[merged] I want to keep using Arc Build Templates... :/ - Page 8 — Guild Wars 2 Forums

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

1234568>

Comments

  • Nephalem.8921Nephalem.8921 Member ✭✭✭

    @Ashantara.8731 said:
    Are the official prices for slots etc already set? I must have missed the announcement...

    Yes they are. "Same range as bank and bag slot expansions" while build tabs can be bought in packs of 3 and gear tabs one by one. This means 400gems build tab and 600gems gear tab.

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

    @Nephalem.8921 said:

    @Ashantara.8731 said:
    Are the official prices for slots etc already set? I must have missed the announcement...

    Yes they are. "Same range as bank and bag slot expansions" while build tabs can be bought in packs of 3 and gear tabs one by one. This means 400gems build tab and 600gems gear tab.

    Thanks, now I recall that statement. However, "same range" is a variable statement, and we don't know yet either whether there will be slot packs with a reduced price, for instance. I still hope they will have sensible prices - well, we will know very soon.

  • Dante.1508Dante.1508 Member ✭✭✭

    No one can judge until its released..

  • @Dante.1508 said:
    No one can judge until its released..

    True. Though it doesn't look well when you get a re-confirmation (a week before release) of the information you were told and shown three weeks ago. I'd say it's safe to judge. It's highly unlikely they'll changing anything but the pricing (and that's a big if) in a week's worth of time.

  • Trise.2865Trise.2865 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Jury-rigging breaks the game in a way you like vs professionally crafted system that doesn't break the game.
    But there's no point in discussing, since this is the "final conclusion".

    If we want ANet to step up their game, then we must step up ours.

  • Nick.5276Nick.5276 Member ✭✭

    @Trise.2865 said:
    Jury-rigging breaks the game in a way you like vs professionally crafted system that doesn't break the game.
    But there's no point in discussing, since this is the "final conclusion".

    The jury rigged system offered an array of flexibility from a non paid amateur while the professionally crafted system cannot even come close.

    Your signature is a fallacy you realise? We cannot raise our Game since it can only be within the confines of what Anet offers. Giving 110% is impossible.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 25, 2019

    @Rubius.9280 said:

    @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.

    I keep seeing this completely inaccurate statement thrown around, so here's the exact quote from Chris Cleary of ArenaNet where he gives the full green-light for the ArcDPS build Templates, years ago:


    Chris Cleary:
    "About 2-3 months ago I asked /u/deltaconnected to take down his previously created Build Templates addon to ArcDPS. At the time it was in violation of our rules to distribute it and it had key issues with it when it came to functionality and interaction with the game client.

    This release is the result of a multi-month coordination to get his Build Templates addon into a place where I can green-light it for release. Unlike DPS meters, Build Templates is a much more passive user interface addon and thus it could be individually allowed to release outside of the DPS meter Terms of Service rules restriction. If future developers are interested in working with me to create addons, please reach out to me and we can chat.

    I'm green-lighting this due to the developer's trustworthiness after months of interaction and willingness to add key restrictions and functionality changes to accommodate my push to keep addons away from becoming a "must have to win" situation (WvW restrictions were not outlined in his post, but they are there along with others).

    In their current state, /u/DeltaConnected's Build templates are green-lit and safe to use by users (in terms of violating the Terms of Service). I've asked him to run any functionality changes by me before releasing, so hopefully we don't need to worry about things changing in the future in terms of "safe to use".

    This is officially unsupported, and ArenaNet will not be able to offer any support for this addon or issues that occur due to use of this addon."


    Please, stop this false narrative that the past build templates were "Illegal" or that Anet "turned a blind eye".

    They were green-lit and specifically tailored to ArenaNet's requests to ensure their approval.

    'Green lit' in NOT a indication that it's not illegal .. it simply means the ARC was tolerated. I believe it's because it was the lesser of two evil choices Anet could make ... the other being banning LOTS of their players for the use of a 3rd party add on. Again, whatever you want to call it or whatever words you want to describe it ... make no mistake ... no game dev team wants to deal with invasion of their IP and have their game threatened by add ons. 3rd party add ons are very much not allowed. The fact that Anet went out of their way to create build templates to regain that sovereignty is a 'clean' solution to that problem and a clear indication of the legality of add ons in the first place.

