If you are going for a 31 point build (i.e., to get to the top skill of the tree), then you usually stick with one tree until you get 31 points, then move on to other trees. This is because most of the most important skills are usually in the higher tiers and getting the top skill ability usually has a large benefit. If you are not going the full 31 point build, you still probably want to focus on one tree first because you will want the synergy obtained from all the skills in your primary tree. Likewise because the upper tiers usually contain important skills, you most likely want to get to those as quickly as possible. On the other hand, especially if you are giving up some aspects of one tree to get something in another, it is best to look at all the skills you are going to ultimately get and determine how important each one is to you, and prioritize from there.

Oh, please! He posted the "open letter" as "from your unofficial playerbase." In doing so, he is strongly suggesting he is speaking for all of us, not just that he is one person stating an opinion that others may agree with. So, no, I don't agree, and, no, I don't appreciate him trying to give his opinion the weight of the entire community.

Hmmm ... I wonder why they may be a little reluctant about sharing their plans. It couldn't be that if they tell people what they have planned, and it turns out that they cannot implement it when they wanted to, that some segment of the player base will act like this was something promised or that they were lying about it, now could it? No. Certainly there can be no negative ramifications of sharing what you are working on. No one would ever throw it back in their faces. I mean, come on. MMO players are the most understanding, most mature people on the face of the Earth. What could they lose?

The idea of an auction system is fine, but not the way MMOs generally implement it. The problem is that, in a real auction, the auctioneer doesn't just take bids; he determines if there are any more offers coming in. Once he feels no one is going to place another bid, he ends the auction. In an MMO auction system, there is no auctioneer to decide if more bids are forthcoming. They typically place an artificial end to the bidding by means of a set timer. Once that timer expires, all bidding ceases whether people are actively bidding or not. The problem is that this encourages an abuse of the system because people know that any bid made before the last few moments of the auction is a wasted bid. This is because, unlike a real system where the highest bid is the last bid, this system makes the last bid the highest bid (i.e., even if someone places a higher bid one millisecond too late, the bid just before the timer expires wins). Thus, only bid that matters is the last bid, so people won't even bother making a legitimate offer early in the bidding process (say, in the first day of a two day auction). They just wait until the last few moments of an auction and place an incrementally higher minimum bid hoping that no one else will be able to bid before the timer expires. Thus, you are no longer working an auction system, but a time lottery. In fact, this kind of system discourages a true competitive bidding system by rewarding people for holding off their bid so that no one can bid against them and force them to place a higher bid in return. It all comes down to whomever is fortunate enough to press the bid button last, not who was willing to outbid other players. The last bid wins the auction even if there were thousands of players willing to pay more. I am completely against any auction system that does not address this issue. No auction system should be implemented unless the timer for the end of the auction extends each time someone makes a bid within the last minute or so of the auction. How ever long this buffer period is, the timer should extend a reasonable amount of time to give people a chance to review the latest bid and place a counter bid, and it should keep extending until no one bids within that same buffer period of the new end time. As long as higher bids keep coming in, the auction keeps going. Once bidding stops, the auction ends. People can still make minimum bid raises, but they are not rewarded for doing so by having lucky timing stop any further competing bids, and items will have a chance to sell at legitimate price.

While I would support a longer time frame, those claiming that the 2-day limit is an artificial barrier are simply wrong. There are a lot of factors involved. First, developers use both a time limit and the requirement of a deposit to help stop people from using the market as extra bank space. Without those, people would just post things on the market for outrageous prices no one would pay and leave them there, freeing up bank/inventory space. Imposing limits and deposits makes that much less workable. Second, forcing sellers to repost their wares periodically forces them to re-evaluate the price of an item that has not sold. Without this forced time limit, they can leave an overpriced item on the market indefinitely. That both clutters the market with overpriced items and causes a false impression of the selling price of items for both buyers and new sellers. If the seller feels their asking price is fair, they can simply repost the item at the same price. On the other hand, being forced to repost will give them a chance to realize that, if it didn't sell at this price the last three times they posted it, it probably isn't the right price. This forces them to decide if they want to sell the item at a lower price or vendor it or give it to someone. If they lower the price and repost it, it is good for the market by having it more realistically priced. If they vendor it or give it to someone, it is good for the market by lowering the supply to a more realistic level. Could the period be longer? I have no problem with it being a bit longer as two days seems a bit short. However, the idea that there should be no limit or that the limit is some kind of unjustified barrier is simply wrong. Oh, and WoW is not the only MMO to maintain a 2-day post limit. LotRO does as well, or at least it used to.

