Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Official Feedback Thread about Build and Equipment Templates


Recommended Posts

@Cyninja.2954 said:

@"kharmin.7683" said:In a game where one can play, earn gold, convert to gems and never have to spend any real money, we have complaints about extreme or excessive monetization?

Do you know how long it will take to farm 30k gems worth of gold? The complaints are justified and i think you know that.

Not relevant. The gem-gold exchange is not meant to completely circumvent all transactions. The fact that it can is already a problem within the system.

[...] If you decide to cheap out and spend 0 money on the game while still desiring the feature, you are already not the target audience and not a high value/priority customer.

[...]

TL;DR
:There is customers who are worth keeping happy, and customers who are worth keeping happy but with less priority. Bringing features in line with valuable customers desires/demands is a top priority. Every one else gets attention once the afformentioned group has been satisfied via subsidizing resources for non revenue generating player pools . Might sound harsh, but that's how the real world works.

I don't think you understand how gold/gem exchange works. All gems there are first bought with real money, then donated to the system (in exchange for gold) by players who bought them. Therefore, regardless if you bough gems with $$$ or gold, ANet is still getting paid for every gem store transaction.

While gold to gem ratio fluctuates, price is always proportional, so if something is too expensive with real money, it is also too expensive with gold. Don't talk like gold is worthless and limitless supply, because gold/gem exchange rate shows otherwise: 1 dollar/euro/pound/etc can only buy you X amount of gold.

Also note that people don't just say "it's too expensive", but they also point out there are other items in gem store that offer more value (character slots, arguably bag slots).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Faish.4238 said:

@kharmin.7683 said:In a game where one can play, earn gold, convert to gems and never have to spend any real money, we have complaints about extreme or excessive monetization?

Do you know how long it will take to farm 30k gems worth of gold? The complaints are justified and i think you know that.

Not relevant. The gem-gold exchange is not meant to completely circumvent all transactions. The fact that it can is already a problem within the system.

[...] If you decide to cheap out and spend 0 money on the game while still desiring the feature, you are already not the target audience and not a high value/priority customer.

[...]

TL;DR
:There is customers who are worth keeping happy, and customers who are worth keeping happy but with less priority. Bringing features in line with valuable customers desires/demands is a top priority. Every one else gets attention once the afformentioned group has been satisfied via subsidizing resources for non revenue generating player pools . Might sound harsh, but that's how the real world works.

I don't think you understand how gold/gem exchange works. All gems there are first bought with real money, then donated to the system (in exchange for gold) by players who bought them. Therefore, regardless if you bough gems with $$$ or gold, ANet is still getting paid for every gem store transaction.

I am fully aware how the exchange works. I've explained how the exchange works often enough to others on the forum. I was replying to a player who complained that it is to expensive to exchange gold to gems to get all the upgrades they desire. You either exchange gold to gems, and thus increase the incentive for other players to convert gems to gold (ideally for Arenanet by having the other player buy those gems with real currency) or you buy the gems directly. You don't get to complain about both.

@Faish.4238 said:While gold to gem ratio fluctuates, price is always proportional, so if something is too expensive with real money, it is also too expensive with gold. Don't talk like gold is worthless and limitless supply, because gold/gem exchange rate shows otherwise: 1 dollar/euro/pound/etc can only buy you X amount of gold.

The gold to gem ratio fluctuates due to the amount of conversion between both real currency and gems (which has a fixed value if we discount occasional sales) which are fed into the exchange, previous owned gems which get exchanged and gold which gets exchanged. I'm not saying gold is worthless. What I said was: you either support the game by buying gems and getting the upgrades, or you accept that an increased amount of players convert gold to gems, thus creating unfavorable exchange rates for others who wish to exchange gold (while at the same time incentivising players to get gems for real currency and exchange those for gold with more favorable rates).

While players exchanging gold to gems does benefit Arenanet and their revenue eventually, this still requires another player to actually exchange gems to gold from real currency acquisition. If you are relying on others to fund Arenanet so you get to keep favorable rates, you are out of luck.

@Faish.4238 said:Also note that people don't just say "it's too expensive", but they also point out there are other items in gem store that offer more value (character slots, arguably bag slots).

