[merged] I want to keep using Arc Build Templates... :/ - Page 7 — Guild Wars 2 Forums

[merged] I want to keep using Arc Build Templates... :/

123457

Comments

  • Operator.2590Operator.2590 Member ✭✭✭
    edited October 18, 2019

    This entire post...was so full of incorrect information that I just...I honestly had no clue what to even say. Thanks and many props to Voltekka for doing this instead.

    "The Sun will be divided that it might not sire children. Still its children shall be Four in number, and Seven in number, and be Numberless. The Numberless shall open the way for the Seven, and the Seven shall consume the Four..."

  • ZDragon.3046ZDragon.3046 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 18, 2019

    @Taygus.4571 said:

    @ZDragon.3046 said:

    @Taygus.4571 said:

    @Hannelore.8153 said:
    I don't get why people complain about this . You are already collecting multiple gear sets so just make alts, and you can have as many builds as you want, accessible on-demand, and ArenaNet has even made it easy in recent times with all the teleport items.

    Now you can even use three builds per alt without spending anything so the build possibilities go up exponentially..

    except...most people were using legendary + arc templates. Anets version, if you swap legendary between characters, your templates get deleted.

    most people should probably have been doing what more most people do (get alt ascended gear to solve that problem.)
    An elite player can complain that a newbies dps is too low and tell them that ascended gear is ez to get yet they dont own multiple sets themselves?
    Im also pretty sure anet did not design legendary armor with the idea that you would be rapidly flip flopping it between different toons. That probably became a thing on the player side.

    Which is probably why their current design has some issues with legendary armor which could likely be fixed in future patches with a bit of work.

    These people 15+ builds...at that point, you're better having ledgendary gear....

    I suppose, but still 15 builds or more is getting pretty niche. Like i want to think thats a small % of people who reach that point. In which no anet should not design a system only around them. You design it for everyone and make adjustments down the line. One day we will know why anet didnt go down the route that arc did. I want to imagine that there is good reason as to why they didnt go that route and not just for money as so many people are bluntly claiming.

    I do agree that Anet. Probably didn't design ledgie to be regurlarly swapped between charcters..but more if/when you stopped playing a char and wanted to switch to something new.

    Well it only goes so far as light armor is only good to light armor professions etc. I think anyone willing to invest in multiple weights of legendary armor could have easily had an alt ascended sets for every build (if they wanted to) To be hones if i was doing it by hand i would rather click to put my armor on than click to take it off, put it in the bank, then put it back on thats doing too much for me personally. I loathe having to move items between characters its just super annoying for me personally. I dont have 15 builds but for the ones i do have i just hold all my gear on me and swap everything in like 20 seconds. If im gonna play another class ill wait till its properly geared (which also gives me time to learn how to play it properly in that role.) I cant speak for everyone though this is just me.

    Lets just hope anet solves the legendary armor issue (which i think they should)

  • ZDragon.3046ZDragon.3046 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Cristalyan.5728 said:
    I think this is wrong. By buying the game you have the right to play it as long as you respect the rules. The rules are inscribed in TOS. Abusing the power and taking you the right to play the game without any valid reason could lead to ... not very pleasant issues. Without both parts respecting the rules from TOS I don't think you will find too many ... adventurers buying that product.

    In my opinion, allowing ArcDPS in game (and the other one) was the moment when ANet opened the Pandora box. Now they have the result of the action.

    I didnt see this back then (and i dont use arc templates)
    But i certainly see it now and agree with you.

    I can promise you anet wont be allowing any more agreements to happen in the future after this. There were already one of the most strict in current mmos when it came to addons as it is. But after this cant see them allowing anything else just knowing how much flack and up roar its causing now and i wouldn't blame them.

  • Vinceman.4572Vinceman.4572 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @kharmin.7683 said:
    That's what opinions are.

    Things went far beyond opinions in this and other threads. If you would just have made up your opinion you wouldn't reply any further. You are also one of the people defending everything instead of saying: "This is my opinion. Period." The fun part is, you belong to those who want to have the last word which is absurd because you made your point clear. You should be done with it and being satisfied. Still, you come back to argue with those that are not satisfied at all although you know you won't change their minds due to having valid arguments. There's literally no point for you to reply any further since you were and are not able to dispel well-grounded reasons and points people have made for their own personal situation.

    R.I.P. Build Templates, 15.10.2019

  • TheGrimm.5624TheGrimm.5624 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Asum.4960 said:
    This is the same skewed view you had since the beginning though, wasn't it?
    I get that for some reason the casual/non-raider part of the community always has been highly toxic and hostile towards anything Raid related and is just taking everything they can to confirm their biases, but the lack of understanding here how unhealthy this whole situation is for that whole community is disheartening to a whole new level.

    I really don't get why this vocal casual part of the community is actively and gleefully cheering on or at least defending these misjudgements by Anet that slowly kill off entire gamemodes or most of the communities within them, be it WvW, Raids, Fractals, PvP etc., just to then eventually wonder where everyone has gone and why the shop is closing.

    Yes I will continue to side on the ToS when it comes to addons. Even in games where addons are allowed you will have cases where some will cross the line and be an exploit, seen it too many times and that leaves a bad taste over time. I am not opposed to fan content, and more in game options. I understand people not happy with costs but then, like you did here, stating that a game mode is killed off by this is where it causes people to say what!? Speak towards how it should have more features and options but don't go the world is ending route. I doubt they designed raids planning on people stopping to switch gear as they go. Players introduced that. I am not faulting them for their creativity but will say BS to say it can't be done without that. And if they begin to design in that route I think that would be a bad design idea since it would lead further down the path of there is only one way to do this.

    You make the case that causal players are toxic to raiders, well to non-raiders telling people they have to switch gear to do the content else they are doing it wrong and killing the game mode comes across as toxic raiders. And don't bring WvW/PvP into this, since I do any PvE I labeled myself as a PvXers but no, I mainly WvW. We already have the ability to run multiple builds in WvW via additional toons, this will grant us more options than we had before. WvW needs other changes and bringing that up here when we don't have other long term requests says much by itself. WvW wasn't calling for build templates, they have been talking pop balance, skill balance, alliances, maps, coverage wars, rewards and load of other things seen in the subforum.

    In short make a good case on why features need to be expanded but don't go the route of its useful to no one and it will end the game mode, when in reality the game was up and running without the feature already.