    Frankly, I speculate that is the ONLY reason we are getting build templates. Anet wants to gain their sovereignty over their game back. I'm pretty sure at 7 years in ... there is much less value in a build template system than there was 5 years ago and the idea that 3rd party add ons are illegal (yes, they are) is pretty meaningless if you let people use them and even give them the thumbs up for use.

    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/

  • @Obtena.7952 said:

    'Green lit' in NOT a indication that it's not illegal

    I disagree - green-lit means exactly what everyone understands it to mean. What you may be reaching for here is the disclaimer, which is in the quote I mentioned, where Arenanet still notes that it's not officially supported, even though they gave it the stamp of approval for players who want to use.

    Given that Arenanet has to have at least some distance in case anything goes wrong, the statement is as close as anyone was ever going to get -- Chris even invited other add-on creators to reach out to him. His intent in supporting these people was crystal clear, and in my opinion, was a great move on Anet's part.

    @Obtena.7952 said:.. .. no game dev team wants to deal with invasion of their IP and have their game threatened by add ons. 3rd party add ons are very much not allowed.

    Tons of games, MMO's especially, allow for Add-ons within limits. Outside MMO's, the entire Steam workshop is dedicated to this type of content for other PC titles.

    There's not an ounce of truth in claiming that all developers "hate add ons" because they invade their privacy.

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    Frankly, I speculate that is the ONLY reason we are getting build templates. Anet wants to gain their sovereignty over their game back. I'm pretty sure at 7 years in ... there is much less value in a build template system than there was 5 years ago and the idea that 3rd party add ons are illegal (yes, they are) is pretty meaningless if you let people use them and even give them the thumbs up for use.

    This paints Arenanet to be the villain way more than I think is fair. They mentioned they have been working on this for quite some time, and the likely truth of the matter is that they probably had a lot of constraints and challenges to overcome to get an official version working. They are probably in a very tough position right now and trying to do the best they can.

    People aren't upset that ArenaNet is finally releasing build templates and gear templates. (Many of us were so stoked when we heard the news in that event!) We're upset that what we're getting seems inferior to an approved add-on that used to be free, and that the estimated cost for the game's most hardcore players is going to be more than buying an expansion - or two - just to keep playing the way they used to.

  • Operator.2590Operator.2590 Member ✭✭✭
    edited October 25, 2019

    The greenlight is for the program’s adhereance to the TOS and COC. Period. That’s it—nothing more, nothing less.

    It does not cover how you use it, problems that may arise from that use, how others use it, how future changes to the addon may break the TOS / COC for whatever reason, support from Anet themselves, nor your own dependancy on the program itself.

    One of the biggest reasons Anet is so against official support for 3rd Party Programs is so that none of them become a necessity.

    “Use at your own risk” is more than just for technical issues. It extends to “grow dependant on it at your own risk” too.

    That is what people need to understand.

    "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..."

  • Nick.5276Nick.5276 Member ✭✭

    @Operator.2590 said:
    The greenlight is for the program’s adhereance to the TOS and COC. Period. That’s it—nothing more, nothing less.

    It does not cover how you use it, problems that may arise from that use, how others use it, how future changes to the addon may break the TOS / COC for whatever reason, support from Anet themselves, nor your own dependancy on the program itself.

    One of the biggest reasons Anet is so against official support for 3rd Party Programs is so that none of them become a necessity.

    “Use at your own risk” is more than just for technical issues. It extends to “grow dependant on it at your own risk” too.

    That is what people need to understand.

    So your arguments have now evolved into Use at your own risk combined with become dependant on at your own risk So you are assuming we don't understand the risks of an unsupported app and we are not responsible enough to manage our own gameplay.
    That kind of patronizing attitude died along with the British empire, don't cha' know?

  • Operator.2590Operator.2590 Member ✭✭✭
    edited October 25, 2019
    • Use a third party program, knowing it isn’t supported
    • Grow dependant on that program
    • Get angry when it’s taken away after becoming dependant on it
    • Want to keep using it / have the official version be exactly the same, because dependancy

    There’s no “evolving” about it. That’s just the entire basis of this thread / the “comparisons” to Arc’s Templates. At least own it instead of pretending otherwise, y’know?