Yes, and the is up for personal taste and could be argued for or against. In that case vote with your wallet and don't get the upgrades or get prefered upgrades instead. Again, none of thsee upgrades are necessary or required.

We are getting off topic though. I was just pointing out that some players expectations are outlandish, especially from the fraction of "I bought the game 7 years ago, I have provided enough investment".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Ashantara.8731 said:

@Aaralyna.3104 said:And yet still no word on fixing the revenant bugs caused by these templates.

I'm sure this will be taken care of with the upcoming patch.

I'm sure a lot of people thought the feedback before release would have been listened to but nope. I'm sure a lot of people thought the build system would be as good if not better than arcdps but nope. I'm sure a lot of people thought the basic class abilities would be a-ok with the build system but nope. I'm sure a lot of people thought the cost would be reasonable but nope.

They've fluffed everything else are you willing to stand on that line and take the risk?

You must have completely missed my extensive criticism of ANet's version of a templates system in this and other threads, or you wouldn't be asking me that question in such an agitated way. ;)

All I said is that I believe they will take care of the Rev skill issue sooner than most other issues as it directly hampers gameplay to a certain extent. So yes, I do believe this is one of the first things that will get fixed.

Could I be wrong about it? Of course, I am not the Oracle of Delphi after all.

True enough.I am concerned and peeved that people are prepared to accept a faulty product with the promise of fixes later. Most big game companies are releasing broken products with that promise and yes, things improve over time, but that should not be the normal way of operating. For core mechanics like how a Revenant facets or Firebrand mantras work, that is not special skills or unusual abilities, that is core class mechanics, and it wasn't tested properly. Legendary weapon functionality, the holy grail of crafting and grinding, and it wasn't tested properly. Not having the option of linking a build and gear loadout.

Basic, core functions not working as they should, the foundations of class abilities and equipment.Then they announce what they are investigating as their initial fixes and those vital things are not mentioned.

All of this was already Successfully done by a third party app whether or not the app was a legitimate product it showed what could be done.and they apparently ignored all the accumulated evidence of what and how it worked.

Price aside, if you bought a car and it couldn't change gear and the electric windows didn't work, but the retailer said they would look at fixing the electric windows in the next month would you be ok with that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Fueki.4753 said:

@"Cyninja.2954" said:
TL;DR
:There is customers who are worth keeping happy, and customers who are worth keeping happy but with less priority.TL:DR:There are whales, and there are players who aren't.

It's safe to say that there are limits for whales, too, if you're feeling cheated. You have to ask yourself: "Isn't this an impertinent way to make me invest money in this game, because the cost-benefit ratio is completely imbalanced and outrageous?" - If your answer is "Yes", then you're not going to pay for this "QoL feature", regardless of whether you're financially capeable of doing so or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Dawdler.8521" said:And if people dont want it to do that (someone mentioned a tickbox to "disable" this feature, which is downright silly)... just use 1 build across all modes then. Simple as that.Yeah, I really thinkg that this way you will be such a completive player. Just use one build everywhere, since this "templates" build updates does make everything so much better.

Sorry I need to go on and scream a little more 66666666666666666666666 at my Revant. Maybe it will help some day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Nick.5276" said:

All of this was already Successfully done by a third party app whether or not the app was a legitimate product it showed what could be done.and they apparently ignored all the accumulated evidence of what and how it worked.

This, to me, is the real problem. A third-party achieved what should have been a baseline feature of a game that touted build/playstyle diversity. For years.

While I'm not 100% sure that equipment being destroyed by ArcDPS templates wasn't prevalent issue, I'm 99% sure that it wasn't. I have a hard time believing so many veteran players used and loved Arc templates if it consistently destroyed gear. If Anet really did care about having this as a feature, frankly they should have just bought that piece of coding from deltaconnected, and apologized to the rest of us for having taken so long.

Given that they didn't take that route, I'm not surprised at all that it became a bug-infested cash grab. The dust will settle over time, but this is just another black eye that Anet didn't need at this stage of the game's life cycle. We're already swallowing a number of uncertain changes (no expacs, a silly "saga" rebrand, mastery/content release that seriously undermines that promise of "expansion-like" content, etc.) and having this template fiasco lead the way for all that was just unfortunate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GW2 is all about horizontal progression.Arc Templates encapsulated that perfectly by not making you more powerful at any one thing, but allowing you to instead become specialised at more and more things over time with investment, allowing you to gear up and learn a vast array of builds for more and more scenarios, no matter how niche, while crucially also providing the tools to seamlessly swap between them. Which in turn also encouraged players to seek out and master more and more gamemodes and content within them, drastically increasing the longevity of the game.