    Envy the Madman his musing when Death comes to make fools of us all.
    De Mortuis Nil Nisi Bonum.
    TheGrimm PoTBS/GW1/WAR/Rift/GW2/MWO/ESO/WoT/WoW/D2/HoTS/Civ6/CU/AoC

  • Roquen.5406Roquen.5406 Member ✭✭✭
    edited October 18, 2019

    @TheGrimm.5624 said:
    Yes I will continue to side on the ToS when it comes to addons. Even in games where addons are allowed you will have cases where some will cross the line and be an exploit, seen it too many times and that leaves a bad taste over time. I am not opposed to fan content, and more in game options. I understand people not happy with costs but then, like you did here, stating that a game mode is killed off by this is where it causes people to say what!? Speak towards how it should have more features and options but don't go the world is ending route. I doubt they designed raids planning on people stopping to switch gear as they go. Players introduced that. I am not faulting them for their creativity but will say BS to say it can't be done without that. And if they begin to design in that route I think that would be a bad design idea since it would lead further down the path of there is only one way to do this.

    But you are not siding with the ToS. On page 6 Voltekka has a quote from Chris Cleary that explains how and why Delta's dps meter AND templates were green-lit - yes green-lit, as in good to go. Are you telling me that you know the ToS better than Anet's own employees? If so that's ludicrous. The reality is that you are using your opinion as fact, despite being given evidence to the contrary. So once again, why do you keep harping on points that are not true?

    Also, the point of templates was a QoL update. Not only did Anet's version really miss the mark but players are left with no alternative as Delta is no longer usable. Once again, how were you hurt by other players having a nice QoL feature that would let them swap gear/builds with ease? Why are you so against other players being able to have all their dungeon, fractal, raid, pvp, wvw, open world, experimental builds as templates? Do you think manually swapping builds every time you want to do something different is, "challenging content"? If that's how the game keeps up its challenge...then I think there is something entirely wrong with the design.

    You make the case that causal players are toxic to raiders, well to non-raiders telling people they have to switch gear to do the content else they are doing it wrong and killing the game mode comes across as toxic raiders. And don't bring WvW/PvP into this, since I do any PvE I labeled myself as a PvXers but no, I mainly WvW. We already have the ability to run multiple builds in WvW via additional toons, this will grant us more options than we had before. WvW needs other changes and bringing that up here when we don't have other long term requests says much by itself. WvW wasn't calling for build templates, they have been talking pop balance, skill balance, alliances, maps, coverage wars, rewards and load of other things seen in the subforum.

    I'm sorry but what? Raids have certain requirements, some have dps checks, some have mechanic checks, some a bit of both, etc. People are asking for X comp not to be toxic, but they are asking for that because that is what you need to complete the encounter. If everyone ran Power, Vitality, Toughness you wouldn't complete raid bosses, especially not with the average player. There ARE DPS checks in raids and having the appropriate gear allows you to do that. If the boss requires an average of 10k dps per person and everyone is pulling 4k dps...the boss will not die. If you need boon uptime to allow dps to hit the threshold...how will they do that if the chrono is running pvt, power, or some off-brand set? If the healer needs X amount of healing to keep everyone alive on top of boon support, how are they going to do that in a power set? How is ANY of that toxic?

    In short make a good case on why features need to be expanded but don't go the route of its useful to no one and it will end the game mode, when in reality the game was up and running without the feature already.

    The point the poster was making is that Anet is making decisions that are seemingly driving their own player-base away. Despite how good the game is at its core, people can only put up with so much before they have enough. I.e., WvW waiting for years for changes, PvP waiting for years for updates, PvE updates coming out slower or smaller scale than before. Once again, the point you are missing is Anet keeps making decisions that drive the player-base away. Templates are just another thing to throw into the pile. It's not one thing, it's a series of events and eventually one will be the straw that breaks the camels back.

  • TheGrimm.5624TheGrimm.5624 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Roquen.5406 said:

    The point the poster was making is that Anet is making decisions that are seemingly driving their own player-base away.

    No, the point of the poster that was the original part of this that I was replying to was being snide and thought they were being cheeky versus making an argument that the tool that is being designed in game could use improvement. I am not saying I disagree with you about practices and how they impact peoples feelings on things, the fact that anyone would make a post shows its impactful. I am not saying I am against people having more tools though you seem to want to keep painting me there. I am against people saying that others wouldn't benefit from the new tools and that Delta's tool was only thing from keeping this game from dieing. I am all for the good posts where people are making their case for where and how they could use something closer to Arc than what Anet might release, but you can do it with a constructive point and its more convincing to others that way.

    Envy the Madman his musing when Death comes to make fools of us all.
    De Mortuis Nil Nisi Bonum.
    TheGrimm PoTBS/GW1/WAR/Rift/GW2/MWO/ESO/WoT/WoW/D2/HoTS/Civ6/CU/AoC

  • Vinceman.4572Vinceman.4572 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 18, 2019

    @ZDragon.3046 said:
    🤔I think... you just... played yourself....
    For one your statement here is an opinion thus it can be argued against by another opinion.
    or
    Taking your own opinion into logic means that you also had no reason to come here to converse in the first place as no ones opinions can contradict your own meaning no one should respond, agree, or disagree to your words which would defeat the purpose to voice your thoughts and feelings in the first place. This also means that the other person can say the same ending statment you did based on their perspective and mindset of thinking which invalidates your previous post and "well grounded reasons."

    Egotism is the greatest obstruction achieving anything.

    See, we can talk about basics of discussions, semantics, philosophy or whatever. That doesn't help.

    Key point is, this thread is made by people who are not content with the actual system Arenanet is about to ship in a few weeks. The opposition has made their pleas which is totally fine but at the end we're 7 pages long including a merge and the opposition in person of 2-3 people is still there just trying to oppose instead of letting go. I mean a change of Arenanet's current approach - which is most likely not to be expected - won't hurt you at all. On the contrary, players that have almost to no use of the new system would profit from a change as well. But no, people come to this thread over and over again to defend a company against complaining paying customers. That's irritating at best. Just stop it and support the idea because you will have advantages from that as well. You won't have any if you just show your dedication to the company. They won't even send you a thank-you letter via the forums for it. So, I have to conclude (my personal impression) that some are just here for the discussion per se and not in regard to the topic itself or just for not being able to take the opposite role which means to be against their so-loved company. The first conclusion is a rational one but still lacks empathy, the second one is...I don't know...tragic?

    R.I.P. Build Templates, 15.10.2019

  • Roquen.5406Roquen.5406 Member ✭✭✭
    edited October 18, 2019

    @TheGrimm.5624 said:

    @Roquen.5406 said:

    The point the poster was making is that Anet is making decisions that are seemingly driving their own player-base away.

