Official Feedback Thread about Build and Equipment Templates - Page 27 — Guild Wars 2 Forums
Home Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Official Feedback Thread about Build and Equipment Templates

12223242527

Comments

  • Zaklex.6308Zaklex.6308 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @TwoGhosts.6790 said:

    @Zaklex.6308 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    Count the amount of characters you have, multiply by 500 gems and you have the cost for an account wide unlock.

    What you are actually demanding is an option which scales with the amount of characters on your account and/or a discount.

    There was a discount on equipment templates already, should have bought then. It is unlikely that a scalable option is added since that option would either have to be insanely expensive to accommodate the potential maximum amount of characters per account, or insanely cheap.

    Since the maximum number of character slots is currently 70 they'd have to account for people that have that many slots...wonder if the OP would actually be willing to pay 35000 gems for an account wide equipment slot(he said he would, but after seeing the price I wonder)?

    The price of shared inventory slots do not scale in that way. What's your point?

    I would also being willing pay for a good templates system. Unfortunately that's not what we have.

    Also, the cost of opening max slots per character is absurdly expensive. Also, the max slots available is absurdly restrictive, even if you pay the absurd price.

    It's absurd.

    My point being is that for them to offer account bound equipment slots they would have to price them just that way to equate the income they can conceivably receive from selling them per character as is the case now. Sure they could potentially offer a sliding scale based on how many characters you have, but I can see all sorts of issues with that for those that create and delete characters for key runs and other things.

    There are players that have max character slots, but they bought a lot of the extra ones during the annual anniversary sale, the same time a lot of people buy things like keys in bulk or other things without limits on how many you can purchase. We can only hope they increase the max number of characters to 100 with the release of the 3rd expansion, for those that feel the need to have that many characters.

    Yes...no...maybe...what do you want, can't you see I'm busy saving the world...AGAIN!

  • TwoGhosts.6790TwoGhosts.6790 Member ✭✭✭

    @Zaklex.6308 said:

    @TwoGhosts.6790 said:

    @Zaklex.6308 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    Count the amount of characters you have, multiply by 500 gems and you have the cost for an account wide unlock.

    What you are actually demanding is an option which scales with the amount of characters on your account and/or a discount.

    There was a discount on equipment templates already, should have bought then. It is unlikely that a scalable option is added since that option would either have to be insanely expensive to accommodate the potential maximum amount of characters per account, or insanely cheap.

    Since the maximum number of character slots is currently 70 they'd have to account for people that have that many slots...wonder if the OP would actually be willing to pay 35000 gems for an account wide equipment slot(he said he would, but after seeing the price I wonder)?

    The price of shared inventory slots do not scale in that way. What's your point?

    I would also being willing pay for a good templates system. Unfortunately that's not what we have.

    Also, the cost of opening max slots per character is absurdly expensive. Also, the max slots available is absurdly restrictive, even if you pay the absurd price.

    It's absurd.

    My point being is that for them to offer account bound equipment slots they would have to price them just that way to equate the income they can conceivably receive from selling them per character as is the case now. Sure they could potentially offer a sliding scale based on how many characters you have, but I can see all sorts of issues with that for those that create and delete characters for key runs and other things.

    There are players that have max character slots, but they bought a lot of the extra ones during the annual anniversary sale, the same time a lot of people buy things like keys in bulk or other things without limits on how many you can purchase. We can only hope they increase the max number of characters to 100 with the release of the 3rd expansion, for those that feel the need to have that many characters.

    And you missed my point.

    The price of account-wide shared inventory slots does not scale. It makes no difference if you have 5 or 70 characters, the price is the same. It seems Anet has no problem with this. There is, therefore, a precedence for this that they could have followed with their templates bullsheet.

  • Cyninja.2954Cyninja.2954 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @TwoGhosts.6790 said:

    @Zaklex.6308 said:

    @TwoGhosts.6790 said:

    @Zaklex.6308 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    Count the amount of characters you have, multiply by 500 gems and you have the cost for an account wide unlock.

    What you are actually demanding is an option which scales with the amount of characters on your account and/or a discount.

    There was a discount on equipment templates already, should have bought then. It is unlikely that a scalable option is added since that option would either have to be insanely expensive to accommodate the potential maximum amount of characters per account, or insanely cheap.

    Since the maximum number of character slots is currently 70 they'd have to account for people that have that many slots...wonder if the OP would actually be willing to pay 35000 gems for an account wide equipment slot(he said he would, but after seeing the price I wonder)?

    The price of shared inventory slots do not scale in that way. What's your point?

    I would also being willing pay for a good templates system. Unfortunately that's not what we have.

    Also, the cost of opening max slots per character is absurdly expensive. Also, the max slots available is absurdly restrictive, even if you pay the absurd price.

    It's absurd.

    My point being is that for them to offer account bound equipment slots they would have to price them just that way to equate the income they can conceivably receive from selling them per character as is the case now. Sure they could potentially offer a sliding scale based on how many characters you have, but I can see all sorts of issues with that for those that create and delete characters for key runs and other things.

    There are players that have max character slots, but they bought a lot of the extra ones during the annual anniversary sale, the same time a lot of people buy things like keys in bulk or other things without limits on how many you can purchase. We can only hope they increase the max number of characters to 100 with the release of the 3rd expansion, for those that feel the need to have that many characters.

    And you missed my point.

    The price of account-wide shared inventory slots does not scale. It makes no difference if you have 5 or 70 characters, the price is the same. It seems Anet has no problem with this. There is, therefore, a precedence for this that they could have followed with their templates bullsheet.

    Given how equip templates function a lot more similar to bag slots, given they store items, guess what precedent character bag slots set?

  • Pifil.5193Pifil.5193 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I think a lot of the problems with the templates come from the fact that it was split into three monetized pieces that came at once.

    I think they shouldn't have added equipment templates. They should have left all unequipped gear in people's bags like before but the equipment loadout should have been part of the build template. So your build would be your skills, traits and equipment (which is what a build is).

    Then a little later on they could have added equipment storage on a character by character basis. Each storage could unlock, let's say, 20 slots that could only store Sigils, Runes and bound equipment and people would have been falling over themselves thanking ArenaNet for giving them a solution they would want.

    Similarly if they introduced the account build storage later on people would have been happier to pay for it.

    Anyway, that's all irrelevant now.

  • Zaklex.6308Zaklex.6308 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @TwoGhosts.6790 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @TwoGhosts.6790 said:

    @Zaklex.6308 said:

    @TwoGhosts.6790 said:

    @Zaklex.6308 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    Count the amount of characters you have, multiply by 500 gems and you have the cost for an account wide unlock.

    What you are actually demanding is an option which scales with the amount of characters on your account and/or a discount.