Upon reflecting on why this patch had such a massively negative impact on my (and many other's I know) desire to even just keep playing, I came to the conclusion that in my opinion Anet took out the primary progression system for many veteran players of the game when they shut down Arc, just to replace it with a monetization scheme, an almost absurdly heavy handed one at that. While even with full investment of a couple hundred euros/dollars, it still stops far short from replacing the functionality, and with that necessary service for the game, that Arc provided, in pretty much every regard.

I truly think this "template" patch was the most damaging thing that happened to the hardcore scene of the game since launch, and that says a lot among all the missteps and lack of content we stuck through with.

As much as I appreciate that we eventually got any response at all, that can't make up for the fact that it completely missed the mark and only talked about eventually months down the line just fixing the most preliminary issues, while completely avoiding the issue of how flawed to the core almost everything about the implementation is, from lack of functionality to massively overbearing monetization for such a vital feature for many, and how much damage that caused to some of the most invested playerbase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Asum.4960" said:GW2 is all about horizontal progression.Arc Templates encapsulated that perfectly by not making you more powerful at any one thing, but allowing you to instead become specialised at more and more things over time with investment, allowing you to gear up and learn a vast array of builds for more and more scenarios, no matter how niche, while crucially also providing the tools to seamlessly swap between them. Which in turn also encouraged players to seek out and master more and more gamemodes and content within them, drastically increasing the longevity of the game.

Upon reflecting on why this patch had such a massively negative impact on my (and many other's I know) desire to even just keep playing, I came to the conclusion that in my opinion Anet took out the primary progression system for many veteran players of the game when they shut down Arc, just to replace it with a monetization scheme, an almost absurdly heavy handed one at that. While even with full investment of a couple hundred euros/dollars, it still stops far short from replacing the functionality, and with that necessary service for the game, that Arc provided, in pretty much every regard.

I truly think this "template" patch was the most damaging thing that happened to the hardcore scene of the game since launch, and that says a lot among all the missteps and lack of content we stuck through with.

As much as I appreciate that we eventually got any response at all, that can't make up for the fact that it completely missed the mark and only talked about eventually months down the line just fixing the most preliminary issues, while completely avoiding the issue of how flawed to the core almost everything about the implementation is, from lack of functionality to massively overbearing monetization for such a vital feature for many, and how much damage that caused to some of the most invested playerbase.

This.Just reading it makes me sad all over again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It came too late. I hardly use it because I have by now one char for each build I need. So my experience is limited. However, one thing is annoying to me with my wvw char using such templates: If I have changed something for whatever reason (mostly to adapt to a specific situation), when I map travel from EBG to a bl, I lose it. It changes my setup back to the original template. So of course, I can set it up again, no worries, but a change of map in WvW is quite common, and that becomes rapidly annoying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Asum.4960" said:GW2 is all about horizontal progression.Arc Templates encapsulated that perfectly by not making you more powerful at any one thing, but allowing you to instead become specialised at more and more things over time with investment, allowing you to gear up and learn a vast array of builds for more and more scenarios, no matter how niche, while crucially also providing the tools to seamlessly swap between them. Which in turn also encouraged players to seek out and master more and more gamemodes and content within them, drastically increasing the longevity of the game.

Upon reflecting on why this patch had such a massively negative impact on my (and many other's I know) desire to even just keep playing, I came to the conclusion that in my opinion Anet took out the primary progression system for many veteran players of the game when they shut down Arc, just to replace it with a monetization scheme, an almost absurdly heavy handed one at that. While even with full investment of a couple hundred euros/dollars, it still stops far short from replacing the functionality, and with that necessary service for the game, that Arc provided, in pretty much every regard.

I truly think this "template" patch was the most damaging thing that happened to the hardcore scene of the game since launch, and that says a lot among all the missteps and lack of content we stuck through with.

