[merged] Legendary Gear and Templates - Page 2 — Guild Wars 2 Forums

[merged] Legendary Gear and Templates

2

Comments

  • Ashantara.8731Ashantara.8731 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 4, 2019

    @cgMatt.5162 said:
    The original topic before it got merged was to make legendary armor item storage shared between characters without having to put them in the bank

    My no.1 priority is still the removal of auto-ejecting upgrades from unlinked legendary gear and, in this context, the removal of upgrades as separate entities from the equipment storage.

  • Setz.9675Setz.9675 Member ✭✭✭

    @cgMatt.5162 said:

    @Shao.7236 said:

    @cgMatt.5162 said:
    Would kind of devalue for people who made more than 3 legendary armor sets tbh. Assuming one per weight class.

    People getting legendary armor do it because they don't want to deal with armor anymore, the whole entire extra effort to go for duplicates just defeats the purpose of getting it since you could always swap it from character to character at hearts content anyway, at more or less of a few minutes compared the entire investment of another set, it's pretty much just for the skin.

    Now we have build templates that can't be kept even though the possibility is there. Tbh, people with ascended gear would still benefit from such ability to make the sets available account wide, avoiding the need to trade in between characters. Because you know you have that gear, you know it's a possibility, but it's stuck behind those unnecessary efforts.

    I get the concept of armor swapping from bank or shared slots and everything would be really convenient, but some people made more than 3 sets for other characters so they don't have to swap. Some people have 9 sets, one for every profession, and they would be screwed over by a change like that. I'd feel bad if I had to spend all that gold and time making those sets and end up having to delete 6 sets of legendary armor, do you get what I'm saying?

    What? That's not how it works frendo.
    Lets say Im going to give away 75g divided to 2 people, person 1 gets 50g and person 2 gets 25g, you are saying that person 2 just lost 25g over person 1 which is so dumb!
    Just because person 1 gains more benefits than person 2, doesn't mean person 2 is losing something. It simply means person 1 gains more.

  • cgMatt.5162cgMatt.5162 Member ✭✭✭

    @Setz.9675 said:
    Lets say Im going to give away 75g divided to 2 people, person 1 gets 50g and person 2 gets 25g, you are saying that person 2 just lost 25g over person 1 which is so dumb!

    This is a poor analogy for the idea you were trying to convey, nor is it relevant. Say you had 100g but now they max capacity is 25g that's a loss depending on how you handle the excess, but that's still not relevant to your idea.

  • Jthug.9506Jthug.9506 Member ✭✭✭

    A different suggestion would be to be able to change the stats of each piece of legendary armor a the same time. E.g. setting your helm to Berserker's stats, being able to right click it and "apply to all" other gear pieces. It doesn't help people that use a mix of stats, but I'm also surprised it's not in the game.

    It is in the game, you can check a box to change all the legendary armor to a single stat type at once, same with legendary runes, sigils, weapons, and trinkets. But even if you have all that stuff you are still looking at 8 separate steps, and that's before you manually input all the infusions individually.

    The best thing A-net can do at this point is imo is #1: increase the maximum build storage to something like 30, same with character bound template storage, and #2 make the armory storage shared across the entire account.

  • Ashantara.8731Ashantara.8731 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 4, 2019

    @Jthug.9506 said:
    2 make the armory storage shared across the entire account.

    That's the worst idea ever. It would make the equipment storage a complete mess as it would take you hours to find what you are looking for. It wouldn't solve the real technical issues the templates system is currently facing, either.

  • Shao.7236Shao.7236 Member ✭✭✭

    @Ashantara.8731 said:

    @Jthug.9506 said:
    2 make the armory storage shared across the entire account.

    That's the worst idea ever. It would make the equipment storage a complete mess as it would take you hours to find what you are looking for. It wouldn't solve the real technical issues the templates system is currently facing, either.

    Tell me what issue"s" does exactly the system has? I'm using it fine with the only issue being that if I want to put my legendary armor sets on another class of the same weight, I have to trash the current templates of equipment I have made.

  • UnDeadFun.5824UnDeadFun.5824 Member ✭✭✭

    @Shao.7236 said:
    Tell me what issue"s" does exactly the system has? I'm using it fine with the only issue being that if I want to put my legendary armor sets on another class of the same weight, I have to trash the current templates of equipment I have made.

    https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/91126/official-feedback-thread-about-build-and-equipment-templates#latest

  • Krypto.2069Krypto.2069 Member ✭✭✭

    @Shao.7236 said:

    @Ashantara.8731 said:

    @Jthug.9506 said:
    2 make the armory storage shared across the entire account.

    That's the worst idea ever. It would make the equipment storage a complete mess as it would take you hours to find what you are looking for. It wouldn't solve the real technical issues the templates system is currently facing, either.

    Tell me what issue"s" does exactly the system has? I'm using it fine with the only issue being that if I want to put my legendary armor sets on another class of the same weight, I have to trash the current templates of equipment I have made.

    Shao,

    I, too, have this exact same issue, and it's my personal #1 issue with the Equipment Template system. I have 3 sets of Legendary armor, one per weight. In order to pass my light set from my Ele to my Reaper, for example, I have to destroy every Equipment Template I've setup on my Ele. And then recreate each one when I want to switch back to my Ele.... over and over again.

    Anet,

    We need a way to move Legendary equipment from one toon to another toon that DOESN'T DESTROY the EQUIPMENT TEMPLATES once created. (In other words - we need a TRUE EQUIPMENT TEMPLATE system.) I'm all for any solution that does that for Legendary gear (or ascended gear for that matter). An account wide/shared armory for ACCOUNT BOUND items could work. But I can see the potential of this being confusing, especially if many pieces have the same "skin." NOTE: the Build Storage system already behaves in a way that maintains its templates' build settings regardless of what Build templates are loaded. Perhaps adopting this approach would work for Equipment Templates?

    Moonlight [THRU]

  • Shao.7236Shao.7236 Member ✭✭✭

    @UnDeadFun.5824 said:

    @Shao.7236 said:
    Tell me what issue"s" does exactly the system has? I'm using it fine with the only issue being that if I want to put my legendary armor sets on another class of the same weight, I have to trash the current templates of equipment I have made.

    https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/91126/official-feedback-thread-about-build-and-equipment-templates#latest

    People have such a high demand from a F2P game that only lives from microtransactions. They've done it differently, why is it so hard to accept?