    No, the point of the poster that was the original part of this that I was replying to was being snide and thought they were being cheeky versus making an argument that the tool that is being designed in game could use improvement. I am not saying I disagree with you about practices and how they impact peoples feelings on things, the fact that anyone would make a post shows its impactful. I am not saying I am against people having more tools though you seem to want to keep painting me there. I am against people saying that others wouldn't benefit from the new tools and that Delta's tool was only thing from keeping this game from dieing. I am all for the good posts where people are making their case for where and how they could use something closer to Arc than what Anet might release, but you can do it with a constructive point and its more convincing to others that way.

    Fair enough. I think most people were expecting Anet's templates to be comparable to Delta's. And I guess their expectations are what is creating this reaction, which reminds us all to always temper your expectations. Hope for the best, expect the worst kind of thing. For the more hardcore players, I wouldn't say it's impossible for this to be the final straw for them.

    Look at guilds like SC, they spend hours, days, time and energy, to create builds/guides/rotations/videos/etc...for almost every facet of this game. Every time there is a balance update, we get new benchmarks from them. What this does, is act as a resource for others looking to get into different modes. That is their own time spent because of their passion for the game and you can imagine how much work had to have gone into that. So it's plausible that players akin to these did have 30+ builds that they use. Now they can only use 6 and maybe for them it's just not worth it anymore. When we lose those people like that, we lose additional resources for players. And I don't necessarily think it's a good thing.

    I think there's another separate issue as well, in the way the game is being monetized to an almost mobile-gaming level. Which I personally don't think is beneficial to the health of the game.

  • kharmin.7683kharmin.7683 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Vinceman.4572 said:
    Just stop it and support the idea because you will have advantages from that as well.

    Ah, yes. Suppress dissent. That's always worked well.

    I am a very casual player.
    Very.
    Casual.

  • Algreg.3629Algreg.3629 Member ✭✭✭

    @kharmin.7683 said:

    @Vinceman.4572 said:
    Just stop it and support the idea because you will have advantages from that as well.

    Ah, yes. Suppress dissent. That's always worked well.

    you must understand the severity of the matter. It would be like taking auto-attack away from you, self-proclaimed champion of mediocrity :P

  • ZDragon.3046ZDragon.3046 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Vinceman.4572 said:

    @ZDragon.3046 said:
    🤔I think... you just... played yourself....
    For one your statement here is an opinion thus it can be argued against by another opinion.
    or
    Taking your own opinion into logic means that you also had no reason to come here to converse in the first place as no ones opinions can contradict your own meaning no one should respond, agree, or disagree to your words which would defeat the purpose to voice your thoughts and feelings in the first place. This also means that the other person can say the same ending statment you did based on their perspective and mindset of thinking which invalidates your previous post and "well grounded reasons."

    Egotism is the greatest obstruction achieving anything.

    See, we can talk about basics of discussions, semantics, philosophy or whatever. That doesn't help.

    Key point is, this thread is made by people who are not content with the actual system Arenanet is about to ship in a few weeks.

    Others are curious as to why you are not content with it. To see other posters basically bashing the companies brains out rather than realistically talking about the issue from both perspectives does not help either.

    In short you nor anet can please everyone this is basic fact.
    1: If you make a thread thats for people who don't like something people who do like that "thing" will still read and write what they think
    2: If you make a thread thats for people who do like something people who do not like that "thing" will still read and write what they think.

    You are not exactly right to tell someone they dont have the right to make an opinion on this idea regardless of their stance on the topic at hand.

    Its not possible silence the other half or the middle ground just because "Its for people who only do or dont have an issue with the topic" to do this defeats the purpose of a conversation. So you should expect people who are fine or semi ok to also make comments. However when people see unreasonable bashing going on you shouldnt be surprised how things drag out like this.

    The opposition has made their pleas which is totally fine but at the end we're 7 pages long including a merge and the opposition in person of 2-3 people is still there just trying to oppose instead of letting go. I mean a change of Arenanet's current approach - which is most likely not to be expected - won't hurt you at all. On the contrary, players that have almost to no use of the new system would profit from a change as well. But no, people come to this thread over and over again to defend a company against complaining paying customers.

    First off you cant assume the people who defend the company dont pay also. I want to think most of the people who defend the company from the overblown bashing which is also off topic are paying customers also.

    As far as a change of approach you dont know who that will hurt as of what i said above. To complain about something to get it changed will still hurt someone somewhere even if that someone is anet itself. Which is why people counter argued the idea of continued usage of arc templates after the feature releases which was well on topic. Its not because they want you to be miserable. They are just looking from both or the other perspective.

    That's irritating at best. Just stop it and support the idea because you will have advantages from that as well. You won't have any if you just show your dedication to the company.

    Dedication is a flexible word and should not be used lightly. People show dedication in multiple ways. Once again you cant speak for everyone. To do that assumes that only people who complain here are the dedicated ones which is entirely no the case. This thread would need an infinity larger number of pages for that to be anywhere near the truth. Because im sure there the game has very many dedicated players ;)

  • Operator.2590Operator.2590 Member ✭✭✭
    edited October 18, 2019

    First of all, this was excellently put—well done.

    @Vinceman.4572 said:
    Just stop it and support the idea because you will have advantages from that as well. You won't have any if you just show your dedication to the company.

    And this is where my interest has been lost. There’s so much to say about just how blatantly wrong this statement / line of thought is that I don’t even know where to begin—and plenty has already been said. I would like to even report it to be honest, but I kinda want people to see how self-centered that is instead.

    Good luck to ya.

    "The Sun will be divided that it might not sire children. Still its children shall be Four in number, and Seven in number, and be Numberless. The Numberless shall open the way for the Seven, and the Seven shall consume the Four..."

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Operator.2590 said:

    @Vinceman.4572 said:
    One of the biggest concerns here in this forum is discussing with people that call ArcDPS a hack. It's the point where those people usually have to go to a tech training to educate themselves. But yeah, that won't happen according to my real life experiences.

    In addition it's a little bit disgusting confusing for me that real existent people a.k.a. customer are so heavily supporting (and in this case actually whiteknighting) the company to an extent that it can't be taken seriously any longer - or for me personally is a sign of pretty heavy addiction I wouldn't call healthy any longer.
    Very valid points have been made besides some dubious ones too but then again mentioned people are trying to defend the company as if it were their life-task. Holy skritt. Most of them even play forum police although there already is a functional and sometimes very narrowly guided moderation.

    And while I agree with the first part of this post, the entire second section was not only completely unnecessary towards this discussion—but feels like it’s aimed to shame people who just don’t see a problem with whatever topics you have personally disagreed with. And, in contrast, that’s kinda “disgusting confusing for me”.