    There was a discount on equipment templates already, should have bought then. It is unlikely that a scalable option is added since that option would either have to be insanely expensive to accommodate the potential maximum amount of characters per account, or insanely cheap.

    Since the maximum number of character slots is currently 70 they'd have to account for people that have that many slots...wonder if the OP would actually be willing to pay 35000 gems for an account wide equipment slot(he said he would, but after seeing the price I wonder)?

    The price of shared inventory slots do not scale in that way. What's your point?

    I would also being willing pay for a good templates system. Unfortunately that's not what we have.

    Also, the cost of opening max slots per character is absurdly expensive. Also, the max slots available is absurdly restrictive, even if you pay the absurd price.

    It's absurd.

    My point being is that for them to offer account bound equipment slots they would have to price them just that way to equate the income they can conceivably receive from selling them per character as is the case now. Sure they could potentially offer a sliding scale based on how many characters you have, but I can see all sorts of issues with that for those that create and delete characters for key runs and other things.

    There are players that have max character slots, but they bought a lot of the extra ones during the annual anniversary sale, the same time a lot of people buy things like keys in bulk or other things without limits on how many you can purchase. We can only hope they increase the max number of characters to 100 with the release of the 3rd expansion, for those that feel the need to have that many characters.

    And you missed my point.

    The price of account-wide shared inventory slots does not scale. It makes no difference if you have 5 or 70 characters, the price is the same. It seems Anet has no problem with this. There is, therefore, a precedence for this that they could have followed with their templates bullsheet.

    Given how equip templates function a lot more similar to bag slots, given they store items, guess what precedent character bag slots set?

    Potato potato.
    They could have made them account wide.
    They should have.
    I would have bought in.
    They didn't.
    I won't spend a penny on this garbage.

    The problem with your argument is that it's not potato, potatoe and Cyninja.2954 is absolutely correct. Shared inventory slots are classified differently from Equipment slots; as stated an Equipment slot is similar in function to a Bag slot in that it allows you to hold the different pieces of equipment in one single location, there fore it would have to be priced the same as the sell bag slots, which is per character. You also have the right not to purchase them, but I'll bet their metrics show them that many did, those dedicated enough to want to have enough equipment slots for characters that need more than the two provided would've done so. Just maybe you and I aren't the target audience for those particular items.

    Yes...no...maybe...what do you want, can't you see I'm busy saving the world...AGAIN!

  • TwoGhosts.6790TwoGhosts.6790 Member ✭✭✭
    edited May 6, 2020

    @Zaklex.6308 said:

    @TwoGhosts.6790 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @TwoGhosts.6790 said:

    @Zaklex.6308 said:

    @TwoGhosts.6790 said:

    @Zaklex.6308 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    Count the amount of characters you have, multiply by 500 gems and you have the cost for an account wide unlock.

    What you are actually demanding is an option which scales with the amount of characters on your account and/or a discount.

    There was a discount on equipment templates already, should have bought then. It is unlikely that a scalable option is added since that option would either have to be insanely expensive to accommodate the potential maximum amount of characters per account, or insanely cheap.

    Since the maximum number of character slots is currently 70 they'd have to account for people that have that many slots...wonder if the OP would actually be willing to pay 35000 gems for an account wide equipment slot(he said he would, but after seeing the price I wonder)?

    The price of shared inventory slots do not scale in that way. What's your point?

    I would also being willing pay for a good templates system. Unfortunately that's not what we have.

    Also, the cost of opening max slots per character is absurdly expensive. Also, the max slots available is absurdly restrictive, even if you pay the absurd price.

    It's absurd.

    My point being is that for them to offer account bound equipment slots they would have to price them just that way to equate the income they can conceivably receive from selling them per character as is the case now. Sure they could potentially offer a sliding scale based on how many characters you have, but I can see all sorts of issues with that for those that create and delete characters for key runs and other things.

    There are players that have max character slots, but they bought a lot of the extra ones during the annual anniversary sale, the same time a lot of people buy things like keys in bulk or other things without limits on how many you can purchase. We can only hope they increase the max number of characters to 100 with the release of the 3rd expansion, for those that feel the need to have that many characters.

    And you missed my point.

    The price of account-wide shared inventory slots does not scale. It makes no difference if you have 5 or 70 characters, the price is the same. It seems Anet has no problem with this. There is, therefore, a precedence for this that they could have followed with their templates bullsheet.

    Given how equip templates function a lot more similar to bag slots, given they store items, guess what precedent character bag slots set?

    Potato potato.
    They could have made them account wide.
    They should have.
    I would have bought in.
    They didn't.
    I won't spend a penny on this garbage.

    The problem with your argument is that it's not potato, potatoe and Cyninja.2954 is absolutely correct. Shared inventory slots are classified differently from Equipment slots; as stated an Equipment slot is similar in function to a Bag slot in that it allows you to hold the different pieces of equipment in one single location, there fore it would have to be priced the same as the sell bag slots, which is per character. You also have the right not to purchase them, but I'll bet their metrics show them that many did, those dedicated enough to want to have enough equipment slots for characters that need more than the two provided would've done so. Just maybe you and I aren't the target audience for those particular items.

    And the problem with the decision that they took with their design is that it's not (therefore) a template system, it's a loadout system.
    If I needed a character storage solution, one of those (as you say) already exists in the gem store, it's called a Bag Slot Expansion.
    What I wanted, however, was a really, really good templates solution.
    Why? Because I was used to using one already.
    They could have made it an account-wide system, and they could have priced it any way they wanted to.
    But it appears they they chose to base their design on the premise of monetisation, far beyond fun or function.
    So now, the system we have is not a template system. It is a clunky, counter-intuitive, frustrating pita. For those of us who had become accustomed to the brilliant Arc Templates, Anet's system is a bloated and (even when maxed) hugely restrictive and massively overpriced alternative.
    By direct comparison with Arc Templates, the Anet 'solution' it is an off-the-charts QoL reduction. GG.
    And again, for the record, I would have gladly paid for a system that worked similarly to Arc Templates. The functionality of Arc made end-game exploration so accessible, creative and fun that I'd have paid 5K-10K gems without a problem.
    But this system is garbage.

  • Cyninja.2954Cyninja.2954 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 6, 2020

    @IndigoSundown.5419 said:

    @Zaklex.6308 said:

    ... but I'll bet their metrics show them that many did, those dedicated enough to want to have enough equipment slots for characters that need more than the two provided would've done so.

    Yes, and that led to a dramatic increase in revenue in 4th quarter 2019, when the system was introduced. Oh, wait... revenue actually fell dramatically in 4Q19. Now, maybe the load-out system actually saved the game, but on the face of it, it doesn't look like the system was widely accepted by the target market. Why? Psychology. ANet introduced a high-priced system that is dramatically inferior to that provided by the free add-on they tolerated for years. As Mindcircus said, that left a bad taste in the mouth.