    I see mostly nothing wrong with what we have here because for as little money as I already give to Anet and so is everyone, they are still giving me content for free. You still get more templates out of buying a character slot than buying them apart, which says much about what they want people to do. There was already more "outrageous" ways that gems could be asked for, such as sharing slots or extra bag slots yet nobody complains about that.

    Because you lost ArcDPS, something that you were warned about in every ways to not be official, shouldn't upset anyone as it feels like everyone took it for granted. Just like DX12pxy that could vanish anytime, wouldn't make me react much knowing I have made the agreement that it's unofficial.

    There's a lot of abuse for any convenience that people can get nowadays, let alone for free. It shows that nobody cares enough to notice.

  • Zaraki.5784Zaraki.5784 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I'm disappointed legendary gear can't be shared between every equipment template of every character in an account.
    It's so annying to move gear now, it's like:
    1) Remove desired gear from Eq template of Char 1.
    2) Move said gear in bank (or shared slots).
    3) Take that gear with Char 2 and equip it.

    "Sticks and stones may break your bones but words will never be able to injure you!"
    The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy

  • Setz.9675Setz.9675 Member ✭✭✭

    @cgMatt.5162 said:

    @Setz.9675 said:
    Lets say Im going to give away 75g divided to 2 people, person 1 gets 50g and person 2 gets 25g, you are saying that person 2 just lost 25g over person 1 which is so dumb!

    This is a poor analogy for the idea you were trying to convey, nor is it relevant. Say you had 100g but now they max capacity is 25g that's a loss depending on how you handle the excess, but that's still not relevant to your idea.

    LoL, you don't have the capacity to determine what is a good or bad analogy or have any perspective to talk about relevance, dream on. I clearly conveyed the idea that people only gain benefits and aren't losing anything. What are you even trying to say with the 100g and 25g capacity? That having an excess of 6 crafted legendary armors with an account wide shared equipment storage option would be a loss? A person with 9 legendary sets would see his 9 sets being stretched up into potentially 70 characters where as a person with 3 legendary sets would see his 3 sets being stretched into 70 characters as well. Its simply disgusting how dishonest and misleading you are. The capacity doesnt become 25g but far into the 700-800g.

  • Shao.7236Shao.7236 Member ✭✭✭

    @Ashantara.8731 said:

    @Shao.7236 said:

    @UnDeadFun.5824 said:

    @Shao.7236 said:
    Tell me what issue"s" does exactly the system has? I'm using it fine with the only issue being that if I want to put my legendary armor sets on another class of the same weight, I have to trash the current templates of equipment I have made.

    https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/91126/official-feedback-thread-about-build-and-equipment-templates#latest

    People have such a high demand from a F2P game that only lives from microtransactions.

    I feel like I'm trapped in a perpetuum mobile whenever I read comments like these. ;) Please take the time to delve into the system fully and you will discover its flaws.

    In any case, we don't have "high demands". On the contrary:

    1. Our only demand is for things to work properly without screwing anything up (regardless of the system's immense limitation with its 6-slots limit or the pricing).
    2. GW1 itself, as well as a free GW2 3rd party tool, used to do everything perfectly, the way people who actually have use of templates needed it to work. Both systems were much simpler in their functionality, yet more efficient. Asking for something "simpler" is the exact opposite of "having high demands", no?

    Think like a business as well as what you have currently.

    You know that the people in charge would (usually) do the best if they could, they are paid for it. Or even better if you could be paid to make it better you should be the one applying for said situation. There's clearly only so much that can be done but we are stuck arguing about the possibilities when it's right there in front of you that nothing is going to change.

    It's evident that free is only gonna go so far.

    Also it seems to go right above everyone's mind that they are trying to keep a margin of profit over their revenue by giving people features that they want but not in excess, anyway behold the complains are still there and we want everything for free and permanently with even less motives to give a dying label a reason to move on.

    People took the third party tool for granted and that's where it stops for me. The current templates has only a few flaws outside the whole contreversial paywall that is always surprising to people but no different than the rest of features that you'd have to pay for including character slots effectively giving you more per gem in the end. (Yeah, real humans work there for you!)

    It's also evident that the equipment sharing is driven by the idea of keeping the economy going, I could understand if they didn't do it for Ascended but they should given it's account bound, for Legendary gear it's completely whack because they are advertised and feature as the "never struggle with you armor again" kind of mentality AND the system goes against by forcing template destruction which is my complete non sense from any point but resource that don't really make players want to spend more real cash, just time.

    If it had to be this way even for legendary armor, there's clearly a need for resource reduction they want to achieve. Because those people who are going to swap that legendary gear will be spending transmutation charges in which depending what kind of player you are, those are also sometimes bought on the gemstore by others, so it keeps one sort of revenue regardless unlike having people with 6 other sets that will rarely ever change. This could apply to ascended though, since some people just roll Berserker gear on everything.

  • Shao.7236Shao.7236 Member ✭✭✭
    edited November 5, 2019

    @UnDeadFun.5824 said:

    @Shao.7236 said:
    Because you lost ArcDPS, something that you were warned about in every ways to not be official, shouldn't upset anyone as it feels like everyone took it for granted. Just like DX12pxy that could vanish anytime, wouldn't make me react much knowing I have made the agreement that it's unofficial.

    There's a lot of abuse for any convenience that people can get nowadays, let alone for free. It shows that nobody cares enough to notice.

    If you like them, fine. however, I think you are the one missing something here. Among the many reasons here are just a few ...
    Why allow a free third party app? ( which was better than official templates)

    I can understand but we lost it, can't do much about it. It's clearly not going to change.

    Why advertise them as free but then charge for them?

    Again, some of them are free and given with each character slot.

    Why overcharge? It is cheaper to buy another character slot then expand templates?

    Looking at the other things.. It's comparable if not exactly the same.

    Why are they so greedy to separate templates into 3 sections to monetize each?

    Some people just play one game mode altogether, but I also disagree with this choice on their part. It is greedy on that.

    Why release templates when they clearly did not test them?

    Large scale testing is not exactly possible, it was clearly a network issue with all the new information that the system couldn't handle well at first.