    I'm just going to add ... there are some of us that do not have a problem with patronizing a company that provides us with goods and services we like. That's a VERY reasonable relationship to have with a company. To think anyone would call that whiteknighting ... pretty ridiculous. If there is any shame to be had, it's with the likes of people that just decide they should get something at the cost they want it for the conditions they want it under. Unless we were CLIENTS ... that might be relevant. We are not clients, we are customers.

    If you think balancing is only driven by performance and justified by comparisons to other classes then prepare to be educated:

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/

  • @kharmin.7683 said:

    @Taygus.4571 said:

    @kharmin.7683 said:
    It seems to me that most of the angst is coming from the raiding community because Anet's template solution does not allow for the rapid swap of gear between raid wings? Having alts does not solve this for them because of the time necessary to swap things around.

    I still maintain that this is by design and that Anet didn't intend for rapid swapping through raids which is why templates were not included when raids were released. This would cut down on the speed runs. Just my opinion. I have no facts to support this theory.

    If they were against it, they'd have never allowed arc as a stop gap.

    My theory is that they didn't want templates when they implemented raids. When Arc appeared, they reconsidered it but wanted them on their own terms. They allowed Arc until they could figure out how they wanted to implement "official" templates (which is also why there was the agreement to terminate Arc when that happened). Again, this is just my take.

    No at first they didn't wanted Arc DPS at all or better a part of them. Their original stand was no 3th party software is allowed. The current state we have after they had a heated internal discussion (whatever that means)

    @TheGrimm.5624 said:

    @kharmin.7683 said:

    @Taygus.4571 said:

    @kharmin.7683 said:
    It seems to me that most of the angst is coming from the raiding community because Anet's template solution does not allow for the rapid swap of gear between raid wings? Having alts does not solve this for them because of the time necessary to swap things around.

    I still maintain that this is by design and that Anet didn't intend for rapid swapping through raids which is why templates were not included when raids were released. This would cut down on the speed runs. Just my opinion. I have no facts to support this theory.

    If they were against it, they'd have never allowed arc as a stop gap.

    My theory is that they didn't want templates when they implemented raids. When Arc appeared, they reconsidered it but wanted them on their own terms. They allowed Arc until they could figure out how they wanted to implement "official" templates (which is also why there was the agreement to terminate Arc when that happened). Again, this is just my take.

    I tend to agree, I doubt they designed any of the PvE content around planning on people switching builds as they played. How this will impact player's perception of game challenge and/or how they design future content we will have to see. I fear this will be a Pandora's box situation though on either new content impact where they design planning on forcing people to switch or people calling out others for not doing so.

    Well you have to consider GW2 was as vanilla purely design to aim at 'casuals' . HoT turned the whole concept completely around the game was never planed to be like this. You can see that e.g in the LFG it still don't show elite specs or even the main stats . Arena.NET wanted the game to be complete as it is ..... what actually a complete nuts idea was because you have no new content this way. Any MMO dies a fast dead this way and Season 1 had 0 replayability because it is gone when passed to the next episode.

    I wanted to point that out because GW2 problem wasn't the lack of hardcore players it was the lack of new content at all.
    Short recap :
    New Fractal NO
    New Raid NO
    New PvP Yes a new map in the rota after a half year of beta(last season)
    New anything WvW Yes but only a mount and this is months ago (and a map before but really large nothingness in between)
    New Addon NO
    New Season YES but without new mastery but with new dungeon

    Okay long story Arena.NET thought they needed new and also different players those 'hardcore players' and so we got Raids and later CMs in fractals and also extreme annoying open world content in Hot. Where is really cracked it when they seemingly tried to use the new elite specs as sealing argument and their 'vision' of balancing.

    Basically the devs team around that time thought they didn't want to old pros with their old build be able to rush the raids. It not a matter of luck that the first Raid boss is a DPS check with an enrage timer. They increased the DPS for the new builts and nerfed the old builts . With heavy ramifications for all other mode like pvp, wvw or even lets say Halloween labyrinth = too much dps. They did it again with PoF .e.g wvw without FB and Scourge is at the moment unthinkable. Druid and Chrono did the deserved a nerf but uii what comes up in their place ? PoF builds (also it was overdone ) .

    Outlier is really my staff weaver which got nerfed despite it is a pof built and be replaced by something I can't call El /mage/wizard

    Point is they done it they forced players to switch builds again and again in the worst possible way . I can also add that different hitbox sizes have implications on how each built perform is really stupid for balancing reasons. Basically I have to switch over time , I have to switch between modes ,in PVE Raids I have to switch between encounters or at least modify my builts sometimes.

    I actually don't like especially when it include a new rota and a new elite specs because it takes for a normal players really a long time to learn them.

  • @ProverbsofHell.2307 said:

    @susana.7814 said:

    @yoni.7015 said:
    Why open another thread? There is an existing one.

    Probably because people want to actually be heard.

    That’s definitely part of it, but also yoni you’re correct there are multiple topics on build templates but this is more about arc build templates and how it will be affected.

    If there was a way to keep arc builds I wouldn’t have any issues.

    and exactly is the issue?

    for most probably that they do not want to spend money.

  • CptAurellian.9537CptAurellian.9537 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Lord of the Fire.6870 said:
    Well you have to consider GW2 was as vanilla purely design to aim at 'casuals' . HoT turned the whole concept completely around the game was never planed to be like this.

    Was it, though? I still remember statements from vanilla and pre-launch times that they wanted stuff to be for hardcore players, e.g. explorable dungeons. In practice, they failed pretty hard at that point, mainly due to the fact that the entire combat system (including boons/condis) was a mess. HoT was the moment when they finally applied some band-aids to that stuff, which at least opened up the possibility of designing content that isn't either plainly dumb or totally faceroll.

    R.I.P. Build Templates, 15.10.2019

  • kharmin.7683kharmin.7683 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @kharmin.7683 said:

    @Vinceman.4572 said:
    Just stop it and support the idea because you will have advantages from that as well.

    Ah, yes. Suppress dissent. That's always worked well.

    Precisely. And yet the few people trying to suppress dissent in the name of Anet (for reasons that are not really understandable to me) think they somehow can do so. And that them telling the rest things like "but Anet is a business", or denying the poor quality of the new template implementation will somehow make that dissent disappear.

    You seem to be confusing argument and debate with suppressing dissent. Those whom you feel are commenting "in the name of Anet" aren't telling you to shut up.

    I am a very casual player.
    Very.
    Casual.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 21, 2019

    @kharmin.7683 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @kharmin.7683 said:

    @Vinceman.4572 said:
    Just stop it and support the idea because you will have advantages from that as well.