    That is true.

    First off, I don't believe myself that the equipment template system met expected revenue. There a numerous factors which speak for this:

    • steep decline in revenue in the last quarters
    • a major overhaul of the system shortly after it was introduced
    • a huge increase in monetization of other items following the weak quarters

    So in a way, players are getting that which they are paying, or not paying for. The amount of new skins, rebates, new gem store items is at an all time high. Most cosmetic in nature. Not a day/week goes by which does not introduce a "free" item in the store to draw players attention to it with new items for purchase.

    There is also a high probability that the necessity and desire for a build and equipment template system was wildly overestimated by the developers. Recent threads on the subject where players made mention of how many actually use these features show that, at least among the forum participating player pool, many simply do not make use of templates. Potentially the target audience was incorrectly chosen.

    @TwoGhosts.6790 said:

    @Zaklex.6308 said:

    @TwoGhosts.6790 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @TwoGhosts.6790 said:

    @Zaklex.6308 said:

    @TwoGhosts.6790 said:

    @Zaklex.6308 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    Count the amount of characters you have, multiply by 500 gems and you have the cost for an account wide unlock.

    What you are actually demanding is an option which scales with the amount of characters on your account and/or a discount.

    There was a discount on equipment templates already, should have bought then. It is unlikely that a scalable option is added since that option would either have to be insanely expensive to accommodate the potential maximum amount of characters per account, or insanely cheap.

    Since the maximum number of character slots is currently 70 they'd have to account for people that have that many slots...wonder if the OP would actually be willing to pay 35000 gems for an account wide equipment slot(he said he would, but after seeing the price I wonder)?

    The price of shared inventory slots do not scale in that way. What's your point?

    I would also being willing pay for a good templates system. Unfortunately that's not what we have.

    Also, the cost of opening max slots per character is absurdly expensive. Also, the max slots available is absurdly restrictive, even if you pay the absurd price.

    It's absurd.

    My point being is that for them to offer account bound equipment slots they would have to price them just that way to equate the income they can conceivably receive from selling them per character as is the case now. Sure they could potentially offer a sliding scale based on how many characters you have, but I can see all sorts of issues with that for those that create and delete characters for key runs and other things.

    There are players that have max character slots, but they bought a lot of the extra ones during the annual anniversary sale, the same time a lot of people buy things like keys in bulk or other things without limits on how many you can purchase. We can only hope they increase the max number of characters to 100 with the release of the 3rd expansion, for those that feel the need to have that many characters.

    And you missed my point.

    The price of account-wide shared inventory slots does not scale. It makes no difference if you have 5 or 70 characters, the price is the same. It seems Anet has no problem with this. There is, therefore, a precedence for this that they could have followed with their templates bullsheet.

    Given how equip templates function a lot more similar to bag slots, given they store items, guess what precedent character bag slots set?

    Potato potato.
    They could have made them account wide.
    They should have.
    I would have bought in.
    They didn't.
    I won't spend a penny on this garbage.

    The problem with your argument is that it's not potato, potatoe and Cyninja.2954 is absolutely correct. Shared inventory slots are classified differently from Equipment slots; as stated an Equipment slot is similar in function to a Bag slot in that it allows you to hold the different pieces of equipment in one single location, there fore it would have to be priced the same as the sell bag slots, which is per character. You also have the right not to purchase them, but I'll bet their metrics show them that many did, those dedicated enough to want to have enough equipment slots for characters that need more than the two provided would've done so. Just maybe you and I aren't the target audience for those particular items.

    And the problem with the decision that they took with their design is that it's not (therefore) a template system, it's a loadout system.
    If I needed a character storage solution, one of those (as you say) already exists in the gem store, it's called a Bag Slot Expansion.
    What I wanted, however, was a really, really good templates solution.
    Why? Because I was used to using one already.
    They could have made it an account-wide system, and they could have priced it any way they wanted to.
    But it appears they they chose to base their design on the premise of monetisation, far beyond fun or function.
    So now, the system we have is not a template system. It is a clunky, counter-intuitive, frustrating pita. For those of us who had become accustomed to the brilliant Arc Templates, Anet's system is a bloated and (even when maxed) hugely restrictive and massively overpriced alternative.
    By direct comparison with Arc Templates, the Anet 'solution' it is an off-the-charts QoL reduction. GG.
    And again, for the record, I would have gladly paid for a system that worked similarly to Arc Templates. The functionality of Arc made end-game exploration so accessible, creative and fun that I'd have paid 5K-10K gems without a problem.
    But this system is garbage.

    For the record:
    we do not know what or if you had payed for anything (not even you can know for sure). That is you assuming, just as players have been claiming they would love to pay for a build template system in the past. You are acting based on personal emotions (which is very clear from the way you approach this subject) which in turn are formed by both availability of a free template version before, and you not seeing any value in the current implementation of the in-game template system. That suggests you are at best just simply angry, or at worst (from a potential revenue perspective) not the financial target group.

    What we do know is:
    You are currently not part of the target audience for the way templates/builds are implemented. Time will tell if the developers manage to make the system appeal to more players or not.

  • Zaklex.6308Zaklex.6308 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @IndigoSundown.5419 said:

    @Zaklex.6308 said:

    ... but I'll bet their metrics show them that many did, those dedicated enough to want to have enough equipment slots for characters that need more than the two provided would've done so.

    Yes, and that led to a dramatic increase in revenue in 4th quarter 2019, when the system was introduced. Oh, wait... revenue actually fell dramatically in 4Q19. Now, maybe the load-out system actually saved the game, but on the face of it, it doesn't look like the system was widely accepted by the target market. Why? Psychology. ANet introduced a high-priced system that is dramatically inferior to that provided by the free add-on they tolerated for years. As Mindcircus said, that left a bad taste in the mouth.

    Problem with that argument is we have no answers as to why revenue declined so sharply in the 4th quarter, the only people that know the reasons why are ArenaNet and NCSoft...and that's something I won't even speculate on.

    Yes...no...maybe...what do you want, can't you see I'm busy saving the world...AGAIN!

  • Deihnyx.6318Deihnyx.6318 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Not against it, but would be unfair for those of us who already paid for per-character templates.
    How would that work for us?

    However, I would def want more than 6 templates and better integration with PVP, I can't get in queue outside of HotM without something funky going on.

  • aaron.7850aaron.7850 Member ✭✭✭

    @Deihnyx.6318 said:
    Not against it, but would be unfair for those of us who already paid for per-character templates.
    How would that work for us?

    However, I would def want more than 6 templates and better integration with PVP, I can't get in queue outside of HotM without something funky going on.