As much as I appreciate that we eventually got any response at all, that can't make up for the fact that it completely missed the mark and only talked about eventually months down the line just fixing the most preliminary issues, while completely avoiding the issue of how flawed to the core almost everything about the implementation is, from lack of functionality to massively overbearing monetization for such a vital feature for many, and how much damage that caused to some of the most invested playerbase.

This resonates with me so much! Everything you said is exactly what I thought... Like what I've said in my feedback, I wasn't even a veteran player, but I've met people who would teach me how to raid (training), teach me how to use more builds in different situations, but yet the tripple monetization with the character-bound unlock and the clunkiness of the system makes me sad. I wanted to use the system more but the cost has prevented me from acquiring any... Like... some of the builds not only would use slightly different traits, but also would exchange few pieces of gear for example into a tankier build, therefore I'd need 1 build template + 1 gear template for that build, that's like 300 + 500 = 800 gems, how does it even make sense for that price? It really should be "half that price" AND "account-wide unlock" for "BOTH build + gear" and unlock up to 10-20 templates.

Not only how much it cost, but it was also the character-bound unlock that has stopped me from progressing further into as in to broaden my build selection. I'm supposed I can really buy more character slot if I really need to, but then wouldn't it defeats the existance of the build template? Doesn't it want more players to be willing to buy more slots/use the system that you've spend so much time and efford to create? Wouldn't a reasonable price and a reasonable option (such as account wide unlock & charge only 1-way but not split into 3-ways) attract more players to actually buy them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Cyninja.2954" said:I was just pointing out that some players expectations are outlandish, especially from the fraction of "I bought the game 7 years ago, I have provided enough investment".I don't think that people's expectations to have templates for free are truly that outlandish. You don't implement QoL system like this one to reap quick profits, but to increase longevity and replayability of the game. Which translates to more profits in the long term, as people become more attached to the game and spend more money later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Blueberry.8095 said:

@"Asum.4960" said:GW2 is all about horizontal progression.Arc Templates encapsulated that perfectly by not making you more powerful at any one thing, but allowing you to instead become specialised at more and more things over time with investment, allowing you to gear up and learn a vast array of builds for more and more scenarios, no matter how niche, while crucially also providing the tools to seamlessly swap between them. Which in turn also encouraged players to seek out and master more and more gamemodes and content within them, drastically increasing the longevity of the game.

Upon reflecting on why this patch had such a massively negative impact on my (and many other's I know) desire to even just keep playing, I came to the conclusion that in my opinion
Anet took out the primary progression system for many veteran players of the game
when they shut down Arc, just to replace it with a monetization scheme, an almost absurdly heavy handed one at that. While even with full investment of a couple hundred euros/dollars, it still stops far short from replacing the functionality, and with that necessary service for the game, that Arc provided, in pretty much every regard.

I truly think this "template" patch was the most damaging thing that happened to the hardcore scene of the game since launch, and that says a lot among all the missteps and lack of content we stuck through with.

As much as I appreciate that we eventually got any response at all, that can't make up for the fact that it completely missed the mark and only talked about eventually months down the line just fixing the most preliminary issues, while completely avoiding the issue of how flawed to the core almost everything about the implementation is, from lack of functionality to massively overbearing monetization for such a vital feature for many, and how much damage that caused to some of the most invested playerbase.

This resonates with me so much! Everything you said is exactly what I thought... Like what I've said in my feedback, I wasn't even a veteran player, but I've met people who would teach me how to raid (training), teach me how to use more builds in different situations, but yet the tripple monetization with the character-bound unlock and the clunkiness of the system makes me sad. I wanted to use the system more but the cost has prevented me from acquiring any... Like... some of the builds not only would use slightly different traits, but also would exchange few pieces of gear for example into a tankier build, therefore I'd need 1 build template + 1 gear template for that build, that's like 300 + 500 = 800 gems, how does it even make sense for that price? It really should be "half that price" AND "account-wide unlock" for "BOTH build + gear" and unlock up to 10-20 templates.

Not only how much it cost, but it was also the character-bound unlock that has stopped me from progressing further into as in to broaden my build selection. I'm supposed I can really buy more character slot if I really need to, but then wouldn't it defeats the existance of the build template? Doesn't it want more players to be willing to buy more slots/use the system that you've spend so much time and efford to create? Wouldn't a reasonable price and a reasonable option (such as account wide unlock & charge only 1-way but not split into 3-ways) attract more players to actually buy them?