You are simply incorrect. The first step they took towards rock bottom was going Free to Play and adding Microtransactions (with the microtransactions being the key element). That is why I canceled my lifetime subscription the very day they announced it. I didn't even wait until they implemented it. I knew they would do this kind of thing. The issue to which you refer is simply the inevitable result of them going with a microtransaction model. Once a company figures out people are willing to buy their way to items or advantages in the game, the only question left is how much they can add before people leaving the game costs them more money than people willing to play this model will give them. This will always lead to adding things like that and always lead to adding things that cannot be obtained in the game so that the only way you can get them is by spending more money. Dream if you will about Arenanet's "integrity," but the lack of integrity is in the player base, not the companies providing the content. It is inevitable that if their competion is attracting and retaining players and making money doing these things, they will too. I quit LotRO when they announced they were adding microtransactions. I won't go back to WoW or EQ2 because they added it. I won't even consider playing Diablo III. I will not give my money to companies who pursue this model, or any similar model where outside resources other than the player's time and talent affect what they get in the game. If this game adds microtransactions, whether they go free to play or not, I will instantly cancel my subscription.

The fact that it is very easy to make money in this game has far more to do with the lack of traction Gold Sellers get in this game that your perceived lack of success the game has.

First, since Bioware has not disclosed the actual development costs and since industry analysts estimate the cost to be more likely between 150 million and 200 million, your point is off, cost-wise, as much as 50 - 100% too high. More importantly, by contrasting the total cost of the game and the amount of spacebar pushing you perceive, you are suggesting that all that money was wasted because you perceive that people are not bothering with experiencing the voice acting. Grossly over estimating the total cost then falsely suggesting that all that money was spent on voice acting is highly disingenuous. Even without that, your premise is absurd. Yes, people spacebar through voice-overs they have seen before. Guess what, people spacebar (or whatever the mechanism) through content they have read before in other games. Those who would spacebar through the acting they have not seen/heard yet are the same people who spacebar through text based quests that they have not seen before. In fact, I would venture to say that it is far more likely that someone would spacebar through a quest dialog they have not seen before on games with text based presentations. Thus, if the fact that people spacebar through stuff they have seen before and if a minority hitting the spacebar through everything means this was a waste, the you have to also conclude that text based presentations are a waste as well. Is it really wasted? Ironically, just last night, I was playing a different game, and it, of course, is primarily text based in its quest presentations, and what few times there is a voice over, it is presented with a still "picture" of the NPC. While I was playing it, I couldn't help buf think how primitive the whole thing felt compared to SW:TOR. So, no, the money spent on the voice acting was not a waste. In fact, I would suspect that there will be more and more of a trend to implementing this in games as it does add a lot to the flavor of a game.

I honestly don't remember the fight, but I don't recall dying to it as a Gunnery Commando, so it is doable.

As long as you have the option to allow same class characters in class stories set in options, it doesn't matter. You both may need it set, but if you go ahead and set it yourself, you shouldn't be prevented from getting into someone else's instance if they, too, have it set.

Better yet, I want to know why does he pull out this mystery pistol in some circumstances? For instance, at the end of the final cutscene for the final boss in Explosive Conflict, he steps forward, pulls out this pistol, and points it at a three story tall, armored walker-of-death. When that happens, I can't help but think of the scene from Blazing Saddles: Honestly, wouldn't the big friggin' autocannon strapped to his back be a slightly better choice? At any rate, I guess I will just have to assume that he is borrowing Elara's for the time being.