    Why not allow players to opt-out of the system?

    Those "bugs" were collateral damage they didn't realize I guess? Honestly if you want to opt-out, not touching it counts as the same?

    Why not allow people to still use the free third-party app if they are sure of the quality of their product?

    Well, money of course. In my understanding of economy.

    I have been a loyal GW2 customer for 7 years, a loyal GW1 customer even still today. I have bought multiple copies of each game and its expansions.
    I have probably spent more money in the gem shop than it would have cost me to have paid for a monthly subscription game.
    I don't mind paying for convenience, I do expect quality and do not want to be overcharged.
    If you are a paying consumer and you are not satisfied with the service provided, you have options. I will voice my discontent and if the company does not meet my satisfaction I will get those services elsewhere. ... and nothing is free, if think for a minute that all these updates and "conveniences" Anet provided were free you need to wake up.

    I think you make fair points as a consumer and it's totally not out of place to make these complains but this where all and all, Anet seemingly can't make the compromise. They aim at a certain amount of limitation not for data but to keep people going at their products, I'd imagine that in time of doing it it gives them all the reason to be able to work on other things to release later.

    These kind of situation is rampant in all sort of places which some are more some are less obvious, you probably know that too. I'm not here to protect anet or whatever, that's just the way I understand it and it feels kitten to lose the freedom people have had but if it keeps my favorite game going, hell with it. I know truly that it's not going as well as people like it to be, but it's the ever changing industry that really kills it, not their so called bad decisions, at least not often.

    They are not like.. In a spot where they can do whatever they want, they are in that spot where they have to make the right decisions that contributes to them and the players in balance. This isn't EA or worst Bethesta we are talking about, Anet is really just trying to keep out of NCSoft decisions to scrap everything like Wildstar.

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

    @Setz.9675 said:

    @cgMatt.5162 said:

    @Setz.9675 said:
    Lets say Im going to give away 75g divided to 2 people, person 1 gets 50g and person 2 gets 25g, you are saying that person 2 just lost 25g over person 1 which is so dumb!

    This is a poor analogy for the idea you were trying to convey, nor is it relevant. Say you had 100g but now they max capacity is 25g that's a loss depending on how you handle the excess, but that's still not relevant to your idea.

    LoL, you don't have the capacity to determine what is a good or bad analogy or have any perspective to talk about relevance, dream on. I clearly conveyed the idea that people only gain benefits and aren't losing anything. What are you even trying to say with the 100g and 25g capacity? That having an excess of 6 crafted legendary armors with an account wide shared equipment storage option would be a loss? A person with 9 legendary sets would see his 9 sets being stretched up into potentially 70 characters where as a person with 3 legendary sets would see his 3 sets being stretched into 70 characters as well. Its simply disgusting how dishonest and misleading you are. The capacity doesnt become 25g but far into the 700-800g.

    So crafting 6 extra legendary sets that are not needed anymore since 3 is enough aint losing something?
    Cant you pay my rent for me I mean your already paying your rent so your not losing anything.

  • cgMatt.5162cgMatt.5162 Member ✭✭✭
    edited November 6, 2019

    People are just trying to get free legendary armor without having to craft more than 3 sets. I don't think the discussion on that point is going anywhere nor am I convinced, but I think we can all agree that the stat swap needs to stay when you move it from the bank or a shared slot to another character. Anet is better off not listening to suggestions like that.

  • Setz.9675Setz.9675 Member ✭✭✭
    edited November 6, 2019

    @Linken.6345 said:

    @Setz.9675 said:

    @cgMatt.5162 said:

    @Setz.9675 said:
    Lets say Im going to give away 75g divided to 2 people, person 1 gets 50g and person 2 gets 25g, you are saying that person 2 just lost 25g over person 1 which is so dumb!

    This is a poor analogy for the idea you were trying to convey, nor is it relevant. Say you had 100g but now they max capacity is 25g that's a loss depending on how you handle the excess, but that's still not relevant to your idea.

    LoL, you don't have the capacity to determine what is a good or bad analogy or have any perspective to talk about relevance, dream on. I clearly conveyed the idea that people only gain benefits and aren't losing anything. What are you even trying to say with the 100g and 25g capacity? That having an excess of 6 crafted legendary armors with an account wide shared equipment storage option would be a loss? A person with 9 legendary sets would see his 9 sets being stretched up into potentially 70 characters where as a person with 3 legendary sets would see his 3 sets being stretched into 70 characters as well. Its simply disgusting how dishonest and misleading you are. The capacity doesnt become 25g but far into the 700-800g.

    So crafting 6 extra legendary sets that are not needed anymore since 3 is enough aint losing something?
    Cant you pay my rent for me I mean your already paying your rent so your not losing anything.

    I bought my computer for 800 euro's total, the same computer 6 years later will cost me less than 400 euro. As time goes by my computer seems to become outdated and lose value, better not buy a new computer because as time goes by I would just lose money.
    Good analogy there with the rent, you really got me there m8. Its not like my 10 light armor users can just swap legendary armor through a bank since you know account bound and all and those 10 characters are all my virtual 'me' /s

    @cgMatt.5162 said:
    People are just trying to get free legendary armor without having to craft more than 3 sets. I don't think the discussion on that point is going anywhere nor am I convinced, but I think we can all agree that the stat swap needs to stay when you move it from the bank or a shared slot to another character. Anet is better off not listening to suggestions like that.

    Obviously I agree that stats need to be remembered in equipment storages when it involves legendary gear, equipping and unequipping. Bypassing the part of storing it into a bank is what a normal person would call a Quality of Life upgrade. Because you know, why waste time doing mandatory dumb stuff like unequipping/equipping and dragging items between tabs when a single click could achieve the same results?

  • cgMatt.5162cgMatt.5162 Member ✭✭✭
    edited November 6, 2019

    Sorry man but that's not an idea I could get behind. For someone who only has 3 legendary armor sets I agree that is a huge QoL, but for people with more than 3 it's a huge slap in the face to the time they put into the game and I really hope the right people can see that from both perspectives. Come up with something better that doesn't screw people over.