    Ah, yes. Suppress dissent. That's always worked well.

    Precisely. And yet the few people trying to suppress dissent in the name of Anet (for reasons that are not really understandable to me) think they somehow can do so. And that them telling the rest things like "but Anet is a business", or denying the poor quality of the new template implementation will somehow make that dissent disappear.

    You seem to be confusing argument and debate with suppressing dissent. Those whom you feel are commenting "in the name of Anet" aren't telling you to shut up.

    Truth ... there is so much irony with the accusation that people who disagree are trying to suppress dissent. I say ... people should dissent all they want. Let them bring every single argument they want to the table. If people are going to expose themselves to that scrutiny (and with some of the arguments we are seeing) .... lay it out. The only risk is their own credibility.

    Based on this and other threads, I don't see much reason for Anet to not execute their plan as is.

    If you think balancing is only driven by performance and justified by comparisons to other classes then prepare to be educated:

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/

  • @Voltekka.2375 said:

    Official Position ArcDPS: DPS Measuring
    @Chris Cleary.8017 wrote in October 2017

    « hide previous quotes
    The current implementation of DPS meters is nothing more than a re-presentation of information already being transmitted by the game server to all clients in the reporting radius. Combat data does not have player ownership as it is being generated by the game server and then transmitted in order to update the status of the world state.

    Essentially since the server is running a calculation/simulation based on actions by all the clients in the area, it owns the subsequent reporting of all calculations.

    This is different for situations like chat, where there is no impact or simulation necessary and essentially is a forwarding service that the server is simply handling the reporting of the client action.

    In Feb 2017, @Chris Cleary.8017 wrote on Reddit:
    We have no problems with players using a 3rd party tool whose scope is only to collect and visualize combat data gathered directly from the game client. Anything beyond that scope is still considered a violation of the User Agreement.

    So, does that mean memory reading DPS readers are OK as long as they are only parsing combat data?

    You are correct. Combat data is defined as any information that is created due to the usage of skills or impact on players due to skill usage (by the player/s or an outside source).

    Edit/Update: These statements are particularly targeted at a "DPS Meter" or functionality built around the capture of combat data. Features outside of that most likely fall under "Quality of Life" changes and should be removed from DPS meters if they want to be considered compliant with our rules.

    In April 2017, Chris Cleary wrote on Reddit:
    ArenaNet authorizes the use and development of 3rd Party tools under the banner of a "DPS Meter". "DPS Meters" is defined as the collection and processing of combat related data in order to develop a statistical and visual representation of that data. This combat data maybe collected from anyone inside of your immediate social group. Social groups are defined as including the player character, and current party and/or squad.

    Combat data does not include current entity status, including current Buffs/Debuffs/Health/Stats/Location or any other data that is not generated due to the usage of skills or impact on player characters due to skill usage (by the PC/s or an outside source).

    The collection and processing of data in the client must be limited to the scope of the "DPS meter" and should not exceed it. Visualization of this data must also limited to the scope of the "DPS Meter" which includes visualizations, logging, and processing/visualization of logging.

    Exactly what I already said. If you check, at that time Chris Cleary was the leader of the security team of G2. So, his opinion is that the DPS meter is OK - from a technical point of view. Because, from a juridical point of view ... I don't think he saw the implications. Let me explain:

    The current implementation of DPS meters is nothing more than a re-presentation of information already being transmitted by the game server to all clients in the reporting radius. Combat data does not have player ownership as it is being generated by the game server and then transmitted .....

    • So, you go to a football game. In the stadium, hundred of other persons can see you (this information is already there, it is received by all the "game clients"). Also, all of your actions (cheering/crying/eating/throwing insults to the "enemy" team) - with other words "combat data" - are received by all the other "game clients" in your area. What are these "game clients" not knowing? Your identity. It is exactly what ArcDPS is doing - he reads your "combat data" and adds your identity to it. Without your identity everything is OK - but your ID?

    This combat data maybe collected from anyone inside of your immediate social group. Social groups are defined as including the player character, and current party and/or squad.

    • Faulty again. This was the attitude of most of the internet sites before the law with the personal data processing. "If you accessed my site, then you agreed with my conditions - and I will gather your personal data because you agreed". BUT this is not true. By adhering to a social group you agree with the scope/idea/actions of that group. This does not mean you agree to give them your identity. Think about Alcoholics Anonymous. The organizer (the game) knows your ID. Your actions - combat data - are seen by all the other "game clients". But your ID is kept secret. Adhering to a group is different from revealing your ID.

    As I said, the statements are valid only from a technical point of view. From a juridical point of view we need the opinion of a person from the juridic team.
    As it works now ArcDPS is transmitting the ID of anyone in the area, without his express permission, to the owner of the ArcDPS. The owner process this data and can keep it how much he wants - in this way violating the Law regarding the collection and processing of the personal data. AAA - don't tell me that your ingame ID is not relevant. Because it is related to a mail address you gave ANet when creating the account. And this e-mail address represents a something helping a third party to identify you. With other words, it is a personal data.

    And I keep my opinion that an internal DPS meter for GW2 is not a technical issue. But a juridical one.

  • @CptAurellian.9537 said:

    @Lord of the Fire.6870 said:
    Well you have to consider GW2 was as vanilla purely design to aim at 'casuals' . HoT turned the whole concept completely around the game was never planed to be like this.

    Was it, though? I still remember statements from vanilla and pre-launch times that they wanted stuff to be for hardcore players, e.g. explorable dungeons. In practice, they failed pretty hard at that point, mainly due to the fact that the entire combat system (including boons/condis) was a mess. HoT was the moment when they finally applied some band-aids to that stuff, which at least opened up the possibility of designing content that isn't either plainly dumb or totally faceroll.

    Well my guild leader which I know personally plays gw 1 since the beta and was chief editor for a online gaming magazine at that time. He always complained how Arena.NET advertising GW2 as casual friendly but with the start of HoT it wasn't anymore. ( for him the open world). I will ask if he has any source material.

    But it is true dungeon were aimed for people who wanted a bit more I guess problem is after the 20th run every content starts to look easy also we have like I said 30-40% more dps then in vanilla so dungeons are now easier then in the past.

  • Voltekka.2375Voltekka.2375 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Cristalyan.5728 said:

    @Voltekka.2375 said:

    Official Position ArcDPS: DPS Measuring
    @Chris Cleary.8017 wrote in October 2017

    « hide previous quotes
    The current implementation of DPS meters is nothing more than a re-presentation of information already being transmitted by the game server to all clients in the reporting radius. Combat data does not have player ownership as it is being generated by the game server and then transmitted in order to update the status of the world state.