I don't consider this a problem, personally, because finding my character kneeling when I log doesn't bother me. However, I am not sure the so-called problem is solved by putting my pet away before logging off since I frequently find my character logging in while kneeling and his pet is not out. The only caveat to that would be that the bug, if it is one, could be that he had a pet out when he logged at one point and that it is not showing up when he logs back in, but the game thinks it is still out. I will try summoning and dismissing the pet next time I am on and then log out without the pet out to test if it still happens. However, I am fairly certain that I have not logged out with the pet out since, even though I like having them, I typically get bored fairly quickly with them when they are out so I almost never have them out for more than a few minutes at a time. Likewise, I don't recall having resummoned the pet since the last time I dismissed him. At any rate, I will test it out, but to be honest, I don't think this necessarily solves the so-called problem since my pet is not out, and I am fairly certain I have not had him out since the last time I dismissed him.

Generally, the clock starts when you register the game, so if you registered the game on December 26th, your free play time would have been ticking down between 12/26/2011 and 1/26/2012. If your game time expires in 9 days, and you purchased a 60 day game card in March, that suggests that you applied that game card on or about March 17th, which would pay for your March to April and your April to May play time. Looking at it from that perspective, the numbers add up: Dec - Jan for your "free" 30 days and Mar - May for your 60 day game card. The issue I have with that is that game companies generally don't allow you to register the game until you enter a payment method so that they can continue your subscription automatically after the first 30 days expires. With a credit card, you can cancel before the 30 days is elapsed so you don't get billed after the initial 30 days, but you still have to enter the card to get the game registered. I have never used a game card, but I was under the impression that the same restriction appied -- that is, you would have had to enter a game card number at the time you registered in order to complete the registration. Since you said you waited until game cards became available before you started, I would have thought you would have had to wait until March to complete the registration, and, therefore, the "free" time would not have started until March. That should mean March - April would have been the "free" time, and your game card would be paying for April - June, which is clearly what you were expecting. The other possibility is that they only credited you with a 30 day game card or that they only charge the game card a month at a time. I find either of these things to be unlikely, though. Their database should properly register the type of card, and I would expect them to treat a 60 day game card the same as purchasing a 2 month subscription (i.e., that your time would be credited for the full, non-refundable once it is applied, 60 days, not one month at a time), so you should have been credited with 60 days either way. Unfortunately from your description, it sounds like you did complete the registration in December, which suggests you were credited with free game time then, but you just simply never logged on in that time frame. Since the time starts from the point you register, not from the time you first login, you may be out of luck. This is something you are going to have to talk to Customer Service to straighten out. Since game companies typically do not allow you to register until you enter a valid (game or credit) card number, you may have some leverage. You may also have a case to argue if you can show that you never logged in during Dec - Jan and that their registration process made you think your time would not start until you got the game card. However, be aware that, if they made it clear your game time was starting in December, even if you did not login, they are not legally obligated to credit you with more time. It would be good for them to cut you some slack, but that time may be lost. Good luck with it.

I have made that point several times. In fact, I made the point before the game went live. In the pre-release forums, I stated that it was inevitable that someone would eventually use this trite "paying to play beta" comment after the game went live. It took no clairvoyance on my part. I have seen this same comment with the same justifications about the same kinds of bugs in every game I have played (this makes my eighth MMO), so it was guaranteed that someone would say it and that it would be repeated many times no matter what. It took only a couple of weeks for the first one, and I congratulated that poster for being the first to use that phrase in this game and for his utter lack of originality. In either that post or another that came up a month later, I even quoted a recent post from WoW's forum proving it is still being said even there, so I have no doubt you have seen yet another one there recently.

Please, drop the politically correct "evil corporation" mentality. As I have stated before, I will not play a game that offers microtransaction, even for fluff items. However, you, yourself point out the problem. It is people willing to spend money to buy things rather than earn them by actually playing the game that makes this a pipe dream. Corporations are not forcing this on anyone. The are simply providing a product some people are willing to buy. If people would stop playing games that have microtransactions and stop justifying it with "Well, it is only fluff items," companies would stop offering these things. Put the blame where it belongs, on the consumer.