  • Setz.9675Setz.9675 Member ✭✭✭

    @cgMatt.5162 said:
    Sorry man but that's not an idea I could get behind. For someone who only has 3 legendary armor sets I agree that is a huge QoL, but for people with more than 3 it's a huge slap in the face to the time they put into the game and I really hope the right people can see that from both perspectives. Come up with something better that doesn't screw people over.

    equipment storage tabs screws over everyone who invested in addition bag slots and 24+ slot bags to store their gear.
    shared inventory slots on release screwed over everyone who bought more than 1 infinite salvage kit / permanent BLC contract / infinite gathering tools etc etc
    Being screwed over is nothing new, investments either pay of or make someone loses money. Investing in legendary equipment for convenience is no different that investing in anything TP related. It either pays of or you make a loss. Your time investment and choices made in this game aren't sacred, hope you can understand this.

    The truly hilarious part though is that you want a system tailored to your circumstances, where you get the maximum benefits while denying every other player in this game a true QoL feature which is a quick and easy way for ACCOUNT BOUND ARMOR SHARING and then hahahahhah say its for the fairness of the what? less than 0,5% of the playerbase that got more than 3 full sets of legendary armor? While the ENTIRE player base would benefit from an account wide armory.

  • cgMatt.5162cgMatt.5162 Member ✭✭✭

    It's just not the approach you want to be taking and the way they did it in the past wasn't right either.

  • Setz.9675Setz.9675 Member ✭✭✭

    @cgMatt.5162 said:
    It's just not the approach you want to be taking and the way they did it in the past wasn't right either.

    Replace ''you'' with ''I'' next time, you don't speak for anyone but yourself.
    It was completely right to introduce shared inventory slots and it's completely right to introduce equipment and build storages. Both of these features are tremendous QoL improvements. What needs to happen now is to make the latter reach their fullest potential and that isn't going to happen when a minority within a minority needs to be taken into account for.

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

    @Setz.9675 said:
    It was completely right to introduce shared inventory slots and it's completely right to introduce equipment and build storages. Both of these features are tremendous QoL improvements.

    Not with their immense limitations (even when you spend Gems to get the maximum number available) or their still flawed functionalities (i.e., being no real templates, ejecting upgrades from legendary gear, to name just two).

  • Setz.9675Setz.9675 Member ✭✭✭

    @Ashantara.8731 said:

    @Setz.9675 said:
    It was completely right to introduce shared inventory slots and it's completely right to introduce equipment and build storages. Both of these features are tremendous QoL improvements.

    Not with their immense limitations (even when you spend Gems to get the maximum number available) or their still flawed functionalities (i.e., being no real templates, ejecting upgrades from legendary gear, to name just two).

    that why I said: ''What needs to happen now is to make the latter reach their fullest potential''.
    Equipment and build storage is obviously a larger project than shared inventory slots was, bugs and glitches are to be expected from a new system and it's not like the devs aren't going to fix these things. Just because not everything is as fluid in the ingame system as it was with arcs system doesnt mean equipment/build storage should have been delayed. These kind of things usually come to light when players get the mess around with it.
    Personally I don't think it's fair that people use arc templates as the baseline point of view to judge equipment and build storage over core GW2 (+ expansions), arc templates were not the norm for the global community but the tolerated exception.

  • cgMatt.5162cgMatt.5162 Member ✭✭✭
    edited November 7, 2019

    @Setz.9675 said:
    It was completely right to introduce shared inventory slots and it's completely right to introduce equipment and build storages. Both of these features are tremendous QoL improvements. What needs to happen now is to make the latter reach their fullest potential and that isn't going to happen when a minority within a minority needs to be taken into account for.

    Clearly the right action is not to get people to delete their hard worked legendaries. Being a kitten to non-casual players who put in that time is what's going to kill the game further and this is evidenced by the decline of the quality of players in various game modes. Dumbing it down for casuals and angering people is just not the right way to do things in the grand scheme of QoL. That said build storage most certainly does not need to be account bound in this way, but rather the gear storage settings need to be so that when you swap gear between characters you don't have to reapply the stats for that character. It much easier to do it that way too without alienating a percentage of the playerbase (of which you specifically don't know the numbers). Let's not forget about the impact to the economy if there's nothing worth crafting if only for the skins. People not spending to create more will no longer contribute to it and that's not good for it in the long run.

    I'm also glad people like you aren't making decisions by picking the lowest common denominator without taking into account the sacrifices the upper bound will take for some QoL. Putting limits on something that was previously unlimited is just a bad idea.

  • Setz.9675Setz.9675 Member ✭✭✭

    @cgMatt.5162 said:

    @Setz.9675 said:
    It was completely right to introduce shared inventory slots and it's completely right to introduce equipment and build storages. Both of these features are tremendous QoL improvements. What needs to happen now is to make the latter reach their fullest potential and that isn't going to happen when a minority within a minority needs to be taken into account for.

    Clearly the right action is not to get people to delete their hard worked legendaries. Being a kitten to non-casual players who put in that time is what's going to kill the game further and this is evidenced by the decline of the quality of players in various game modes.

    This decline is caused by a lack of content updates in their respective gamemodes and a lack of perceived future for the game (expansions), it has nothing to do with the amount of QoL being introduced, don't draw false conclusions just to further your own agenda, at this point anyone who followed this back and forth between us can see how manipulative you are. No one who made legendary armor is going to delete even a single piece in any kind of environment, ever. This is a complete and utter fantasy scenario on your side.

    Dumbing it down for casuals and angering people is just not the right way to do things in the grand scheme of QoL.

    Removing excessive equipping/unequipping and dragging gear around is in your words the equivalent of dumbing things down for casuals and not at all a QoL? Remove the entirety of equipment and build templates and travel through time to change the decision to allow arc templates while you are at it, since in your own words templates are just dumbing things down for casuals and angering the dedicated players.

    That said build storage most certainly does not need to be account bound in this way, but rather the gear storage settings need to be so that when you swap gear between characters you don't have to reapply the stats for that character.

    We already have an account bound build storage. If it is equipment storage you mean that doesn't have to be account bound I could agree but I definetely won't. Making it account bound would be the greatest QoL improvement this game has gotten since shared inventory slots and even triumphs over mounts. Also here is a fun thing to think about: How many legendary stats should 1 equipment storage remember? for example we take warrior trying to roam in arah: sword leap-->warhorn swiftness --> GS 3, 5 -> hammer f1 --> shield 4, all of this in berserker, but now equipment storage 2 is opened and all of this needs to be in marauder, lets swap to berserker or spellbreaker and add some daggers/torch warhorn and axes in that mix too. Im sure you have the qualifications to call out how easy this will be to fix.