    "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..."

  • Rubius.9280Rubius.9280 Member ✭✭
    edited October 25, 2019

    @Operator.2590 said:
    The greenlight is for the program’s adhereance to the TOS and COC.

    Yes, sounds like we agree here and glad to see more understanding of the point. (So much better than people claiming it was illegal!)

    Realistically speaking, there's probably very few (if any) publishers that will ever give full 100% backing to add-ons in this case. Almost all add-ons remain "use at your own risk" if anything breaks, for any game.

    This is pretty standard and ArenaNet is part of the norm, not a deviation, in this case. ArcDPS templates was as close to "officially" endorsed as it ever possibly could have become, and you can read the literal praise from Chris for it in the quote about the developer.

    @Operator.2590 said:
    It extends to “grow dependant on it at your own risk” too.

    That is what people need to understand.

    I'm not sure arguing this point will really get us anywhere. Saying "get used to something worse" is fine as a statement, but that's not what people supporting this thread are trying to achieve. (Plus, there are some really great features Anet is adding in their system that Arc didn't have, to their credit.)

    The hope is that Arenanet might listen and provide additional options or solutions. There are absolutely ways to make everyone happy here (or at least, most people)! I hope you can join us in trying to find a positive solution here, as opposed to just criticizing people. It's absolutely possible!

  • Nick.5276Nick.5276 Member ✭✭

    @Operator.2590 said:

    • Use a third party program, knowing it isn’t supported
    • Grow dependant on that program
    • Get angry when it’s taken away after becoming dependant on it
    • Want to keep using it / have the official version be exactly the same, because dependancy

    There’s no “evolving” about it. That’s just the entire basis of this thread / the “comparisons” to Arc’s Templates. At least own it instead of pretending otherwise, y’know?

    The basis of these threads is
    *ArcDPS is better in every way than the official offering
    *The official version actually makes the game worse for legendary gear owners
    *It costs users time to make the official version even palatable to use over not having either ArcDPS or nothing changed AT ALL
    *It will in fact make every user Dependent on a template system in the end as it becomes the norm, exactly the point you are arguing against Quote " Grow dependant on that program" - Either ArcDPS or the Official vesrion

    The overall conclusion is please don't put this incarnation in the game at all, it makes it worse!

  • @Nick.5276 said:
    The basis of these threads is
    *ArcDPS is better in every way than the official offering

    Not true, there was no graceful way to handle switching from two one handed weapons to one two handed weapon. It just shot the off hand out where your normal loot would go.

    *The official version actually makes the game worse for legendary gear owners

    How? If you mean compared to Arc? Sure. Otherwise I see nothing stopping you from using the first template exactly like you do now without Arc.

  • Nick.5276Nick.5276 Member ✭✭

    @YMIHere.9580 said:

    @Nick.5276 said:
    The basis of these threads is
    *ArcDPS is better in every way than the official offering

    Not true, there was no graceful way to handle switching from two one handed weapons to one two handed weapon. It just shot the off hand out where your normal loot would go.

    *The official version actually makes the game worse for legendary gear owners

    How? If you mean compared to Arc? Sure. Otherwise I see nothing stopping you from using the first template exactly like you do now without Arc.

    Sorry, I'm unclear on the first bit. Do you mean it dumped it into inventory? or it just didn't swap?

    The difficulty with legendary gear is you cannot select stats as you did with ArcDPS on swapping. You have to go through swapping sigils, runes and stats individually

  • Rasimir.6239Rasimir.6239 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Nick.5276 said:
    The basis of these threads is
    *ArcDPS is better in every way than the official offering

    It's not.

    • It doesn't automatically sync my build libraries between the different computers I play on.
    • It doesn't clear my bags of the extra set of equipment most of not all of my characters have for different builds.
    • It doesn't update automatically if technical changes are needed due to game client updates

    I get where some of you are coming from. There certainly are usecases that are better off with the way Arc designed its template system. There are however many different usecases, and the new system does have its good points for many players, too. If you want the ANet system to evolve to suit your needs better, the first step should be to understand why they choose to implement it this way and not the way the template addon was implemented, who benefits from the differences in implementation, and then suggest how to adjust the implementation so it suits everyone better. Just saying "what I used is better. period." without acknowledging the thoughts and ideas that went into this implementation won't get you anywhere.