    There is a thing called Steam sales and a lot of games go up to 75% discount sale, for many companies these sales represent a huge boost in revenue. Its called business and pro-consumer tactics. I dont cry and complain when a game I bought at full price goes cheaper down the road.

  • Deihnyx.6318Deihnyx.6318 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @aaron.7850 said:

    @Deihnyx.6318 said:
    Not against it, but would be unfair for those of us who already paid for per-character templates.
    How would that work for us?

    However, I would def want more than 6 templates and better integration with PVP, I can't get in queue outside of HotM without something funky going on.

    There is a thing called Steam sales and a lot of games go up to 75% discount sale, for many companies these sales represent a huge boost in revenue. Its called business and pro-consumer tactics. I dont cry and complain when a game I bought at full price goes cheaper down the road.

    That is not the same thing. Sales are expected. A change in pricing model is not.

  • Infusion.7149Infusion.7149 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 6, 2020

    I would expect new equipment template bundles if they intend to sell more of them. (i.e. 5+ = 20% or more discount and 10+ = 25%+ discount , first 5-10 for much less, or unlock all for a character at a reduced amount).
    Anyway while I would say build storage is a extremely pricey, Arenanet was rather up front about equipment templates : we were told to expect pricing in line with bag slots and bank tabs. Could they have been cheaper? Definitely. Could "build templates" have specified what sort of equipment stats and weapons were run? Definitely.

    In addition, extra equipment templates aren't relevant for the casual playerbase that doesn't WvW and just uses Berserker's (or Berserker's mixed to reach 100% crit chance) + Viper's gear (or whatever condi mix). 2 equipment templates covers that so it hurts support players the most and WvW players that don't use dedicated WvW characters.

    Equipment templates allow you to use +5 WvW stat infusions much more effectively if you have legendary armor, backpiece, weapons, and trinkets with 3+ stats using those items. You won't need to extract or remove the +9 agony infusions to put in WvW infusions. That's basically the only time they have significant QoL improvement over 2-4 ascended sets or 2 character slots.

    The amount of equipment templates is limited right now but it has been datamined up to 10 templates on a character. Short of min-maxing in PvE that should cover most use cases if you have a dedicated WvW character and dedicated PvE character ; if you play PvE and only WvW occasionally you could get by with 4-5 templates for a support class (i.e. firebrand/DH, renegade/herald, tempest/weaver, holo/scrapper, berserker/spellbreaker, reaper/scourge, soulbeast/druid which doesn't belong in WvW) and 3 templates for non support (i.e. thief). Mesmer has the outright roughest time due to the min-maxing factors.

    Legendary armory is supposed to address the lower "gain" in making legendaries and to solve the shared inventory character legendary swapping requirement. That's the shared inventory equivalent here, and I fully expect it to be monetized directly or indirectly (requiring equipment templates).

    If next patch suddenly build storage was increased to the level of bank storage where one 500 gem purchase gets you 24-30 slots (unlikely) and the basic no-purchase slots actually could fit one per class then it would be much more reasonable.

  • Cyninja.2954Cyninja.2954 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 7, 2020

    @aaron.7850 said:

    @Deihnyx.6318 said:
    Not against it, but would be unfair for those of us who already paid for per-character templates.
    How would that work for us?

    However, I would def want more than 6 templates and better integration with PVP, I can't get in queue outside of HotM without something funky going on.

    There is a thing called Steam sales and a lot of games go up to 75% discount sale, for many companies these sales represent a huge boost in revenue. Its called business and pro-consumer tactics. I dont cry and complain when a game I bought at full price goes cheaper down the road.

    The flaw here is: game sales and price drops as they age (though there are games which are not affected by this as much, see Legend of Zelda Breath of the Wild for example).

    GW2 in game convenience items have not depreciated in value the same way. Character slots are just as expensive now as they were back when they were introduced. Items here going on sale has a very different effect compared to game sales, and most never go on sale with 75% or such ludicrous values.. Mostly because this game is in continued development.

    Then there is the entire issue that in order to publish on steam you have to agree to valves rules, and there are rules which regulate mandatory sales and price reduction based on age.

    The most reasonable assumption here is that the equipment and build templates will see improving until the value/price proposition is high enough to entice enough players to purchase more. Chances are very low this will be done via price reduction across the board, since improving the system is overall more beneficial financially and from a quality of life perspective.

    In short: if you are holding out for high price reductions, you might be in for a long wait.

  • mindcircus.1506mindcircus.1506 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 8, 2020

    @Deihnyx.6318 said:

    @aaron.7850 said:

    @Deihnyx.6318 said:
    Not against it, but would be unfair for those of us who already paid for per-character templates.
    How would that work for us?

    However, I would def want more than 6 templates and better integration with PVP, I can't get in queue outside of HotM without something funky going on.

    There is a thing called Steam sales and a lot of games go up to 75% discount sale, for many companies these sales represent a huge boost in revenue. Its called business and pro-consumer tactics. I dont cry and complain when a game I bought at full price goes cheaper down the road.

    That is not the same thing. Sales are expected. A change in pricing model is not.

    This entire game changed it's pricing model after Heart of Thorns released.

    "We recognize that some players are not able to complete all content." Gaile Gray 01.10.19

  • mindcircus.1506mindcircus.1506 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    Chances are very low this will be done via price reduction across the board, since improving the system is overall more beneficial financially and from a quality of life perspective.

    Just what do you think they could value-add to this system that will make it worth the current price? How many dev hours would be needed to reach that magical QoL tipping point that actually gives his product the value it needs to justify the cost to consumers?
    Do you really think that the dev time invested would be cheaper and drive more sales than just adjusting the pricing?
    They still have a fair number of impactful bugs in this product to iron out and those fixes haven't exactly been coming in a timely manner.

    Bugs aside, the current build template system is absolutely fantastic in terms of functionality, ease of use and the ability to share.
    But if you think that spending a bunch more development resources on improving it's QoL features is going to drive more revenue than simply adjusting the pricing, you are as out of touch with what players want as the people who monetized it in the first place.

    As it stands the current system's value is still eclipsed by purchasing an extra character slot... the "solution" this system was supposed to address.

    "We recognize that some players are not able to complete all content." Gaile Gray 01.10.19

  • Linken.6345Linken.6345 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @mindcircus.1506 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    Chances are very low this will be done via price reduction across the board, since improving the system is overall more beneficial financially and from a quality of life perspective.

    Just what do you think they could value-add to this system that will make it worth the current price? How many dev hours would be needed to reach that magical QoL tipping point that actually gives his product the value it needs to justify the cost to consumers?
    Do you really think that the dev time invested would be cheaper and drive more sales than just adjusting the pricing?
    They still have a fair number of impactful bugs in this product to iron out and those fixes haven't exactly been coming in a timely manner.