    It much easier to do it that way too without alienating a percentage of the playerbase (of which you specifically don't know the numbers).

    You aren't qualified to say what is and isn't easyer to create. Also wet finger works here: most ''dedicated'' players use gw2efficiency, on gw2effiency less than 0,5% of this ''dedicated'' playerbase has more than 18 legendary armor items. There are more casuals than dedicated players so even less than 0,5% of the playerbase would be 'alienated'. That 0,5% of playerbase is also not a hivemind, some would welcome account wide equipment storages and some wont and some wont care one way or another. So for less than 0,5% of the playerbase you want to decline an account armory because you drew an arbitrary line between: removing clicks to swap builds/gear on character = good, removing clicks to swap gear between characters = bad.

    Let's not forget about the impact to the economy if there's nothing worth crafting if only for the skins. People not spending to create more will no longer contribute to it and that's not good for it in the long run.

    You don't have the capacity to predict how this would impact the economy, for example: if equipment storage becomes account bound I would make 3 legendary sets for my alt account which I won't in the current system. Also I won't make more than the 4 legendary sets I have on my main account regardless of account wide storage or not.

    I'm also glad people like you aren't making decisions by picking the lowest common denominator without taking into account the sacrifices the upper bound will take for some QoL. Putting limits on something that was previously unlimited is just a bad idea.

    Sure lets throw in some ''lowest common denominator'' and ''sacrifices the upper bound will take'' even when it doesn't apply, maybe some gullible people will fall for your tropes. QoL =/= lowest common denominator and bad investments =/= sacrifices the upper bound will take, give up already dude.

  • cgMatt.5162cgMatt.5162 Member ✭✭✭
    edited November 7, 2019

    @Setz.9675 said:
    No one who made legendary armor is going to delete even a single piece in any kind of environment, ever. This is a complete and utter fantasy scenario on your side.

    They will if they make the changes you're suggesting. This even means 2-4 of any one handed weapon type and 1-2 of any two handed weapon types that you will ever have to craft. Is that end game enough?

    @Setz.9675 said:
    You aren't qualified to say what is and isn't easyer to create. Also wet finger works here: most ''dedicated'' players use gw2efficiency, on gw2effiency less than 0,5% of this ''dedicated'' playerbase has more than 18 legendary armor items. There are more casuals than dedicated players so even less than 0,5% of the playerbase would be 'alienated'.

    For perspective that number is over a thousand players and thousands pieces of legendary armor, not counting weapons.

    I do not think this is worth arguing further, and I'm not even arguing about the convenience of quick swap between characters but the impact it has to players who made more. I can see that this is no longer a healthy discussion because of the tones and accusations being thrown around, and we should just give others an opportunity to give their feedback. I only meant to point out the flaws such a QoL would have and the response is basically "I don't care, make the change".

  • Setz.9675Setz.9675 Member ✭✭✭

    @cgMatt.5162 said:

    @Setz.9675 said:
    No one who made legendary armor is going to delete even a single piece in any kind of environment, ever. This is a complete and utter fantasy scenario on your side.

    They will if they make the changes you're suggesting. This even means 2-4 of any one handed weapon type and 1-2 of any two handed weapon types that you will ever have to craft. Is that end game enough?

    According to gw2efficiency only 16 people own more legendary weapons than there are skins. Dualwielding legendary 1 handed weapons is still a thing and unlocking skins is also a thing. A legendary armor piece goes for 300g while legendary weapons are between 1000g and 2300g, beside those 16 players NO ONE in this playerbase is making legendary weapons for the stat changing option. Is this end game enough? Not doing something because <0,001% of the playerbase did a thing?

  • Funky.4861Funky.4861 Member ✭✭✭

    GW2 efficiency only counts those who are registered to it. I for one primarily make lege's for the stat-swap function, and i have more lege weaps than i do armour, but that's cos i'm still on my first set of armour, whereupon i will have the same number of lege weaps and armour.

  • cgMatt.5162cgMatt.5162 Member ✭✭✭

    Look, I'm really not sold on the utilitarianism of that solution because people should not have to give up their hard worked armor for the greater QoL. I'll tell you what, if they give us a vendor or a salvage tool that let's us get all of those individual materials back (down to the materials and account bound currency), then I would gladly agree with it. We would at least be able to put mats and precursors back into circulation and no one would have to delete anything.

  • Ragi.7291Ragi.7291 Member ✭✭
    edited November 9, 2019

    Could we at least fix the problem of infusions that disappear on the legendary armors. pls
    I lost one again, two days ago it's really really tiring.

  • Setz.9675Setz.9675 Member ✭✭✭

    @cgMatt.5162 said:
    Look, I'm really not sold on the utilitarianism of that solution because people should not have to give up their hard worked armor for the greater QoL. I'll tell you what, if they give us a vendor or a salvage tool that let's us get all of those individual materials back (down to the materials and account bound currency), then I would gladly agree with it. We would at least be able to put mats and precursors back into circulation and no one would have to delete anything.

    thats actually reasonable, imo legendarys should be salvageable to return the fortune gift but lose the other items like map completion gift and precursor.

    @Ragi.7291 said:
    Could we at least fix the problem of infusions that disappear on the legendary armors. pls
    I lost one again, two days ago it's really really tiring.

    What is the sequence of actions to losing an infusion if there is any or it just happens randomly? Like equip/unequip/drag/moving armor etc, asking for science.

  • AlexxxDelta.1806AlexxxDelta.1806 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 9, 2019

    @Shao.7236 said:

    @Ashantara.8731 said:

    @Shao.7236 said:

    @UnDeadFun.5824 said:

    @Shao.7236 said:
    Tell me what issue"s" does exactly the system has? I'm using it fine with the only issue being that if I want to put my legendary armor sets on another class of the same weight, I have to trash the current templates of equipment I have made.

    https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/91126/official-feedback-thread-about-build-and-equipment-templates#latest

    People have such a high demand from a F2P game that only lives from microtransactions.