  • Nick.5276Nick.5276 Member ✭✭

    @Rasimir.6239 said:

    @Nick.5276 said:
    The basis of these threads is
    *ArcDPS is better in every way than the official offering

    It's not.

    • It doesn't automatically sync my build libraries between the different computers I play on.
    • It doesn't clear my bags of the extra set of equipment most of not all of my characters have for different builds.
    • It doesn't update automatically if technical changes are needed due to game client updates

    I get where some of you are coming from. There certainly are usecases that are better off with the way Arc designed its template system. There are however many different usecases, and the new system does have its good points for many players, too. If you want the ANet system to evolve to suit your needs better, the first step should be to understand why they choose to implement it this way and not the way the template addon was implemented, who benefits from the differences in implementation, and then suggest how to adjust the implementation so it suits everyone better. Just saying "what I used is better. period." without acknowledging the thoughts and ideas that went into this implementation won't get you anywhere.

    Good lord! useful, reasoned feedback with concrete examples, thanks Rasimir.
    I do wish they would explain how they got to where they are. If it's engine limitations channeling design then cool, if it's because they have improvements coming I'd like to hear it, just saying this is what you get worries me.

  • Ashantara.8731Ashantara.8731 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 25, 2019

    @Rasimir.6239 said:

    • It doesn't automatically sync my build libraries between the different computers I play on.

    Seriously, how many people have more than one computer? And how many people take the risk of logging onto their accounts on someone else's computer, let alone on public ones?

    • It doesn't clear my bags of the extra set of equipment most of not all of my characters have for different builds.

    Inventory space is not an issue these days, really.

    • It doesn't update automatically if technical changes are needed due to game client updates

    If such a tool was implemented into the game, it shouldn't be a problem at all.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 25, 2019

    @Rubius.9280 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    'Green lit' in NOT a indication that it's not illegal

    I disagree - green-lit means exactly what everyone understands it to mean.

    No green lit doesn't not mean what you understand it to mean. It means what it ACTUALLY means: Anet allowed it to be used. That doesn't change the legality ... they made an exception because the impacts other choices they had were worse. You can THANK them for that decision BTW>

    @IndigoSundown.5419 said:
    Regardless, this post comes from a player who is decidedly not part of the target market for templates, albeit one who does prefer that consumers provide value for money -- and in this case, I don't believe ANet is doing so.

    If that's the case, then it will be fundamentally reflected in the revenue, which is how the customer/provider relationship has always worked (and actually does work).

    If the price is wrong for the value it gives, sales will be low. THIS is why the complaints people have are dishonest ... they are arguing the price and value aren't aligned ... but they don't know what the value and the price will be. It's just a dishonest way of complaining they don't get their 'feature' for free anymore.

    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/

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 25, 2019

    @Roquen.5406 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Rubius.9280 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    'Green lit' in NOT a indication that it's not illegal

    I disagree - green-lit means exactly what everyone understands it to mean.

    No green lit doesn't not mean what you understand it to mean. It means what it ACTUALLY means: Anet allowed it to be used. That doesn't change the legality ... they made an exception because of the impacts other choices would have. You can THANK them for that decision BTW>

    @IndigoSundown.5419 said:
    Regardless, this post comes from a player who is decidedly not part of the target market for templates, albeit one who does prefer that consumers provide value for money -- and in this case, I don't believe ANet is doing so.

    If that's the case, then it will be fundamentally reflected in the revenue, which is how the customer/provider relationship has always worked (and actually does work).

    If the price is wrong for the value it gives, sales will be low. THIS is why the complaints people have are dishonest ... they are arguing the price and value aren't aligned ... but they don't know what the value and the price will be. It's just a dishonest way of complaining they don't get their 'feature' for free anymore.

    Honestly, may you refrain from posting here unless you actually want to add value to a conversation?

    I'm good then. If you don't think being told the truth is value, then you can add yourself to the list of those that are using value/price as a ruse for anger over losing 'a feature' for free.

    You're definitely mixing me up for this mesmer ... it's one of my least played classes. But even if I was ... it has NOTHINg to do with this thread anyways.

