Jump to content
  • Sign Up

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


Recommended Posts

@CptAurellian.9537 said:

@Lord of the Fire.6870 said:Well you have to consider GW2 was as vanilla purely design to aim at 'casuals' . HoT turned the whole concept completely around the game was never planed to be like this.Was it, though? I still remember statements from vanilla and pre-launch times that they wanted stuff to be for hardcore players, e.g. explorable dungeons. In practice, they failed pretty hard at that point, mainly due to the fact that the entire combat system (including boons/condis) was a mess. HoT was the moment when they finally applied some band-aids to that stuff, which at least opened up the possibility of designing content that isn't either plainly dumb or totally faceroll.

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 396
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

@Cristalyan.5728 said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The current implementation of DPS meters is nothing more than a re-presentation of information already being transmitted by the game server to all clients in the reporting radius. Combat data does not have player ownership as it is being generated by the game server and then transmitted ....
.
  • So, you go to a football game. In the stadium, hundred of other persons can see you (this information is already there, it is received by all the "game clients"). Also, all of your actions (cheering/crying/eating/throwing insults to the "enemy" team) - with other words "combat data" - are received by all the other "game clients" in your area. What are these "game clients" not knowing?
    Your identity
    . It is exactly what ArcDPS is doing - he reads your "combat data" and
    adds
    your identity to it. Without your identity everything is OK - but your ID?

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

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

No. Just...no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Lord of the Fire.6870 said:also we have like I said 30-40% more dps then in vanillaDo we? Considering how massive some of the nerfs i remember were, i'd really, really like a source for any such claim.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Voltekka.2375 said:

@Lord of the Fire.6870 said:also we have like I said 30-40% more dps then in vanillaDo we? Considering how massive some of the nerfs i remember were, i'd really, really like a source for any such claim.

Vanilla had no 100% boon duration. Vanilla had no alacrity, vanilla had no perma25 group might constantly, no permaquickness.At the same time Vanilla had FGS spam, linecasting and old icebow, MS and lavafont numbers, among other things. And since that time the game went through uncountable nerfs.No, it is not safe to say that the dps now is higher than then (you might have had a point if you were talking about early HoT times, when some builds had absurdly high dps values, but those have been reigned in long ago). And bringing up actual percentage values when you have nothing to base them on does nothing to help your argument either. Unless, of course, you
do
have something to base them on - in which case i'd really like to see it.

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Cristalyan.5728" said:

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

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

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

The only exceptions being like these or close:

  • You publicly link your E-Mail adress in a forum with the Account or Charactername next to it
  • You make your Accountname your emailadress.
  • You make a character that contains your emailadress.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

Option

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

Is this clear enough?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

So If arcdps is exposing character identifiers without any encryption in code and that identifier contains anything that is relatable to a person regardless of source, its breeching (I have no idea if this is the case)No, if arcdps is exposing character identifiers without any encryption in code and that identifier contains anything that is relatable to a person regardless of source it's not breeching. It only means that someone decided to reveal their private info in a public space purely of their own choice.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Tzarakiel.7490 said:You've made a final conclusion before build templates have even been made available. That fact by itself makes your conclusion worthless.

All of the build template details are public domain. That means we know exactly what it is going to be. We've had forum posts regarding how they will work. A dev video of how they will work. An official news GW2 news announcement. Only the costs have to be hashed out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@borgs.6103 said:

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

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

Wow, grow up. Personal attacks are completely misplaced here. I was merely responding to your claim, I didn't attack you.Hey, I didn't make the rules. It was a huge issue back then, see:

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

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

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Ashantara.8731 said:

@Nick.5276 said:Yes it was a mod, yes it was illegal.What I am saying is it was everything that a build template system should be and the official template system is not. It also penalises legendary equipment for the very reason you are supposed to value legendary equipment, versatility.

:+1:There is still room for improvement in the future, and I hope ArenaNet will take this to heart. I don't mind paying for their official feature, but I do mind unnecessary limitations (when there has been proof that it can be done differently).

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...