    I feel like I'm trapped in a perpetuum mobile whenever I read comments like these. ;) Please take the time to delve into the system fully and you will discover its flaws.

    In any case, we don't have "high demands". On the contrary:

    1. Our only demand is for things to work properly without screwing anything up (regardless of the system's immense limitation with its 6-slots limit or the pricing).
    2. GW1 itself, as well as a free GW2 3rd party tool, used to do everything perfectly, the way people who actually have use of templates needed it to work. Both systems were much simpler in their functionality, yet more efficient. Asking for something "simpler" is the exact opposite of "having high demands", no?

    Think like a business as well as what you have currently.

    You know that the people in charge would (usually) do the best if they could, they are paid for it. Or even better if you could be paid to make it better you should be the one applying for said situation. There's clearly only so much that can be done but we are stuck arguing about the possibilities when it's right there in front of you that nothing is going to change.

    It's evident that free is only gonna go so far.

    Also it seems to go right above everyone's mind that they are trying to keep a margin of profit over their revenue by giving people features that they want but not in excess, anyway behold the complains are still there and we want everything for free and permanently with even less motives to give a dying label a reason to move on.

    People took the third party tool for granted and that's where it stops for me. The current templates has only a few flaws outside the whole contreversial paywall that is always surprising to people but no different than the rest of features that you'd have to pay for including character slots effectively giving you more per gem in the end. (Yeah, real humans work there for you!)

    It's also evident that the equipment sharing is driven by the idea of keeping the economy going, I could understand if they didn't do it for Ascended but they should given it's account bound, for Legendary gear it's completely whack because they are advertised and feature as the "never struggle with you armor again" kind of mentality AND the system goes against by forcing template destruction which is my complete non sense from any point but resource that don't really make players want to spend more real cash, just time.

    If it had to be this way even for legendary armor, there's clearly a need for resource reduction they want to achieve. Because those people who are going to swap that legendary gear will be spending transmutation charges in which depending what kind of player you are, those are also sometimes bought on the gemstore by others, so it keeps one sort of revenue regardless unlike having people with 6 other sets that will rarely ever change. This could apply to ascended though, since some people just roll Berserker gear on everything.

    Thinking like a business is needed at times because it helps one understand all the ways they are trying to milk our accounts dry. Recognizing them is one thing but actually supporting them when I'm a consumer, would be nonsensical as it would be opposite to my interests.

    I don't really get this "urban myth" of a free game. This game had a box price for its core and its expansions. On top of that, it's a proven fact that its main revenue stream ( microtransactions), has been the most profitable model in the history of gaming business. Even the minority of late comers who got core for free and never upgraded or spent a dime on the store are helping the model work with their engagement in the MMO. Presenting Anet to be a poor studio, struggling to keep the lights on, is a poor attempt to justify questionable decisions.

    There are no "free" games period. I would have thought the insane profits of the mostly "free" mobile market would have been a hint.

  • Funky.4861Funky.4861 Member ✭✭✭

    I completely disagree with you Setz on the materials front. You want to strip my world completion, the thousands of mithril and elder wood i needed to make the precursors? The hours, days and weeks of effort it took to make those lege's? I doubt that would be a popular move. Give us everything back, down to each glob of ecto, obsidian shard, t2 claw etc. All they need to do is make the templates actual templates (re: definition of the word) and let us share our endgame gear across all chars in our acct who can use it.

  • Setz.9675Setz.9675 Member ✭✭✭

    @Funky.4861 said:
    I completely disagree with you Setz on the materials front. You want to strip my world completion, the thousands of mithril and elder wood i needed to make the precursors? The hours, days and weeks of effort it took to make those lege's? I doubt that would be a popular move. Give us everything back, down to each glob of ecto, obsidian shard, t2 claw etc. All they need to do is make the templates actual templates (re: definition of the word) and let us share our endgame gear across all chars in our acct who can use it.

    What the actual duck are you talking about? You aren't forced to salvage a legendary if the option becomes available. Secondly unlocking a legendary skin and salvaging the legendary to get all your money back? what kind of clown fiesta is that? I dont even want to go into all the faults a salvage system like that has.

  • Funky.4861Funky.4861 Member ✭✭✭

    @Setz.9675 said:

    @cgMatt.5162 said:
    Look, I'm really not sold on the utilitarianism of that solution because people should not have to give up their hard worked armor for the greater QoL. I'll tell you what, if they give us a vendor or a salvage tool that let's us get all of those individual materials back (down to the materials and account bound currency), then I would gladly agree with it. We would at least be able to put mats and precursors back into circulation and no one would have to delete anything.

    thats actually reasonable, imo legendarys should be salvageable to return the fortune gift but lose the other items like map completion gift and precursor.>

    This right here is the issue. If we're given the option to deconstruct our legendaries for whatever reason, we should get back EVERYTHING IT TOOK to make them (apart from our time ofc :p) otherwise we're being ripped-off. As to unlocking the skin- you do know that only gen 1 lege's are tradeable, and if i spent the gold to buy one from the TP you're crazy to think that i'd not want that gold back- there's nothing you can do with an acct-bound skin; it has zero value.

  • Virdo.1540Virdo.1540 Member ✭✭✭

    Theres is absolutely no reason in making a legendary gear if everyone can just build cheap second/third/... ascended equips.
    I feel completely trolled by the devs ,after all the time, gold and effort i wasted in this kitten. If it would be at least 5% better than ascend. gear, like Asc is to exotic....
    it would actually give people a reason to make legy gear and give people give Leg. Gear a reason to NOT quit the game

  • Kate Soulguard.7132Kate Soulguard.7132 Member ✭✭
    edited November 9, 2019

    I swear to god I'm losing a sigil a week because of equip/unequip issues on legendaries. I can't put my finger on it but I've gone from five sigils of [Correction: Force] in bank to three because one detaches into oblivion. Surely it's just me. I must be doing something wrong.

    I guess to expand, I roleplay, meaning sometimes equipment has to un-equip into regular inventory because I can't hide it otherwise. When I re-equip, things that overlap in other slots will pop off, like +9 AR baubles and an occasional sigil. I have to re-add it.

    [Editing again - now that I've equipped a hammer with a sigil of force on it, a second sigil of force has appeared in my inventory, seeming to have come out of nowhere.]