    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/

  • Roquen.5406Roquen.5406 Member ✭✭✭
    edited October 25, 2019

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Roquen.5406 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Rubius.9280 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    'Green lit' in NOT a indication that it's not illegal

    I disagree - green-lit means exactly what everyone understands it to mean.

    No green lit doesn't not mean what you understand it to mean. It means what it ACTUALLY means: Anet allowed it to be used. That doesn't change the legality ... they made an exception because of the impacts other choices would have. You can THANK them for that decision BTW>

    @IndigoSundown.5419 said:
    Regardless, this post comes from a player who is decidedly not part of the target market for templates, albeit one who does prefer that consumers provide value for money -- and in this case, I don't believe ANet is doing so.

    If that's the case, then it will be fundamentally reflected in the revenue, which is how the customer/provider relationship has always worked (and actually does work).

    If the price is wrong for the value it gives, sales will be low. THIS is why the complaints people have are dishonest ... they are arguing the price and value aren't aligned ... but they don't know what the value and the price will be. It's just a dishonest way of complaining they don't get their 'feature' for free anymore.

    Honestly, may you refrain from posting here unless you actually want to add value to a conversation?

    I'm good then. If you don't think being told the truth is value, then you can add yourself to the list of those that are using value/price as a ruse for anger over losing 'a feature' for free.

    You are addressing an issue that I did not even bring up. May you please stick to the points in my post. I'm talking about inclusion of the players that want more function from templates and in the general sense, not leaving out players that want to support Anet.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 25, 2019

    @Roquen.5406 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Roquen.5406 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Rubius.9280 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    'Green lit' in NOT a indication that it's not illegal

    I disagree - green-lit means exactly what everyone understands it to mean.

    No green lit doesn't not mean what you understand it to mean. It means what it ACTUALLY means: Anet allowed it to be used. That doesn't change the legality ... they made an exception because of the impacts other choices would have. You can THANK them for that decision BTW>

    @IndigoSundown.5419 said:
    Regardless, this post comes from a player who is decidedly not part of the target market for templates, albeit one who does prefer that consumers provide value for money -- and in this case, I don't believe ANet is doing so.

    If that's the case, then it will be fundamentally reflected in the revenue, which is how the customer/provider relationship has always worked (and actually does work).

    If the price is wrong for the value it gives, sales will be low. THIS is why the complaints people have are dishonest ... they are arguing the price and value aren't aligned ... but they don't know what the value and the price will be. It's just a dishonest way of complaining they don't get their 'feature' for free anymore.

    Honestly, may you refrain from posting here unless you actually want to add value to a conversation?

    I'm good then. If you don't think being told the truth is value, then you can add yourself to the list of those that are using value/price as a ruse for anger over losing 'a feature' for free.

    You are addressing an issue that I did not even bring up. May you please stick to the points in my post. I'm talking about inclusion of the players that want more function from templates and in the general sense, not leaving out players that want to support Anet.

    Until you know the cost and the function they give, the complaints are simply speculation. I love the irony that I"M not adding value when all the complaints are baseless.

    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/

  • Roquen.5406Roquen.5406 Member ✭✭✭

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Roquen.5406 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Roquen.5406 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Rubius.9280 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    'Green lit' in NOT a indication that it's not illegal

    I disagree - green-lit means exactly what everyone understands it to mean.

    No green lit doesn't not mean what you understand it to mean. It means what it ACTUALLY means: Anet allowed it to be used. That doesn't change the legality ... they made an exception because of the impacts other choices would have. You can THANK them for that decision BTW>

    @IndigoSundown.5419 said:
    Regardless, this post comes from a player who is decidedly not part of the target market for templates, albeit one who does prefer that consumers provide value for money -- and in this case, I don't believe ANet is doing so.

    If that's the case, then it will be fundamentally reflected in the revenue, which is how the customer/provider relationship has always worked (and actually does work).

    If the price is wrong for the value it gives, sales will be low. THIS is why the complaints people have are dishonest ... they are arguing the price and value aren't aligned ... but they don't know what the value and the price will be. It's just a dishonest way of complaining they don't get their 'feature' for free anymore.

    Honestly, may you refrain from posting here unless you actually want to add value to a conversation?