    Essentially since the server is running a calculation/simulation based on actions by all the clients in the area, it owns the subsequent reporting of all calculations.

    This is different for situations like chat, where there is no impact or simulation necessary and essentially is a forwarding service that the server is simply handling the reporting of the client action.

    In Feb 2017, @Chris Cleary.8017 wrote on Reddit:
    We have no problems with players using a 3rd party tool whose scope is only to collect and visualize combat data gathered directly from the game client. Anything beyond that scope is still considered a violation of the User Agreement.

    So, does that mean memory reading DPS readers are OK as long as they are only parsing combat data?

    You are correct. Combat data is defined as any information that is created due to the usage of skills or impact on players due to skill usage (by the player/s or an outside source).

    Edit/Update: These statements are particularly targeted at a "DPS Meter" or functionality built around the capture of combat data. Features outside of that most likely fall under "Quality of Life" changes and should be removed from DPS meters if they want to be considered compliant with our rules.

    In April 2017, Chris Cleary wrote on Reddit:
    ArenaNet authorizes the use and development of 3rd Party tools under the banner of a "DPS Meter". "DPS Meters" is defined as the collection and processing of combat related data in order to develop a statistical and visual representation of that data. This combat data maybe collected from anyone inside of your immediate social group. Social groups are defined as including the player character, and current party and/or squad.

    Combat data does not include current entity status, including current Buffs/Debuffs/Health/Stats/Location or any other data that is not generated due to the usage of skills or impact on player characters due to skill usage (by the PC/s or an outside source).

    The collection and processing of data in the client must be limited to the scope of the "DPS meter" and should not exceed it. Visualization of this data must also limited to the scope of the "DPS Meter" which includes visualizations, logging, and processing/visualization of logging.

    Exactly what I already said. If you check, at that time Chris Cleary was the leader of the security team of G2. So, his opinion is that the DPS meter is OK - from a technical point of view. Because, from a juridical point of view ... I don't think he saw the implications. Let me explain:

    The current implementation of DPS meters is nothing more than a re-presentation of information already being transmitted by the game server to all clients in the reporting radius. Combat data does not have player ownership as it is being generated by the game server and then transmitted .....

    • So, you go to a football game. In the stadium, hundred of other persons can see you (this information is already there, it is received by all the "game clients"). Also, all of your actions (cheering/crying/eating/throwing insults to the "enemy" team) - with other words "combat data" - are received by all the other "game clients" in your area. What are these "game clients" not knowing? Your identity. It is exactly what ArcDPS is doing - he reads your "combat data" and adds your identity to it. Without your identity everything is OK - but your ID?

    This combat data maybe collected from anyone inside of your immediate social group. Social groups are defined as including the player character, and current party and/or squad.

    • Faulty again. This was the attitude of most of the internet sites before the law with the personal data processing. "If you accessed my site, then you agreed with my conditions - and I will gather your personal data because you agreed". BUT this is not true. By adhering to a social group you agree with the scope/idea/actions of that group. This does not mean you agree to give them your identity. Think about Alcoholics Anonymous. The organizer (the game) knows your ID. Your actions - combat data - are seen by all the other "game clients". But your ID is kept secret. Adhering to a group is different from revealing your ID.

    As I said, the statements are valid only from a technical point of view. From a juridical point of view we need the opinion of a person from the juridic team.
    As it works now ArcDPS is transmitting the ID of anyone in the area, without his express permission, to the owner of the ArcDPS. The owner process this data and can keep it how much he wants - in this way violating the Law regarding the collection and processing of the personal data. AAA - don't tell me that your ingame ID is not relevant. Because it is related to a mail address you gave ANet when creating the account. And this e-mail address represents a something helping a third party to identify you. With other words, it is a personal data.

    And I keep my opinion that an internal DPS meter for GW2 is not a technical issue. But a juridical one.

    Thats good and all, but I would take the word of an actual dev over someone who is clearly opinionated, inflexible and doesnt know when to recognize a lost cause. But thats just me.

  • Astralporing.1957Astralporing.1957 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Lord of the Fire.6870 said:
    also we have like I said 30-40% more dps then in vanilla

    Do we? Considering how massive some of the nerfs i remember were, i'd really, really like a source for any such claim.

    The whole point of a social game is to play with the people you want to play with, not be forced to play with the people you don't.

  • Saniyah.1984Saniyah.1984 Member ✭✭✭
    edited October 22, 2019

    https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/dk7qkx/arcdps_build_template_ban/
    They ban you now apperently YOU MUST surrender ALL your money... truly disgusting... They are turning more and more in awfull companies like Blizard and Electronic Arts. Are we wales now too Anet?

  • Operator.2590Operator.2590 Member ✭✭✭

    @Saniyah.1984 said:
    https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/dk7qkx/arcdps_build_template_ban/
    They ban you now apperently YOU MUST surrender ALL your money... truly disgusting... They are turning more and more in awfull companies like Blizard and Electronic Arts. Are we wales now too Anet?

    https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/90634/nobody-got-banned-for-using-arcdps-dev-post-on-reddit

    No. Just...no.

    "The Sun will be divided that it might not sire children. Still its children shall be Four in number, and Seven in number, and be Numberless. The Numberless shall open the way for the Seven, and the Seven shall consume the Four..."

  • Voltekka.2375Voltekka.2375 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Saniyah.1984 said:
    https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/dk7qkx/arcdps_build_template_ban/
    They ban you now apperently YOU MUST surrender ALL your money... truly disgusting... They are turning more and more in awfull companies like Blizard and Electronic Arts. Are we wales now too Anet?

    "You are fake news!".
    Yeah.

  • Voltekka.2375Voltekka.2375 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Lord of the Fire.6870 said:
    also we have like I said 30-40% more dps then in vanilla

    Do we? Considering how massive some of the nerfs i remember were, i'd really, really like a source for any such claim.

    Vanilla had no 100% boon duration. Vanilla had no alacrity, vanilla had no perma25 group might constantly, no permaquickness. In that sense, it is kinda safe to say that dps after HoT has been rising. The current state of Wvw and pvp also shows this horrendous powercreep.

  • Astralporing.1957Astralporing.1957 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 22, 2019

    @Voltekka.2375 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Lord of the Fire.6870 said:
    also we have like I said 30-40% more dps then in vanilla

    Do we? Considering how massive some of the nerfs i remember were, i'd really, really like a source for any such claim.

    Vanilla had no 100% boon duration. Vanilla had no alacrity, vanilla had no perma25 group might constantly, no permaquickness.