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

    @Kate Soulguard.7132 said:
    I swear to god I'm losing a sigil a week because of equip/unequip issues on legendaries. I can't put my finger on it but I've gone from five sigils of [Correction: Force] in bank to three because one detaches into oblivion. Surely it's just me. I must be doing something wrong.

    I guess to expand, I roleplay, meaning sometimes equipment has to un-equip into regular inventory because I can't hide it otherwise. When I re-equip, things that overlap in other slots will pop off, like +9 AR baubles and an occasional sigil. I have to re-add it.

    [Editing again - now that I've equipped a hammer with a sigil of force on it, a second sigil of force has appeared in my inventory, seeming to have come out of nowhere.]

    If your sigil is on your legendary great sword in equipment 1 and off hand shield in equipment 2 you wont get it back wen you remove either greatsword or shield, since its still in use in other templates.

  • Ashantara.8731Ashantara.8731 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 10, 2019

    @Kate Soulguard.7132 said:
    I swear to god I'm losing a sigil a week because of equip/unequip issues on legendaries.

    You are not losing anything. The sigil is equipped on additional items in other loadouts, hence it is being unlinked from any weapon you unequip. Upgrades on legendaries are being used in several loadouts at the same time, hence you require less of them. It is part of the problem of how inconveniently the unequipping of legendary gear is being handled. I'd rather have upgrades work the way they used to before than have to redo a weapon's stats and upgrades each time I unequip it. Highly annoying, no idea what genius came up with that inconvenient concept.

  • Setz.9675Setz.9675 Member ✭✭✭

    @Funky.4861 said:

    @Setz.9675 said:

    @cgMatt.5162 said:
    Look, I'm really not sold on the utilitarianism of that solution because people should not have to give up their hard worked armor for the greater QoL. I'll tell you what, if they give us a vendor or a salvage tool that let's us get all of those individual materials back (down to the materials and account bound currency), then I would gladly agree with it. We would at least be able to put mats and precursors back into circulation and no one would have to delete anything.

    thats actually reasonable, imo legendarys should be salvageable to return the fortune gift but lose the other items like map completion gift and precursor.>

    This right here is the issue. If we're given the option to deconstruct our legendaries for whatever reason, we should get back EVERYTHING IT TOOK to make them (apart from our time ofc :p) otherwise we're being ripped-off. As to unlocking the skin- you do know that only gen 1 lege's are tradeable, and if i spent the gold to buy one from the TP you're crazy to think that i'd not want that gold back- there's nothing you can do with an acct-bound skin; it has zero value.

    The problem however is that you are completely wrong frendo, because legendary weapons serve 2 purposes: one is to make players look swank as heck while the other purpose is being a gigantic material sink. Allowing players to gain amazing skins and then give them back the materials it required to make those skins would devalue every material beside the account bound materials to poverty value.

    But lets leave legendary salvaging for another thread instead of derailing this one. It only came up as an idea in the unlikely event that account wide equipment templates would be introduced (which absolutely should happen).

  • Kate Soulguard.7132Kate Soulguard.7132 Member ✭✭
    edited November 10, 2019

    Okay y'all, I've found out that I'm not losing it, but there is a bug somewhere. Here are the steps to reproduce using Agony Infusions as an example.

    TL;DR: Apparent bugs are at steps 4 and 10.

    Requirements:
    1 Legendary Greatsword (LGS)
    1 Legendary Staff (LS)
    4 Unique Sigils
    4 identical +9 Infusions

    Given:
    No equipment templates have assigned weapons.
    LGS and LS are in inventory, have two sigils applied, and have two +9 infusions applied.
    AR for Template 1 is 132.
    AR for Template 2 is 72.

    1) Equip LGS in Template 1 Primary.
    Observe that AR for Template 1 jumps to 150 (132+18)

    2) Equip LS in Template 2 Primary.
    Observe that AR jumps to 90 (72+18)
    Two +9 infusions return to inventory.
    Both the LGS and the LS show two +9 infusions because they're shared, right?

    3) Un-equip LGS from Template 1.
    Observe that the LGS now has no +9 infusions.
    AR for Template 1 reduces to 132.

    4) Re-equip LGS from Template 1.
    Observe that the LGS still doesn't have +9 infusions
    AR is still at 132. Those two infusions on the LS are not shared with the LGS back in Template 1.
    ------------------>That seems like a bug, but that's not the one I'm showcasing.

    5) Add the two UNLINKED +9 infusions to the GS while equipped in Template 1.
    Observe with each apply that the number of unlinked infusions doesn't change.
    With each apply, the number of linked infusions DECREASES by 1.
    Observe that AR for Template 1 is restored to 150.

    6) Get confused by this and apply an UNLINKED +9 infusion to the top slot of the LS in Template 2.
    Observe that inventory Infusions goes down to 1.
    Linked infusions goes up to 1.

    7) Apply the last UNLINKED +9 infusion to the bottom slot of the LS in Template 2.
    8) Unequip LGS
    9) Unequip LS
    10) You will end up with:
    1 LGS in inventory, no infusions.
    1 LS in inventory, 2 infusions
    1 +9 Infusion in inventory
    1 missing +9 infusion that shows as allocated in the template views, but NO WEAPONS IN ANY TEMPLATE.
    ------------------>Is this working as intended? It really feels like a bug to me.

    To correct the defect:
    11) Equip the LGS and LS in slots 1 and 2 of Template 1.
    The missing +9 infusion will drop back out into inventory.

    I'm going to conduct the same experiment with a shared sigil here shortly, and I bet a nickel we see the same allocation issue.

  • Scenario 2: Misplaced Sigil of Force. After trying this... it's okay. The sigils unequip, which I think is bad, but we don't end up with the misallocation of a sigil in limbo. The same infusion issue happens though.

  • Kate Soulguard.7132Kate Soulguard.7132 Member ✭✭
    edited November 11, 2019

    Another Legendary Weapon equipment template bug.

    TL;DR: By step 3 you will observe that accuracy is not properly shared between templates.