    Bugs aside, the current build template system is absolutely fantastic in terms of functionality, ease of use and the ability to share.
    But if you think that spending a bunch more development resources on improving it's QoL features is going to drive more revenue than simply adjusting the pricing, you are as out of touch with what players want as the people who monetized it in the first place.

    As it stands the current system's value is still eclipsed by purchasing an extra character slot... the "solution" this system was supposed to address.

    Were have they ever stated that this system was made so people dident have to buy any more character slots?

  • mindcircus.1506mindcircus.1506 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Fenella.2634 said:
    I'm not buying anything loadout-related until there's at least a 90 to 95 % discount. About 20 € total is the absolut maximum I'm willing to spend for build templates for the whole account. Anything more expensive than that is completely out of the question.

    And I would gladly pay 1200 gems for a single account wide Equipment Storage slot unlock.
    800 for a single account wide Build Template slot unlock.
    At these prices Arenanet would see regular purchases of these from me.
    Right now the fraction of that they are seeing for these upgrades is diddly/squat.

    "We recognize that some players are not able to complete all content." Gaile Gray 01.10.19

  • Cyninja.2954Cyninja.2954 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 8, 2020

    @mindcircus.1506 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    Chances are very low this will be done via price reduction across the board, since improving the system is overall more beneficial financially and from a quality of life perspective.

    Just what do you think they could value-add to this system that will make it worth the current price? How many dev hours would be needed to reach that magical QoL tipping point that actually gives his product the value it needs to justify the cost to consumers?
    Do you really think that the dev time invested would be cheaper and drive more sales than just adjusting the pricing?
    They still have a fair number of impactful bugs in this product to iron out and those fixes haven't exactly been coming in a timely manner.

    Bugs aside, the current build template system is absolutely fantastic in terms of functionality, ease of use and the ability to share.
    But if you think that spending a bunch more development resources on improving it's QoL features is going to drive more revenue than simply adjusting the pricing, you are as out of touch with what players want as the people who monetized it in the first place.

    As it stands the current system's value is still eclipsed by purchasing an extra character slot... the "solution" this system was supposed to address.

    • a "save" button
    • optional on screen UI elements to switch between different builds on demand
    • fixing of all the bugs
    • unique visual templates per slot, removing the detriment of legendary versus ascended
    • the already announced account wide legendary armory

    Don't assume. I have multiple characters with maxed equipment templates, I'd even have more on some of them if the cap wasn't 6. Not everyone is in for a free ride with this game. That said, the goal with templates doesn't have to be that every player who wants one can afford one (as cruel as that might sound). The primary goal is to implement them as a reliable and consistent revenue stream. If that is achievable via offering additional quality of life, that will likely be the first step taken.

    @mindcircus.1506 said:
    As it stands the current system's value is still eclipsed by purchasing an extra character slot... the "solution" this system was supposed to address.

    That does not make any sense from a business perspective. Why would they try to phase out one of their likely main revenue streams? Equipment templates where meant to address a lot of things, reducing the purchase of additional character slots was likely not one of them.

    On the contrary, if templates are in competition with character slot purchases, it becomes even more imperative to distinguish both items, yet keep them at a similar price.

  • Pifil.5193Pifil.5193 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @TPMN.1483 said:
    Just give us the option to export and load to file already for an equipment template like GW1 !

    I have like 20-30 equipment builds for each character and this system does not support my needs.

    Yeah, if the builds were stored locally and included the equipment then I'd have no problem with the system at all. There was no need to charge to store builds especially as it came with such limited storage space. Thankfully there are overlays that allow you to easily store builds now.

  • mindcircus.1506mindcircus.1506 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    • a "save" button

    To save to your hard drive you mean? This would immediately kill the perceived value of the gemstore Template Storage offerings.

    • optional on screen UI elements to switch between different builds on demand

    Are they not hotkeyable? Why in the world would you need something to click?

    • fixing of all the bugs

    When was the last time you read patch notes that included a bug fix for this system?

    • unique visual templates per slot, removing the detriment of legendary versus ascended

    Can you honestly tell the rest of us that you believe a cosmetic loadout system wouldn't be packaged and monetized separately?

    • the already announced account wide legendary armory

    This alone does not increase the value to enough to warrant the cost to me

    Don't assume. I have multiple characters with maxed equipment templates, I'd even have more on some of them if the cap wasn't 6. Not everyone is in for a free ride with this game.

    Weird flex but ok.

    That said, the goal with templates doesn't have to be that every player who wants one can afford one (as cruel as that might sound). The primary goal is to implement them as a reliable and consistent revenue stream. If that is achievable via offering additional quality of life, that will likely be the first step taken.

    That's funny, I thought the goal was to release a long requested feature that was perceived as a value by enough people as to generate a decent amount of revenue. But you're right releasing a three quarters baked product, triple-dipping on the monetization, leaving impacting bugs unaddressed for multiple patches and "making it all better later" sounds like a solid plan.

    On the contrary, if templates are in competition with character slot purchases, it becomes even more imperative to distinguish both items, yet keep them at a similar price.

    They aren't at a similar price point at all.
    For 800 gems I get two equipment storage spots and three Build Template spots as a character slot.
    Bought separately and added to an existing character at a non-discounted price this represents 2500 gems.

    "We recognize that some players are not able to complete all content." Gaile Gray 01.10.19

  • Cyninja.2954Cyninja.2954 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 8, 2020

    @mindcircus.1506 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    • a "save" button

    To save to your hard drive you mean? This would immediately kill the perceived value of the gemstore Template Storage offerings.

    To save a build and not make it change or auto save when just replacing a skill temporarily.

    @mindcircus.1506 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    • optional on screen UI elements to switch between different builds on demand

    Are they not hotkeyable? Why in the world would you need something to click?

    Yes they are, want to know how many keys I have already bound? Having a clickable optional interface item would be beneficial.

    @mindcircus.1506 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    • fixing of all the bugs

    When was the last time you read patch notes that included a bug fix for this system?

    That was not your question. You asked what they could do to improve the QoL here.

    @mindcircus.1506 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    • unique visual templates per slot, removing the detriment of legendary versus ascended

    Can you honestly tell the rest of us that you believe a cosmetic loadout system wouldn't be packaged and monetized separately?

    Sure it could, but it could also be bundled here to increase this systems value in features. No point in adding a new system and having 2 systems not sell.

    @mindcircus.1506 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    • the already announced account wide legendary armory

    This alone does not increase the value to enough to warrant the cost to me

    To you. Then you are not the target audience.

    @mindcircus.1506 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    Don't assume. I have multiple characters with maxed equipment templates, I'd even have more on some of them if the cap wasn't 6. Not everyone is in for a free ride with this game.