    I'm good then. If you don't think being told the truth is value, then you can add yourself to the list of those that are using value/price as a ruse for anger over losing 'a feature' for free.

    You are addressing an issue that I did not even bring up. May you please stick to the points in my post. I'm talking about inclusion of the players that want more function from templates and in the general sense, not leaving out players that want to support Anet.

    Until you know the cost and the function they give, the complaints are simply speculation.

    We know these things, if you haven't seen the showcase video then maybe you should take a look. They are also outlined in their blog post about templates and the clarification from the dev on the forums as well.

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

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Roquen.5406 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Roquen.5406 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Rubius.9280 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    'Green lit' in NOT a indication that it's not illegal

    I disagree - green-lit means exactly what everyone understands it to mean.

    No green lit doesn't not mean what you understand it to mean. It means what it ACTUALLY means: Anet allowed it to be used. That doesn't change the legality ... they made an exception because of the impacts other choices would have. You can THANK them for that decision BTW>

    @IndigoSundown.5419 said:
    Regardless, this post comes from a player who is decidedly not part of the target market for templates, albeit one who does prefer that consumers provide value for money -- and in this case, I don't believe ANet is doing so.

    If that's the case, then it will be fundamentally reflected in the revenue, which is how the customer/provider relationship has always worked (and actually does work).

    If the price is wrong for the value it gives, sales will be low. THIS is why the complaints people have are dishonest ... they are arguing the price and value aren't aligned ... but they don't know what the value and the price will be. It's just a dishonest way of complaining they don't get their 'feature' for free anymore.

    Honestly, may you refrain from posting here unless you actually want to add value to a conversation?

    I'm good then. If you don't think being told the truth is value, then you can add yourself to the list of those that are using value/price as a ruse for anger over losing 'a feature' for free.

    You are addressing an issue that I did not even bring up. May you please stick to the points in my post. I'm talking about inclusion of the players that want more function from templates and in the general sense, not leaving out players that want to support Anet.

    Until you know the cost and the function they give, the complaints are simply speculation.

    That's complete nonsense and you know it. We saw the function and we know the price range. Both are facts. The system won't change, not even a minimum because it was announced around two weeks ago and they said they need bugfixing (and a pretty heavy one since items got "eaten" by their system). Additionally the pricing was stated too. There is no speculation about it if you announce it'll have comparable costs as bag and bank slots.

    R.I.P. Build Templates, 15.10.2019

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 25, 2019

    @Roquen.5406 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Roquen.5406 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Roquen.5406 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Rubius.9280 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    'Green lit' in NOT a indication that it's not illegal

    I disagree - green-lit means exactly what everyone understands it to mean.

    No green lit doesn't not mean what you understand it to mean. It means what it ACTUALLY means: Anet allowed it to be used. That doesn't change the legality ... they made an exception because of the impacts other choices would have. You can THANK them for that decision BTW>

    @IndigoSundown.5419 said:
    Regardless, this post comes from a player who is decidedly not part of the target market for templates, albeit one who does prefer that consumers provide value for money -- and in this case, I don't believe ANet is doing so.

    If that's the case, then it will be fundamentally reflected in the revenue, which is how the customer/provider relationship has always worked (and actually does work).

    If the price is wrong for the value it gives, sales will be low. THIS is why the complaints people have are dishonest ... they are arguing the price and value aren't aligned ... but they don't know what the value and the price will be. It's just a dishonest way of complaining they don't get their 'feature' for free anymore.

    Honestly, may you refrain from posting here unless you actually want to add value to a conversation?

    I'm good then. If you don't think being told the truth is value, then you can add yourself to the list of those that are using value/price as a ruse for anger over losing 'a feature' for free.

    You are addressing an issue that I did not even bring up. May you please stick to the points in my post. I'm talking about inclusion of the players that want more function from templates and in the general sense, not leaving out players that want to support Anet.

    Until you know the cost and the function they give, the complaints are simply speculation.

    We know these things, if you haven't seen the showcase video then maybe you should take a look. They are also outlined in their blog post about templates and the clarification from the dev on the forums as well.

    No you don't ... you don't PLAY a video and you don't know the cost.

    There is NO case for complaining for change if there is no implementation.