    At the same time Vanilla had FGS spam, linecasting and old icebow, MS and lavafont numbers, among other things. And since that time the game went through uncountable nerfs.
    No, it is not safe to say that the dps now is higher than then (you might have had a point if you were talking about early HoT times, when some builds had absurdly high dps values, but those have been reigned in long ago). And bringing up actual percentage values when you have nothing to base them on does nothing to help your argument either. Unless, of course, you do have something to base them on - in which case i'd really like to see it.

    In that sense, it is kinda safe to say that dps after HoT has been rising.

    We're not talking about early HoT era though, but about now. Remember, that there was a wave of nerfs preceding PoF, and more nerfs that happened during late LS4. Dps after HoT has not been rising - quite the opposite, after the initial spike it was mostly normalized down.

    I'm not saying that the dps then was not lower. I am saying, that without any data we simply have no idea how the dps changed before dps meters were introduced, and without any such data, making any guesses about it is about as reliable as trying to get that answer by reading tea leaves.

    The whole point of a social game is to play with the people you want to play with, not be forced to play with the people you don't.

  • @Cristalyan.5728 said:

    • Faulty again. This was the attitude of most of the internet sites before the law with the personal data processing. "If you accessed my site, then you agreed with my conditions - and I will gather your personal data because you agreed". BUT this is not true. By adhering to a social group you agree with the scope/idea/actions of that group. This does not mean you agree to give them your identity. Think about Alcoholics Anonymous. The organizer (the game) knows your ID. Your actions - combat data - are seen by all the other "game clients". But your ID is kept secret. Adhering to a group is different from revealing your ID.

    Your standpoint is faulty here. The ArcDPS Tool processes publicly available data. Your Account and Charactername are part of that, so is the provided Combat Data.
    The E-Mail that is linked to an account is not publicly available or accessible therefore it is not a breach of privacy but only processing of publicly available data.

    Arena-Net is the only one that could link your account to the combat data and they are not the ones processing it. So no: none of these Elements aid in identifying you.
    Only associating your ingame Persona with a number that describes situational performance, which always should be taken with a grain of salt.

    The only exceptions being like these or close:

    • You publicly link your E-Mail adress in a forum with the Account or Charactername next to it
    • You make your Accountname your emailadress.
    • You make a character that contains your emailadress.
  • vesica tempestas.1563vesica tempestas.1563 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 23, 2019

    To add : personal identifiable data (pii) is anything that could be associated with a person. A random identifier is fine, a random identifier that can be associated with an email is bad. Equally, exposing a user name programmatically with no protection is bad. If I call my in game character name 'Bob mcbob' and that is my real name and you not encrypting that then you are breeching.

    So If arcdps is exposing character identifiers without any encryption in code and that identifier contains anything that is relatable to a person regardless of source, its breeching (I have no idea if this is the case)

    Another way to look at it, I am authenticated and authorised by my bank to programmatically retrieve
    A bunch of names, then I transmit that data with no controls - I'm in trouble!

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.csoonline.com/article/3215864/how-to-protect-personally-identifiable-information-pii-under-gdpr.amp.html

    "Any path that narrows future possibilities may become a lethal trap. Humans do not thread their way through a maze; they scan a vast horizon filled with unique opportunities." - The Spacing Guild Handbook.

    Beware the meta!

  • Szarazar.7162Szarazar.7162 Member
    edited October 23, 2019

    @vesica tempestas.1563 said:
    To add : personal identifiable data (pii) is anything that could be associated with a person. A random identifier is fine, a random identifier that can be associated with an email is bad. Equally, exposing a user name programmatically with no protection is bad. If I call my in game character name 'Bob mcbob' and that is my real name and you not encrypting that then you are breeching.

    So If arcdps is exposing character identifiers without any encryption in code and that identifier contains anything that is relatable to a person regardless of source, its breeching (I have no idea if this is the case)

    Another way to look at it, I am authenticated and authorised by my bank to programmatically retrieve
    A bunch of names, then I transmit that data with no controls - I'm in trouble!

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.csoonline.com/article/3215864/how-to-protect-personally-identifiable-information-pii-under-gdpr.amp.html

    But that's the thing, all Arc is doing (simplyfying here) is logging your Character and Account name next to a number of DPS and a few other encounter stats. From those you cannot get any Data whatsoever of someones IRL persona except from what else you chose to publicly share. All i can see is a game identifier and a character name. If i chose to make my character name the same name as my IRL name that's my choice of putting my name publicly on display to that account.

    In all cases, if i can find your irl name from your GW2 profile it's always your fault.

  • Nick.5276Nick.5276 Member ✭✭
    1. ArcDPS was a mod, produced in a programmers spare time, that was capable of all gear, trait and build management facility that a player could want. It was free and was updated every time a GW2 patch broke the environment in which it operated. It was purely optional to use.

    2. The official build templates, produced by the in game, paid developers, are not even close to the functionality, do not allow for nearly the same number of options of build and gear variation and deliberately penalise users of the highest tiers of gear. It is being imposed* on us and costs in real time to upgrade. Real time to earn real money or in game currency, to convert to game currency to upgrade.

    All details regarding the system are in the public domain save the costs which have been indicated will be in the ball park of current upgrade costs and so can be safely estimated

    Option
    1. Give or take it doesn't have to affect me
    or
    2. *No choice to use and may cost just to make it bearable to continue play the game. Penalises players with Alt's or Legendary gear.

    Is this clear enough?

  • Astralporing.1957Astralporing.1957 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 24, 2019

    @vesica tempestas.1563 said:
    If I call my in game character name 'Bob mcbob' and that is my real name and you not encrypting that then you are breeching.

    No. That would be true only if there was something requiring you to put your real name here. There isn't. If you do, it's your personal decision to reveal that name in public space. Moreover, there's no way for others to even know if the name you supplied is your real name. I could call my character Jane Doe, but that would not mean it's my real name (hint: it's not. Or maybe it is?).

    So If arcdps is exposing character identifiers without any encryption in code and that identifier contains anything that is relatable to a person regardless of source, its breeching (I have no idea if this is the case)

    No, if arcdps is exposing character identifiers without any encryption in code and that identifier contains anything that is relatable to a person regardless of source it's not breeching. It only means that someone decided to reveal their private info in a public space purely of their own choice.

    The laws are there to prevent the unintentional leaks of our private data. They do not restrict our choice to release such data intentionally however, if we would want to.

    The whole point of a social game is to play with the people you want to play with, not be forced to play with the people you don't.

