Jump to content
  • Sign Up

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


Recommended Posts

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 396
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Nephalem.8921 said:

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

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

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

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.The final conclusion has been based on the info already available, and the clarification Anet made recently has shown that the assumptions made from informations released in the stream were 100% correct.i simply do not see how the conclusion could be any different even after build templates will get released - for this, the system itself would have to be different than what we've been shown, and it's been already confirmed it won't be different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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.

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Rubius.9280 said:

@"borgs.6103" said:The only reason the Build Template mod for ArcDPS existed was that Anet turned a blind eye on it. At the end of the day, that mod was Against the ToS of
one button-one action within the game
.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Honestly, it's not worth it to try. For whatever reason people refuse to acknowledge that this is the case. Even when presented with the information they ignore it. I was called a liar and that I was spreading 100% false information. This happened even when I linked the videos/quotes/etc from Anet's own team to show that I wasn't fabricating information.

The unfortunate part here is that a good portion of players that would be willing to pay for a better implementation of the system are being glossed over. In the end people will be upset, it will tide over, with maybe a small chunk of players that quit. It's not the end of the world but it's sad to see players get pushed out of a game they care about. Over time we all lose as the player-base drops between pockets of releases like this.

It's odd to me that people are okay with potentially paying $100 + for a QoL feature like this but yell at Anet for pricing expansions at $40-60, which houses a ton of actual content + other updates. It also seems excruciatingly punishing for people with a lot of alts, which is odd because Anet in general makes this a very alt friendly game (Masteries/Crafting Recipes/Skins, etc., all being account bound unlocks).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Rubius.9280 said:

@"borgs.6103" said:The only reason the Build Template mod for ArcDPS existed was that Anet turned a blind eye on it. At the end of the day, that mod was Against the ToS of
one button-one action within the game
.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

That is what people need to understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

That is what people need to understand.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

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

That is what people need to understand.

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Operator.2590" said:

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

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@YMIHere.9580 said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Nick.5276" said:The basis of these threads is*ArcDPS is better in every way than the official offeringIt's not.

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Rasimir.6239 said:

@"Nick.5276" said:The basis of these threads is*ArcDPS is better in every way than the official offeringIt's not.
  • It doesn't automatically sync my build libraries between the different computers I play on.
  • It doesn't clear my bags of the extra set of equipment most of not all of my characters have for different builds.
  • It doesn't update automatically if technical changes are needed due to game client updates

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Rasimir.6239 said:

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

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

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

Inventory space is not an issue these days, really.

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ those pooh-poohing this complaint:

It's disappointing when consumers belittle the complaints of other consumers who want value from a company. Consumers who do so so are participating in the current trend wherein companies are being told it's OK to price their products in a way that is not consistent with the value those products offer. This makes me wonder whether the motivation for the pooh-poohing is: wanting to make someone else look bad on the internet; kicking down (a favorite pastime these days, it seems); being OK with companies gouging consumers, as long as it's not you; or some combination of the above.

As consumers, the questions we ought to be asking are:

  • "Who is this system being marketed to?" and
  • "Why is it designed the way it is?"

There are several possibilities for target market.

  • People who don't use ARC and don't have a use for multiple build and gear templates.
  • People who don't use ARC and will get some inventory space from extra gear templates. This group may have a sub-group that will benefit from having two extra PvE build templates (i.e., they don't need or want WvW/PvP setups).
  • People who have a use for plenty of gear and build templates, as well as the account wide storage spaces. Many, if not most or all, of this group have been using ARC.

Now, maybe ANet is implementing this system altruistically to benefit the first two groups. If you think that, I have a bridge you might be interested in. So, maybe they're doing this to generate revenue. After all, the existing utility/convenience store items have to be showing diminishing returns due to population shrinkage and a lot of people having maxed bag/bank/shared slots already. Also, if altruism is the goal why think of the templates as the equivalent of $5 bag slots and $7.50 bank tabs, which would lead to players who will want to make full use of what will be available pay more than they'd pay for a new game (or maybe three new games)?

If revenue is the goal, which of the above groups should ANet be considering their target market? Elementary business logic suggests it ought to be the third group, the group most likely to want and use the product. This group already has an existing desire for templates. This desire was born out of the design of the game, and fostered by ANet permitting the use of a 3rd party tool which offered that functionality. Given the above, why make the system so inferior to the teaser 3rd party system? Alienating a large part of your target market by producing a product they will see as decidedly inferior is not the best course for generating revenue.

That leads to question 2. The most likely answer is, "Because of limitations built into the game's basic design." If that's true, why not say that? Few businesses will admit fallibility unless they have no choice. Another possibility, at least as far as the number of templates available goes, is that ANet will make more slots available any time they need an infusion of cash, as they currently do with account-shared bag slots. A third possibility is that this is an attempt to "justify" higher costs.

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

Oh, and I know I'm probably preaching to deaf ears.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Rubius.9280 said:

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

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

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

@IndigoSundown.5419 said:Regardless, this post comes from a player who is decidedly not part of the target market for templates, albeit one who does prefer that consumers provide value for money -- and in this case, I don't believe ANet is doing so.If that's the case, then it will be fundamentally reflected in the revenue, which is how the customer/provider relationship has always worked (and actually does work).

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 said:

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

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

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

@"IndigoSundown.5419" said:Regardless, this post comes from a player who is decidedly
not
part of the target market for templates, albeit one who does prefer that consumers provide value for money -- and in this case, I don't believe ANet is doing so.If that's the case, then it will be fundamentally reflected in the revenue, which is how the customer/provider relationship has always worked (and actually does work).

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

Honestly, may you refrain from posting here unless you actually want to add value to a conversation? You have something like 4,000 posts on these forums. Almost every comment I see from you, you are just playing the contrarian. I don't actually think you have Anet's best interest in mind.

With the recent template debacle you have players that actually want to support Anet but not in the way they are handling things. Instead of trying to come up with a system that benefits everyone, you sit there and just tell others off. Half your posts you maintain the stance, "Anet is a business and business is business, so if you don't like the business, leave." But the fact of the matter is, you need players to stick around to support Anet. And honestly based on your stance on things, I don't even think YOU actually support Anet.

Please correct me on this next point if I am mistaken but I believe you were the same Mesmer that argued for the longest time about powercreep and how Chrono/Mirage far overshadows core Mesmer and you refuse to purchase an expansion to be able to be "competitive". Players tried to give you pointers and tips, and mentioned you could try Chrono/Mirage. But you insisted you will only play core on principle. If you are indeed that Mesmer, then clearly you are not the target audience for many of these releases, seeing as you refuse to support Anet even through something major like an expansion. As I said before if I am mixing you up with someone else, please correct me and disregard this.

One of the players did a poll asking about build templates and you mentioned you would use 2-3 if they were free/unlimited. Currently you have 3 in game, 1 for pvp, 1 for wvw, 1 for pve (This is the from their commentary showcasing the the templates in action. It starts at 17:00 in the video where she mentions it). You gain the ability to change what those 3 slots are but if you played every mode you start at a net 0 gain. If you want "additional" slots you can buy up to three but according to you - you would not even buy those. So once again, this is a release where you aren't the target audience.

I really don't understand why you always argue on behalf of pushing more of the playerbase away. If players are upset about something, they should be vocal about it and let Anet know, so that they can (if possible) work to remedy those issues. Remember, the more people that stick around the more potential money Anet makes. So from your Anet is a business standpoint the more people that keep playing the better off Anet will be.

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...