    Weird flex but ok.

    Not a flex. Fact of life that some item here will be targeted at customers with different price sensitivity. I know quite a few people who spend gems on 25 keys per week. Those players could easily be encouraged to spend the money on templates IF they see value in them.

    @mindcircus.1506 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    That said, the goal with templates doesn't have to be that every player who wants one can afford one (as cruel as that might sound). The primary goal is to implement them as a reliable and consistent revenue stream. If that is achievable via offering additional quality of life, that will likely be the first step taken.

    That's funny, I thought the goal was to release a long requested feature that was perceived as a value by enough people as to generate a decent amount of revenue. But you're right releasing a three quarters baked product, triple-dipping on the monetization, leaving impacting bugs unaddressed for multiple patches and "making it all better later" sounds like a solid plan.

    You mean the feature people were constantly claiming they were more than willing to spend money on?

    Yes, seems logical to me that making this feature work as well as possible while keeping pricing at a point where revenue reaches target goals makes sense. Instead of price dumping it and adding even more priced features (in case of cosmetic storage).

    @mindcircus.1506 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    On the contrary, if templates are in competition with character slot purchases, it becomes even more imperative to distinguish both items, yet keep them at a similar price.

    They aren't at a similar price point at all.
    For 800 gems I get two equipment storage spots and three Build Template spots as a character slot.
    Bought separately and added to an existing character at a non-discounted price this represents 2500 gems.

    Buying a bag slot costs 400 gems and provides 20-32 slots of storage, buying an additional character slot at 800 gems adds 100 - 148 storage. That's a factor of 2-2.5 in value in favor of character slots. Yes, there is a premium for unlocking things on the 1 character, always has been. That due to the basic functionality and free access to inventory space, build and equipment slots. The same goes for bank storage expansions.

    It's doubtful that the devs are going to backpedal in one area, when a different area in this game has been this way for nearly 8 years.

  • Cyninja.2954Cyninja.2954 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 9, 2020

    @Asum.4960 said:

    @Zaklex.6308 said:
    My point being is that for them to offer account bound equipment slots they would have to price them just that way to equate the income they can conceivably receive from selling them per character as is the case now.

    Where you live, do they also sell washing machines at a price depending on and multiplied by the population of your city because you might share it, so they have to calculate the conceivable "missed" profit from anyone who may ever use it?

    How does anything work like that?
    Nobody has to scale up prices like that and no one does, that's a ridiculous idea, especially for digital products which don't have running per piece material and work costs and already only have to be created once to then generate theoretical infinite pure profit.
    Setting prices is just about finding the highest acceptable price for the maximum amount of people possible, forming an acceptable value proposition.

    You mean besides Windows or other OS which charge per device? There are a ton of digital goods which are priced around how much use they can see.

    Especially digital goods are priced on a per use basis and often have limitations in place (keys, registration, etc) because they are so easily multiplied.

    @Asum.4960 said:
    Price something too high, and while the individual purchase is high value, too few people will buy it, leading to overall reduced profits (as well as a disgruntled consumer base).
    Price something too low and while many, many people will buy it, the individual purchase will be such low value, it's still going to be overall reduced profits (although at least with a happy consumer base).

    Somewhere in between that is the highest amount of revenue.

    True, which also means some players will have to face the reality that they might be in the group which considers the price to high, making these items unavailable to them or forcing them to spend out of their comfort zone.

    @Asum.4960 said:
    Looking at all metrics available to us, such as overwhelmingly negative player feedback, flatlining gold to gem conversion rates at feature release and the following months as well as staggering record low quarterly earning reports, it's stands to reason to assume that with this feature Anet way overstepped with the pricing of this system (in combination with massively underdelivering on functionality), offering a terrible value proposition over all - both generating little revenue as well as disgruntling a lot of players.

    A huge part of the negative feedback was also about functionality, bugs and design. Unrelated to price. Let's not mix those 2 together.

    The pricing of the system is in line with past pricing for convenience items. Unlike those though, there was never a "free" version available before which reduced the perceived acceptable price point.

    @Asum.4960 said:
    People suggesting the slots to be account wide at the current price are trying to suggest ways to move the value proposition more to that middle ground where it can generate higher revenue for the company, as well as please more players.

    Yes, that would be one way of increasing the value proposition.

    @Asum.4960 said:
    And frankly, even if they were to do that, asking for the price of an entire expansion, or two in case of PoF's pricing, just to unlock some saved bit's in form of 6 (not even really) "Templates" for all your characters is still questionable, at least in my opinion. But it would certainly be better than asking for the price of an entire expansion per character.

    Which poses the question: was PoF maybe intentionally offered at a very low price? Given the HoT expansion, the PoF price was probably intentionally lowered, even if the expansion might have been worth more.

    @Asum.4960 said:
    The idea that they then would have to charge 200.000+ Gems (~2500€/$) for an account wide Loadout version because players theoretically can have 70 characters on the account is the most absurd and removed from reality thing I've read in a long time.

    I at least actually want Anet to make money because I enjoy their product. They can't do that with terrible value propositions.

    It's not unreasonable to factor for both extremes (minimum characters and maximum characters). What makes the most sense is probably to factor for the average characters most revenue generating accounts have. Which would still end up as likely 9+ characters (each class at least 1nce) I'd assume. Even under those circumstances I doubt a lot of more price sensitive players would be accepting the account wide unlock price would be around 4,500 gems per equipment slots (9x500). For a total of 18,000 gems for all equipment templates (9x500x4).

    Even calculating for the minimum amount of characters of 5 ends up as 2,500 gems account wide unlock, with 10,000 gems for all 4 slots.

  • BadHealer.3608BadHealer.3608 Member ✭✭✭

    So any information when the Q1 2020 will come? I really can't wait till it got fixed. I'm sick and tired of each time when I enter PVP I always have to chang the Superior Rune of the Adventurer to the Superior Rune of the Scholar and all the other PVP things.

  • A huge part of the negative feedback was also about functionality, bugs and design. Unrelated to price. Let's not mix those 2 together.

    nope

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

    @Deihnyx.6318 said:

    @aaron.7850 said:

    @Deihnyx.6318 said:
    Not against it, but would be unfair for those of us who already paid for per-character templates.
    How would that work for us?

    However, I would def want more than 6 templates and better integration with PVP, I can't get in queue outside of HotM without something funky going on.

    There is a thing called Steam sales and a lot of games go up to 75% discount sale, for many companies these sales represent a huge boost in revenue. Its called business and pro-consumer tactics. I dont cry and complain when a game I bought at full price goes cheaper down the road.

    That is not the same thing. Sales are expected. A change in pricing model is not.