    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/

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

    @Vinceman.4572 said:
    We saw the function and we know the price range. Both are facts.

    Facts that you didn't see them in the game. /thread.

    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/

  • Roquen.5406Roquen.5406 Member ✭✭✭

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Vinceman.4572 said:
    We saw the function and we know the price range. Both are facts.

    Facts that you didn't see them in the game. /thread.

    Is your sole goal on the forums to, "win"? Why is this comment even necessary? How does this help you, Anet, or the rest of the playerbase? Anet showed exactly what we are going to get, why is this a point you deny?

    Do you have insider knowledge and they secretly made a bunch of changes that will appeal to more of the playerbase? If so, then fair enough but with how complicated their template system seems to have been to implement, I highly doubt that's the case.

  • Acheron.4731Acheron.4731 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Roquen.5406 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Roquen.5406 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Rubius.9280 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    'Green lit' in NOT a indication that it's not illegal

    I disagree - green-lit means exactly what everyone understands it to mean.

    No green lit doesn't not mean what you understand it to mean. It means what it ACTUALLY means: Anet allowed it to be used. That doesn't change the legality ... they made an exception because of the impacts other choices would have. You can THANK them for that decision BTW>

    @IndigoSundown.5419 said:
    Regardless, this post comes from a player who is decidedly not part of the target market for templates, albeit one who does prefer that consumers provide value for money -- and in this case, I don't believe ANet is doing so.

    If that's the case, then it will be fundamentally reflected in the revenue, which is how the customer/provider relationship has always worked (and actually does work).

    If the price is wrong for the value it gives, sales will be low. THIS is why the complaints people have are dishonest ... they are arguing the price and value aren't aligned ... but they don't know what the value and the price will be. It's just a dishonest way of complaining they don't get their 'feature' for free anymore.

    Honestly, may you refrain from posting here unless you actually want to add value to a conversation?

    I'm good then. If you don't think being told the truth is value, then you can add yourself to the list of those that are using value/price as a ruse for anger over losing 'a feature' for free.

    You are addressing an issue that I did not even bring up. May you please stick to the points in my post. I'm talking about inclusion of the players that want more function from templates and in the general sense, not leaving out players that want to support Anet.

    Until you know the cost and the function they give, the complaints are simply speculation. I love the irony that I"M not adding value when all the complaints are baseless.

    I thought it was guilty til proven innocent?
    I always get those backwards

    A true friend of the crown

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 25, 2019

    @Roquen.5406 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Vinceman.4572 said:
    We saw the function and we know the price range. Both are facts.

    Facts that you didn't see them in the game. /thread.

    Is your sole goal on the forums to, "win"? Why is this comment even necessary? How does this help you, Anet, or the rest of the playerbase? Anet showed exactly what we are going to get, why is this a point you deny?

    Do you have insider knowledge and they secretly made a bunch of changes that will appeal to more of the playerbase? If so, then fair enough but with how complicated their template system seems to have been to implement, I highly doubt that's the case.

    Is this where I turn the table and accuse you of not sticking to the topic and not adding value?

    You don't know the implementation or price ingame ... until it is IN GAME, PERIOD. Any complaints are based on what is NOT implemented in the game.

    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/

  • Roquen.5406Roquen.5406 Member ✭✭✭

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Roquen.5406 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Vinceman.4572 said:
    We saw the function and we know the price range. Both are facts.

    Facts that you didn't see them in the game. /thread.

    Is your sole goal on the forums to, "win"? Why is this comment even necessary? How does this help you, Anet, or the rest of the playerbase? Anet showed exactly what we are going to get, why is this a point you deny?

    Do you have insider knowledge and they secretly made a bunch of changes that will appeal to more of the playerbase? If so, then fair enough but with how complicated their template system seems to have been to implement, I highly doubt that's the case.

    Is this where I turn the table and accuse you of not sticking to the topic and not adding value?

    You don't know the implementation or price ingame ... until it is IN GAME, PERIOD. Any complaints are based on what is NOT implemented in the game.

    Sigh, I really was trying to level with you. You don't seem to care about what's potentially beneficial for anyone. You just want to "win" whatever conversation you are having. There's nothing more to be said to you until Tuesday I guess. And who knows what your stance will be then - but I guess that's what you need to believe the system is what Anet showed us it will be.