  • vesica tempestas.1563vesica tempestas.1563 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 24, 2019

    I'm not sure it is clear cut as that, for example although you are right that user names are in themselves technically not regarded as pii, Google and many other companies do in fact consider them as personal information for certain uses cases : https://www.clickinsight.ca/blog/usernames-privately-identifiable-information.

    'However, if you are allowed to select a system username, you may decide to use your public Twitter handle as your username. You may mention your Twitter ID on your Facebook or Google+ page or LinkedIn profile. ****Self-selected system usernames should be considered PII because a site owner will not know if a person’s self selected usernames are the same as their public username****. In the context of loading data through analytics.

    "Any path that narrows future possibilities may become a lethal trap. Humans do not thread their way through a maze; they scan a vast horizon filled with unique opportunities." - The Spacing Guild Handbook.

    Beware the meta!

  • vesica tempestas.1563vesica tempestas.1563 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 24, 2019

    @vesica tempestas.1563 said:
    I'm not sure it is clear cut as that, for example although you are right that user names are in themselves technically not regarded as pii, Google and many other companies do in fact consider them as personal information for certain uses cases : https://www.clickinsight.ca/blog/usernames-privately-identifiable-information.

    'However, if you are allowed to select a system username, you may decide to use your public Twitter handle as your username. You may mention your Twitter ID on your Facebook or Google+ page or LinkedIn profile. ****Self-selected system usernames should be considered PII because a site owner will not know if a person’s self selected usernames are the same as their public username****. In the context of loading data through analytics.

    Edit, thinking about this further, although above is correct I'm forgetting user names are visible already in game already so agree user names in GW2 context is not an arcdps issue.

    "Any path that narrows future possibilities may become a lethal trap. Humans do not thread their way through a maze; they scan a vast horizon filled with unique opportunities." - The Spacing Guild Handbook.

    Beware the meta!

  • Ashantara.8731Ashantara.8731 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @borgs.6103 said:
    The only reason the Build Template mod for ArcDPS existed was that Anet turned a blind eye on it. At the end of the day, that mod was Against the ToS of one button-one action within the game. This is why it worked so well - it's more or less an automated instantaneous gear and build change hack. It was way past the grey area of mods. People seemed to forget that.

    Sorry, but that's nonsense. That would mean that GW1's build templates were against the ToS, too. :lol: Besides, the upcoming official feature won't take more than one click per build or gear switch, either; there will be keyboard shortcuts.

  • Taygus.4571Taygus.4571 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @borgs.6103 said:
    This will also be my issue once they implement theirs. I hope they would add some caveats to instant-build switching, like can it only be done on spawn points.

    They said the switching will be limited in wvw, and probably only in the home keep where you're invincible.

  • Nick.5276Nick.5276 Member ✭✭

    @borgs.6103 said:
    The only reason the Build Template mod for ArcDPS existed was that Anet turned a blind eye on it. At the end of the day, that mod was Against the ToS of one button-one action within the game. This is why it worked so well - it's more or less an automated instantaneous gear and build change hack. It was way past the grey area of mods. People seemed to forget that.

    You're not really penalized for anything because in the first place, that mod was technically illegal and would downright warrant a ban if not for Anet "ignoring" it.

    Yes it was a mod, yes it was illegal.
    What I am saying is it was everything that a build template system should be and the official template system is not. It also penalises legendary equipment for the very reason you are supposed to value legendary equipment, versatility.

  • Nick.5276Nick.5276 Member ✭✭

    @Wanze.8410 said:
    I am pretty sure that if Anet would have implemented build templates just like arc templates (and arc templates never existed as a 3rd party alternative) with the same functionality and faults (breaking often), even if they implemented it as a free base feature, the player base would ridicule them for the rubbish and sloppy implementation too.

    Yes we would ridicule them if it broke often for being rubbish and sloppy because none of those reasons are acceptable for any product. What is your point? that as consumers we should settle for kitten?

  • Nephalem.8921Nephalem.8921 Member ✭✭✭
    edited October 24, 2019

    @borgs.6103 said:

    @Ashantara.8731 said:
    P.S. @borgs.6103: It would have made sense had you blamed it being a third-party tool. Claiming the number of clicks was what made it potentially violating the ToS is just hilarious, because loading and saving builds provides you with zero advantage in terms of game mechanics; it's merely a QoL.

    @borgs.6103 said:
    You're welcome. Hopefully you enjoy a lot more of your lack of self-awareness.

    Wow, grow up. Personal attacks are completely misplaced here. I was merely responding to your claim, I didn't attack you.

    Hey, I didn't make the rules. It was a huge issue back then, see: https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/704oem/build_templates_actual_release/dn0eys7/

    And loading and saving builds instantaneously can provide an advantage.
    Where, you might ask? WvW. You encounter a player that mainly does condition damage. You were built for this and so you were easily winning but the player manages to escape and you chase. While chasing, the player got out of combat and uses the mod to instantaneously switch their gear and build to power-heavy damage. Now you got your kittens handed to you. Thank you, build templates!
    This will also be my issue once they implement theirs. I hope they would add some caveats to instant-build switching, like can it only be done on spawn points.

    Oh and if you think I'm personally attacking you, that's your own prerogative. Grow a pair or a thicker skin or leave the internet.

    Why are so many people commenting on arc who clearly haven't used it ever. Arc could never instantly swap gear and traits. There is a 500ms limitation between each gear or traitswap with ooc requirement. Limitation was only not present in cities and fractal observatory probably because of engine limitations.
    Anets system on the other hand allows instant swapping and needs to be paid for so this is actually pay to win in wvsw roaming.

    @Wanze.8410 said:
    I am pretty sure that if Anet would have implemented build templates just like arc templates (and arc templates never existed as a 3rd party alternative) with the same functionality and faults (breaking often), even if they implemented it as a free base feature, the player base would ridicule them for the rubbish and sloppy implementation too.

    They basically only break after a major patch which isn't really deltas fault. Rubbish and sloppy implementation? Anets version is only prettier but way more limited especially for players with legendary gear. Its also requires more clicks and cant save builds properly. Anet designed them for open world press1 farmers but those players dont care about their builds anyways and have usually just one.

  • Ashantara.8731Ashantara.8731 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 24, 2019

    @Nephalem.8921 said:
    I would have to buy 6000 gems for the very basic gear templates alone and probably 10k+ for gear + build I want. Would have been fine with a reasonable price but I could buy 2-3 recent AAA games instead with the same amount of money. This is why they don't make an expac anymore. Why should they build an xpac requiring hundreds of devs when they can make the same amount of money with p2w in gemstore done by 3-5 at most.

    Are the official prices for slots etc already set? I must have missed the announcement...