    In my scenario I have...
    1 Legendary Greatsword (LGS, zerker); Sup. Sigil of Force; Sup. Sigil of Accuracy
    1 Legendary Longbow (LLB, zerker); Sup. Sigil of Force; Sup. Sigil of Accuracy
    No weapons equipped in any template.
    Template 1 Critical Chance = 42.19%
    Template 2 Critical Chance = 27.19%

    1) Equip LGS in Template 1 Main-hand
    Crit goes to 57.71%

    2) Equip LLB in Template 2 Main-hand.
    Crit goes to 42.71%
    One Force sigil falls out into inventory.
    One Accuracy sigil falls out into inventory.

    3) Un-equip LGS in Template 1 Main.
    4) Re-equip LGS in Template 1 Main.
    Crit goes to 50.71%
    ---------->Critical chance from Template 2 Main-hand sigil is not shared back to Template 1.
    I would be willing to bet that +damage from Force isn't shared either.

    4) Apply Force and Accuracy to LGS in Template 1
    Both sigils now appear both as Template-linked and unlinked, which is an anomaly.
    Accuracy becomes correct at 57.71%

    Someone please tell me I'm wrong, but this really doesn't seem to be WAI.

    Oh! One more thing - once you un-equip your LGS, if you re-equip sigils and AR, THEN re-equip, the numbers appear to be correct even though the sigils are stripped out on equip.

    If this is all confusing or cumbersome, it's better to get the Legendary to unlock the skin and then use Ascended as your actual gear so you don't have to worry about this silly "un-slotting" shared feature. IMO they really need to turn off this rule. As soon as you equip a legendary, its slotted parts pop out, and then when you un-equip it, you have to re-apply the slotted stuff. That just doesn't make a whole lot of sense if it's supposed to be a real feature.

  • Ashantara.8731Ashantara.8731 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 14, 2019

    @Kate Soulguard.7132 said:
    Another Legendary Weapon equipment template bug.

    [...]

    ---------->Critical chance from Template 2 Main-hand sigil is not shared back to Template 1.
    I would be willing to bet that +damage from Force isn't shared either.

    4) Apply Force and Accuracy to LGS in Template 1
    Both sigils now appear both as Template-linked and unlinked, which is an anomaly.
    Accuracy becomes correct at 57.71%

    Someone please tell me I'm wrong, but this really doesn't seem to be WAI.

    Oh! One more thing - once you un-equip your LGS, if you re-equip sigils and AR, THEN re-equip, the numbers appear to be correct even though the sigils are stripped out on equip.

    You only require one of each here for both weapons: 1 Sigil of Force and 1 Sigil of Accuracy. You then remove the extra pair of sigils from your character (to avoid confusion), then equip both legendary weapons in the two loadouts mentioned, then assign their stats and upgrades. While this is a major hassle, it is a fact that both weapons, while placed in different loadouts, will make use of the exact same sigils, which is why you don't need the extra pair. If both weapons are used in the same loadout, however, you will require an extra pair of sigils.

    If you unequip either of the two weapons from all loadouts, while its upgrades are still being used on another legendary weapon in one of the loadouts, it will not eject the upgrades but will be unequipped in a "blank" state.

    That's why this system is major nonsense and the exact opposite of a (presumably intended) QoL feature. It just complicates things unnecessarily and has you check and double-check all loadouts as well as your inventory in search for the upgrades on each change of weaponry (not to mention that you have to redo everything from scratch each time you re-equip an item).

    ´
    P.S. I, for one, am not going to spend any money on additional loadouts as long as the legendary situation has not been fixed to work user-friendly like it used to before the templates system was released.

  • @Ashantara.8731 said:
    [...] then [...] then [...] then

    breathes into a brown paper bag for a few minutes

    Hi Ashantara,

    Thank you so much for explaining! I really appreciate you taking the time to do so.

    .

    Is this part is still a bug? I think at least this is still a bug...

    1 missing +9 infusion that shows as allocated in the template views, but NO WEAPONS IN ANY TEMPLATE.

    .

    Anet, please change this. I worked hard for legendary items but if this is how it's going to be, I need to shelf them and use Ascended. There is just no way I will be able to keep track of all of this stuff.

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

    @Kate Soulguard.7132 said:

    @Ashantara.8731 said:
    [...] then [...] then [...] then

    breathes into a brown paper bag for a few minutes

    Hi Ashantara,

    Thank you so much for explaining! I really appreciate you taking the time to do so.

    .

    Is this part is still a bug? I think at least this is still a bug...

    1 missing +9 infusion that shows as allocated in the template views, but NO WEAPONS IN ANY TEMPLATE.

    .

    Anet, please change this. I worked hard for legendary items but if this is how it's going to be, I need to shelf them and use Ascended. There is just no way I will be able to keep track of all of this stuff.

    Are you sure that infusion aint shared on another templates armor or accessories?

  • Ashantara.8731Ashantara.8731 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 15, 2019

    @Kate Soulguard.7132 said:

    @Ashantara.8731 said:
    [...] then [...] then [...] then

    breathes into a brown paper bag for a few minutes

    Hi Ashantara,

    Thank you so much for explaining! I really appreciate you taking the time to do so.

    You're welcome. :) I almost freaked out right after release when I worked on two equipment loadouts on a character with exclusively legendary gear and couldn't figure out what was wrong. :s

    @Linken.6345 said:

    @Kate Soulguard.7132 said:
    Is this part is still a bug? I think at least this is still a bug...

    1 missing +9 infusion that shows as allocated in the template views, but NO WEAPONS IN ANY TEMPLATE.

    Are you sure that infusion aint shared on another templates armor or accessories?

    This. What goes for weapons goes for armor and trinkets as well, of course. You likely have said infusion equipped in another loadout on either a piece of armor or a trinket. If nothing else, at least ANet's system doesn't "eat up" any of the upgrades. ;)

    Since you can't distinguish between similar upgrades, it is best to start from scratch: remove all upgrades from all loadouts, place them in the bank, start re-equipping the ones that are similar by starting with one and link it in all loadouts where it is required. Only grab an additinoal one if there are none left to link on an item. (And pray for ANet to remove this nonsense "QoL feature" from their system ASAP. :p )

©2010–2018 ArenaNet, LLC. All rights reserved. Guild Wars, Guild Wars 2, Heart of Thorns, Guild Wars 2: Path of Fire, ArenaNet, NCSOFT, the Interlocking NC Logo, and all associated logos and designs are trademarks or registered trademarks of NCSOFT Corporation. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.