    And yet GW2 core is f2p now, and HoT is free with PoF sale.

    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.

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

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    You mean besides Windows or other OS which charge per device? There are a ton of digital goods which are priced around how much use they can see.

    Notice how the per-device licence cost does not change depending on how many people will use said device.

    A huge part of the negative feedback was also about functionality, bugs and design. Unrelated to price. Let's not mix those 2 together.

    Oh, it's very related. It's their desire to design the system in order to justify the high pricing that crippled it in its infancy. The system is designed around pricing at a cost to functionality. You can't separate one from the other here.

    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.

  • Cyninja.2954Cyninja.2954 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 15, 2020

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    You mean besides Windows or other OS which charge per device? There are a ton of digital goods which are priced around how much use they can see.

    Notice how the per-device licence cost does not change depending on how many people will use said device.

    and yet, only 1 person can use the device at any time. Also, on a corporate level, you actually get a certain amount of licenses for simultaneous use. Meaning it does not even matter on which device the OS is, but rather how many instances of that OS are in use at the same time.

    I fail to see how this is different here. In both cases, more use sees higher cost. Just that the affected party is different. In case of build templates, having access to more simultaneously benefits a single individual on multiple characters. In case of big corporations, having multiple licensees allows for more individuals to make use of the product at the same time, while the single individual profiting off this is the company.

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    A huge part of the negative feedback was also about functionality, bugs and design. Unrelated to price. Let's not mix those 2 together.

    Oh, it's very related. It's their desire to design the system in order to justify the high pricing that crippled it in its infancy. The system is designed around pricing at a cost to functionality. You can't separate one from the other here.

    I could make a list of issues which are unrelated to monetization and need addressing which where on the very top of the things people dislike. But let's be honest, we both know where you stand on this issue, so why would I bother?

    The main issue for many who want this cheaper is the lower (striving towards 0 to be exact, aka free) price point of arc templates before hand.

  • Astralporing.1957Astralporing.1957 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 15, 2020

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    A huge part of the negative feedback was also about functionality, bugs and design. Unrelated to price. Let's not mix those 2 together.

    Oh, it's very related. It's their desire to design the system in order to justify the high pricing that crippled it in its infancy. The system is designed around pricing at a cost to functionality. You can't separate one from the other here.

    I could make a list of issues which are unrelated to monetization and need addressing which where on the very top of the things people dislike. But let's be honest, we both know where you stand on this issue, so why would I bother?

    Let's start from the top:
    1. gear templates: Anet could have made them to use gear from inventory, and, optionally, add a spacial gear storage. But they preferred to base it on gear storage only. This heavily limited the amount of possible gear templates a character can have. But hey, at least noone that does feel the need to have more gear templates can avoid buying gear loadout tab unlocks
    2. account-wide build templates. Anet could have made them client-based, which would allow for practically unlimited number of template slots. Instead, they decided to use server-based solution so they could justify having players pay for it. This (again) heavily limited the amount of available build templates.
    3. character-based build loadouts. That is something that would have been completely unnecessary if the account-wide template system was working right (what was at best needed was keybinding slots you could tie to specific accountwide templates). But anet needed one more thing to monetize, so here we're stuck with clunky build loadout tabs.
    Yes, that's not all the issues with the system, but those lie at the very core of it, and influence the whole design. And they are a result of planning the system not around useability, but around monetiztion.

    The main issue for many who want this cheaper is the lower (striving towards 0 to be exact, aka free) price point of arc templates before hand.

    Yes, price is important (because the cost of the system is insanely high), but the fact that the system is for the most part a failure, that is useful only for those that have low to moderate (at best) use of templates, but not for those that would primarily want a working template system, and that the initial design makes fixing that mess practically impossible, cannot be overlooked.
    It is both badly designed and overpriced. You can't blame only one of those things for its lack of popularity.

    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.

  • Cyninja.2954Cyninja.2954 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Astralporing.1957 said:
    It is both badly designed and overpriced. You can't blame only one of those things for its lack of popularity.

    I never blamed only 1 thing. I disagree that the vast majority of disapproval was only due to cost, since many people love to throw all discontent together. Not all of it was based on cost, and yes, the system can and should be improved.

  • Deihnyx.6318Deihnyx.6318 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Deihnyx.6318 said:

    @aaron.7850 said:

    @Deihnyx.6318 said:
    Not against it, but would be unfair for those of us who already paid for per-character templates.
    How would that work for us?

    However, I would def want more than 6 templates and better integration with PVP, I can't get in queue outside of HotM without something funky going on.

    There is a thing called Steam sales and a lot of games go up to 75% discount sale, for many companies these sales represent a huge boost in revenue. Its called business and pro-consumer tactics. I dont cry and complain when a game I bought at full price goes cheaper down the road.

    That is not the same thing. Sales are expected. A change in pricing model is not.

    And yet GW2 core is f2p now, and HoT is free with PoF sale.

    Fine. GW2 core went f2p years after its release, with very strong limitations. People who bought the game still got access to additional content no longer available (or not in the same form), free LS, historical achievements, etc.
    This does not compare to something that was just released a few months ago.

  • Linken.6345Linken.6345 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Deihnyx.6318 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Deihnyx.6318 said:

    @aaron.7850 said:

    @Deihnyx.6318 said:
    Not against it, but would be unfair for those of us who already paid for per-character templates.
    How would that work for us?

    However, I would def want more than 6 templates and better integration with PVP, I can't get in queue outside of HotM without something funky going on.

    There is a thing called Steam sales and a lot of games go up to 75% discount sale, for many companies these sales represent a huge boost in revenue. Its called business and pro-consumer tactics. I dont cry and complain when a game I bought at full price goes cheaper down the road.

    That is not the same thing. Sales are expected. A change in pricing model is not.

    And yet GW2 core is f2p now, and HoT is free with PoF sale.

    Fine. GW2 core went f2p years after its release, with very strong limitations. People who bought the game still got access to additional content no longer available (or not in the same form), free LS, historical achievements, etc.
    This does not compare to something that was just released a few months ago.

    Even free to play people unlock LS so its not just for paid accounts. ( cant play it without upgrading account tho but they still unlock it. )

  • Astralporing.1957Astralporing.1957 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 16, 2020

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:
    It is both badly designed and overpriced. You can't blame only one of those things for its lack of popularity.

    I never blamed only 1 thing. I disagree that the vast majority of disapproval was only due to cost, since many people love to throw all discontent together. Not all of it was based on cost, and yes, the system can and should be improved.

    That's the problem - most of its core problems are inherent to its original design and thus cannot be improved. You'd basically need to redesign the whole system from scratch. The current system is simply designed for other purposes than functionality, and there's no way around it.

    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.

