Therefore, that is when A-net released Factions thinking it would create enough unification between the two. We all know that failed in the eyes of those who were interested in the PvE and PvP aspects of the game equally.

All right now, let us look at some of the other aspects of the game like the separation of PvE and PvP skills. I have seen this from the time skill balances first handed down with some major nerf’s attached to it. People still accuse that most skills within both PvP and PvE portions are absolute rubbish to use anymore (kind of true). In the last couple of months, this has been getting worse and worse. Considering what happened to such skills or features like Soul Reaping, Mystic Regeneration, Sprits giving Exhaustion, Pets not leaving exploitable corpses, and excreta.

So what was A-net’s original response to this problem? They tried several things that never seemed to appease the masses. This even included the PvE only skills that came out in, Factions, Nightfall, and EotN. However, were people who wished for this happy about the results? Nope. Everyone still either complained the PvE only skills were to powerful or the nerfs on the regular skills were to harsh. So now, they release this concept of separating certain skills out from PvE and PvP, which should make everyone happy. Wrong. Now there is to much of a huge feud to the point of everyone saying “A-net has failed us,” or “GW is dying.” It is rather depressing to see all of this. So to me it’s not all of A-net’s fault when it comes to these problems, since it comes full circle.