Exactly, the design and maybe especially the pricing actively encourages players to circumvent the feature via character slots, which are also expensive and clunky and slow to swap around with, scaling negatively in user experience with build variety, but offering much better value.It actively defeats the purpose of a template system in the first place by heavily encouraging players to skim down their builds to a bare minimum, both to avoid accumulating insane costs for such a basic game feature, going into the multiple hundreds and just by maximum capacity of slots available, even if someone is willing to pay that steep price.And in turn actively punishes veterans who achieved endgame goals like acquiring Legendary gear, as the system heavily discourages variety and experimentation, as well as pushing players towards using multiple characters to circumvent the system, making such ingame achievements redundant and in ways even worse than base gear, which offers the ability to save different looks per build as well.

It completely fails to achieve what a proper Template system like Arc Templates provided for the game, at a massive premium price.

It's almost like functionality and impact on the game wasn't even a consideration of the feature, with the goal just having been to deliver another monetization avenue to the game, because apparently Bank Slots, Inventory Slots, Character Slots, Storage Expansions, Crafting License Slots, Shared Inventory Slots and on and on and on wasn't enough QoL to be sold on the Gemstore, on top of the vast majority of decent cosmetics being acquired there as well.Meanwhile repeatable endgame content to actually play after all those purchases is nowhere to be seen.

It's worth iterating though that even I think monetization for this system would have been fine, if it had been done in a way that's reasonable and doesn't actively diminish/contradict the purpose of the product as well as the product itself providing proper functionality worth the investment. A template system imo should encourage experimentation and build variety, not hamper it.As I said from the beginning with the first unveiling of the system, a deeply discounted full account unlock (and drastically increased maximum slots), as well as functionality improvements such as proper template functionality with save/load options would have been instrumental for this to work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now while some adjustments are on the way I am still not in the slightest satisfied. With what is coming it really seems like no major changes will come no matter how terrible the foundation of this system is.Now I want to bring a point that is controversial, but I believe that, as long as we stick to “gear” we will never have good build system, because “gear” is the main clue print why builds and switching builds is a hassle. And the current system tries to fix it by giving us more gear slots which leads to more gear management instead of less.

  • First point runes and sigils. As long as these are tied to gear, we will never have good flexibility. No matter what you do as long as the sigil is tied to a weapon the weapon is only useful for one build only. Instead of having said weapon with a different sigil used for a different build. But here we come to the next problem. As long as the attributes are tied to a weapon the flexibility is again limited. I need the attribute and not the weapon per se. So a system that would manage attributes/runes/sigil would instead of shuffling gear would be superior in any way.
  • The gear management this game offers is again terrible. And the point is it was never good for the last 7 years, if at all the new templates, loadouts sorry, shows just how bad it really is.Example:GCraaNY.png

The current manager is highly inefficient. It lists everything no matter how unimportant it is for your build. While I believe an attribute wardrobe would be much better than gear slots I would at least ask if we could have an option to hide all stuff depending on rarities or an option to exclude non soulbound/character bound items.Now for a small riddle. Guess me the attributes of the 4 marked items.dm6NSc9.png

! Correct, none. All of them are not selected yet.

Now what I see as a problem with our gear focused system is that it shows not what is needed. For build management it is highly unimportant what skin an item has. The information that is needed on the first look should be the attributes. These define the build not that it is from the aetherblade set or that its color is red. For the look a new editor would be a better potion. Often already suggested a template where you select your skins and it is changed either alone or even bind it to build templates.I also think two of the main problem we have with the current build loadouts are just overshadowing the underlying issue of gear. That we only have loadouts and not true templates as so many wanted to have them is, I believe an issue of gear. Gear are more or less physical items so the moment I remove them to the inventory they are gone from the template as there is nothing that could be saved in the template to remember what was on the current position. How should the system find it? For example, if it is given to another character how should the system save the item? Simple answer it can’t and will never. There are too many factors for a system to keep track of. What if the item is transmuted? Can it still fit in the template slot? What if it is on another character, should it just get it from there? What if the attributes are change? How should that be handled? Will it just be deleted from the template? Or should the template simply grab the next best item with the same attribute? But what if the rune/sigil of that one is not correct? Gear is simply a hindrance as it is a static object not metadata that could be saved to a template and be remembered even through change.The problem with legendary gear is also tied in this. While they seem more comfortable, a change that switches the item back to the inventory leads to all the problems described in the last paragraph. The system can’t track it and as long as we stay with gear as the build defining option this won’t change.These are some points I believe why the current gear system per se is terrible and the underling system should be changed. As long as the system is not touched the whole build issue as we got it, no matter the changes, will stay inflexible and a shallow shadow of what it should be. I still belief a wardrobe that would store attributes and a build editor that only overwrites the attributes/runes/sigil of your normal gear would be better in any way. Common gear would only act as a way to acquire unlocks of attributes or runes/sigils. Then we would have no interaction with your inventory, no more hassle with gear, true flexibility as nothing would be bound to anything permanent anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I won't let this thread be forgotten, pin it back to the front.