  • Cyninja.2954Cyninja.2954 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:
    It is both badly designed and overpriced. You can't blame only one of those things for its lack of popularity.

    I never blamed only 1 thing. I disagree that the vast majority of disapproval was only due to cost, since many people love to throw all discontent together. Not all of it was based on cost, and yes, the system can and should be improved.

    That's the problem - most of its core problems are inherent to its original design and thus cannot be improved. You'd basically need to redesign the whole system from scratch. The current system is simply designed for other purposes than functionality, and there's no way around it.

    That I kind of agree with. The account wide build unlocks or the character specific build unlocks are redundant. That could have been managed better. Or just, in a slot based system, make equip and build templates one and the same.

  • @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:
    It is both badly designed and overpriced. You can't blame only one of those things for its lack of popularity.

    I never blamed only 1 thing. I disagree that the vast majority of disapproval was only due to cost, since many people love to throw all discontent together. Not all of it was based on cost, and yes, the system can and should be improved.

    That's the problem - most of its core problems are inherent to its original design and thus cannot be improved. You'd basically need to redesign the whole system from scratch. The current system is simply designed for other purposes than functionality, and there's no way around it.

    yup. and I'm sure if they changed anything now (ie. character-wide to account-wide) that would upset the people that already paid for things thinking that they are character-wide, so that's never going to happen. Best I would hope for is them packaging some free slots with the next expac.

  • Linken.6345Linken.6345 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Raolin Soulherder.3195 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:
    It is both badly designed and overpriced. You can't blame only one of those things for its lack of popularity.

    I never blamed only 1 thing. I disagree that the vast majority of disapproval was only due to cost, since many people love to throw all discontent together. Not all of it was based on cost, and yes, the system can and should be improved.

    That's the problem - most of its core problems are inherent to its original design and thus cannot be improved. You'd basically need to redesign the whole system from scratch. The current system is simply designed for other purposes than functionality, and there's no way around it.

    yup. and I'm sure if they changed anything now (ie. character-wide to account-wide) that would upset the people that already paid for things thinking that they are character-wide, so that's never going to happen. Best I would hope for is them packaging some free slots with the next expac.

    Could always refund the gems spent on duplicate template purcheses.

  • @Linken.6345 said:

    @Raolin Soulherder.3195 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:
    It is both badly designed and overpriced. You can't blame only one of those things for its lack of popularity.

    I never blamed only 1 thing. I disagree that the vast majority of disapproval was only due to cost, since many people love to throw all discontent together. Not all of it was based on cost, and yes, the system can and should be improved.

    That's the problem - most of its core problems are inherent to its original design and thus cannot be improved. You'd basically need to redesign the whole system from scratch. The current system is simply designed for other purposes than functionality, and there's no way around it.

    yup. and I'm sure if they changed anything now (ie. character-wide to account-wide) that would upset the people that already paid for things thinking that they are character-wide, so that's never going to happen. Best I would hope for is them packaging some free slots with the next expac.

    Could always refund the gems spent on duplicate template purcheses.

    right, but I'm not sure if that is realistic. It would displace gem sales, taking money out of Anet's pocket. they're probably not in great condition to do that due to the shrinking quarterly revenues. People would still complain, saying they had only spent money on the condition that they get the template slots, and not the gems, and would demand a refund. The vast majority of businesses are incredibly resistant to offering money refunds, and would much rather offer coupons or discounts on future products to address any customer dissatisfaction.

  • Infusion.7149Infusion.7149 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 18, 2020

    @Linken.6345 said:
    Could always refund the gems spent on duplicate template purchases.

    You've never run a business with investors I see.
    They could make existing customers happier by retroactively expanding build storage as I mentioned several times here (i.e. everyone who bought 3 slots gets 9 or 10 or something in that realm per purchase) or have time-sensitive price reductions (people always buy things on sale due to the sense of urgency due to the timer) and limited bundles (i.e. bundle 10 for 25%+ off or something every day rather than only on sale; someone might not normally buy build storage and PvE-only players are less likely to buy many build templates as they can per-use the 3 provided all for PvE) to entice the price conscious or bulk buyers. Expecting a refund is in the realm of "forget about it".

    Putting out refunds would be a disaster for multitude of reasons such as being forced to meet new quarterly earnings without those refunded gems factoring into the new fiscal quarter, the logistics of having support refund each outlier case with zero return on investment, and any changes in currency conversion rate if there is a chargeback.

    I'd fully expect equipment templates to be expanded directly to the data-mined 10 equipment/build template slots or have legendary armory step in there. I also expect the legendary armory to be monetized directly or indirectly (due to requiring equipment templates to function properly). No one forced a player to buy templates and many opted for more character slots so refunds are just not a likelihood.

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

    @Infusion.7149 said:
    I'd fully expect equipment templates to be expanded directly to the data-mined 10 equipment/build template slots or have legendary armory step in there. I also expect the legendary armory to be monetized directly or indirectly (due to requiring equipment templates to function properly). No one forced a player to buy templates and many opted for more character slots so refunds are just not a likelihood.

    Unfortunately, that's probably what will happen. So, templates will remain crippled and half-functional, and legendary armoury will either not help, or actually make matters worse by complicating an already clunky system even more (and possibly raising its cost to boot).

    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.

  • Nick.5276Nick.5276 Member ✭✭✭

    Still no answers on when this Kitten will be removed or converted to ArcDps version? I come here every so often to look and be disappointed and I log in to the game for a few minutes to poke around. I even spent a few hours on he coast but knowing the template system is still here makes me feel ill in game.

    Good news for GGG though, been playing and buying stuff in Path of Exile, storage tabs and such.
    Been playing Mechwarrior online now that MW 5 is, predictibly, losing player interest, don't say you weren't given heaps of feedback Piranah games about how quickly it would die.
    Restarted my MTG games too. I've never bought digital packs before but, never say never.

    Anyway, maybe check back again

  • Mikuchan.7261Mikuchan.7261 Member ✭✭✭

    There's still no official reply on this, is there?
    It would be nice to know what is happening with all this, if anything.

  • DarkEmiLupus.2876DarkEmiLupus.2876 Member ✭✭✭

    @Mikuchan.7261 said:
    There's still no official reply on this, is there?
    It would be nice to know what is happening with all this, if anything.

    How cute..

  • UnDeadFun.5824UnDeadFun.5824 Member ✭✭✭

    I am tired of waiting and started playing another game. I will keep an eye on GW2 to see if they make this right...If not, then they will never get another dime from me. Which is sad because I've been here since the beginning and do like many aspects of this game.

  • SexyMofo.8923SexyMofo.8923 Member ✭✭✭

    I’m sure you’ve heard it before, but in case you didn’t get the message, templates are still buggy and still trash. Could use some TLC.