    Have a great weekend.

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

    @Roquen.5406 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Roquen.5406 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Vinceman.4572 said:
    We saw the function and we know the price range. Both are facts.

    Facts that you didn't see them in the game. /thread.

    Is your sole goal on the forums to, "win"? Why is this comment even necessary? How does this help you, Anet, or the rest of the playerbase? Anet showed exactly what we are going to get, why is this a point you deny?

    Do you have insider knowledge and they secretly made a bunch of changes that will appeal to more of the playerbase? If so, then fair enough but with how complicated their template system seems to have been to implement, I highly doubt that's the case.

    Is this where I turn the table and accuse you of not sticking to the topic and not adding value?

    You don't know the implementation or price ingame ... until it is IN GAME, PERIOD. Any complaints are based on what is NOT implemented in the game.

    Sigh, I really was trying to level with you. You don't seem to care about what's potentially beneficial for anyone.

    I do ... I'm just not so presumptuous that I'm willing to jump into the fray of ridiculous discussions based on speculation. I don't know the cost and neither does anyone else so until then, I don't know what is 'potentially beneficial' ... and neither do you ... unless you are just one of these people that think it should cost nothing or next-to-nothing because they had a free version already.

    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/

  • Trollocks.5084Trollocks.5084 Member ✭✭✭

    The fact that templates, something that should have been in GW2 from day ONE, are going to require payment, just means I am giving up the game for good.

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

    @Trollocks.5084 said:
    The fact that templates, something that should have been in GW2 from day ONE, are going to require payment, just means I am giving up the game for good.

    The fact is that that is irrelevant ... you would pay for slots either way, day one or day end.

    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/

  • Trollocks.5084Trollocks.5084 Member ✭✭✭

    No, I won't pay extra for something that should have been included in the base game. Don't speak for me.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 25, 2019

    @Trollocks.5084 said:
    No, I won't pay extra for something that should have been included in the base game. Don't speak for me.

    Template Slots would not have been part of the base game is what I'm telling you; you would highly likely to have to buy slots just like any other quantity-based feature that have been in the game since day 1 ... I'm not 'speaking' for you just because you don't care to understand what you are being told ... so settle down.

    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/

  • knite.1542knite.1542 Member ✭✭✭

    I would like to keep using them too. The amount that they announced they will be putting in game is no where near what I used to use. Oh well I guess. Can't win em all.

    so you are still salty about that.

  • Vinceman.4572Vinceman.4572 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 26, 2019

    I have my post ready for Tuesday, 6:01 CET, since apparently it is speculation to talk about the pricing and the function before that very release although both are crystal clear and set in stone. And no, I don't discuss about variances of 50 gems because that will be the next discussion point if templates are 350/550 and not 400/600 gems. I bet someone will come around and then say: But, but the prices aren't exactly the same of bag and bank tabs. Trust me. =)
    We were talking about those threads here in the forum in our discord. For us it seems that some people are so deeply connected with Anet in an emotional way so they have to agree to everything the company is doing and it's not possible for them to retreat one little step as it would be losing their face. Ridiculous but funny. For me it's not worth to post here any longer (just the one on Tuesday), the dungeon, fractal & raid forum is a healthier place than this skritt show.

    R.I.P. Build Templates, 15.10.2019

  • Krzysztof.5973Krzysztof.5973 Member ✭✭✭

    The fact that Delta's ArcDPS build templates exist would not be a problem IF release of ANet's templates was actually an improvement for QoL. As long as they will fill the gap and get closer to what already was free - all the problems of pricing and legitimacy of Arc will disappear. If this upcoming update was well implemented people would've paid for it. Here comes to mind the question " are they going to do something about it? ".

  • ^^ the vast majority of gw2 do no use arcdps so it is a Vast improvement of QOL. For arcdps, the primary argument seems to be cost, and I can understand that, but they fail to see the big picture, every years costs go up, gw2 needs income, and players need good quality useful items to buy. These people need to remember they are playing with no sub.

    "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 ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 29, 2019

    Approximately 7 more hours to go... Anyone else worried about their gear? Do I dare to log in after the patch has loaded?