New update: Since you now can hide stowed weapons, this adds another point to the (long) list of needed improvements to templates loadouts.

  • make the setting saved per template loadout. Right now, it's across all templates loadouts.
  • while at it, apply the same to helmet, gloves and backpack visibility.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this the right place to leave feedback about the new spvp equipment panel? Here goes:

An spvp equipment panel is useless to me if I can't store a unique weapon set in there. Utterly useless. Sure, being able to see the amulet, rune, and sigils outside of the pvp lobby is nice, but those were already segregated from pve equipment so it never contributed to the clash between spvp and pve that we have now. The new equipment panel is, I repeat, utterly useless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for bringing back the autoswitch per gamemode. I haven't tried it out yet, but I trust it works. :)This should restore most of the QoL for players without legendaries.

@voltaicbore.8012 said:An spvp equipment panel is useless to me if I can't store a unique weapon set in there.Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we never stored weapons in the pvp build panel? So I don't see much of a downgrade here, just a small plus for not having to go to HoM for checking or changing the stats now. I mean sure, being able to store weapons would be even better, but for now I'm happy if something just works as intended without breaking the game someway or another.

Any news about revenants?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Fenella.2634 said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we never stored weapons in the pvp build panel? So I don't see much of a downgrade here, just a small plus for not having to go to HoM for checking or changing the stats now. I mean sure, being able to store weapons would be even better, but for now I'm happy if something just works as intended without breaking the game someway or another.

That is correct, but I never really called it a downgrade, not sure where you got that from. It's just that without the additional weapon storage capability, that panel is essentially useless to me, is all.

Also, you seem to have missed the fact that your stats don't reflect the pvp amulet and runes in that panel.

Finally, as sad as it is, I have to admit I'm in the same place you are regarding features working as intended without breaking the game. It's an extremely low standard, but it's what we have at the moment. I really do hope that the stats not changing to reflect pvp equipment in that screen is a bug, and not a feature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the release of capes I decided to set up two versions of one of my toons, one with a cape, one without, for difference situations and I found that because you've only separated the "equipment" tab into "templates", it's got the following consequences (in addition to all the other issues others have already listed):

  1. You can't have the back item visible in one equipment template and not another.

  2. You can't have the back item use different skins in different equipment templates to get around having it visible in all templates because of #1 above.

  3. You can't even have different colors on the same piece of equipment in different templates, so because of #1 and #2 above you're forced to have the same cape, looking exactly the same for all your templates. It's just ....disappointing.

I can't stress how much I appreciate the addition of capes - but again it seems like another feature has been added without consideration how it interacts with existing functionality. Like the different teams making different parts of this game don't talk to each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remembering hidden weapons per loadout?

As it is now, when you hide a weapon in one loadout's weapon slot, the respective weapon slot in all other loadouts is automatically hiding the weapon there as well, even when it's a completely different weapon which you don't wish to hide.

Will it become possible in later updates for the game to remember the selection per loadout instead of across all the loadouts? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Got more bugs for you!

If you have equipped a weapon that you can't use, you can't change it's skin. Let me give you an example: Active equipment slot on my elementalist has warhorn equipped, which i can't use because my build doesn't have tempest elite specialization, when i go to wardrobe and try to change it's skin it just says "You can't apply skin to an empty slot!". So i have to go and equip a build template that has tempest elite spec then i can change the skin.

When you are in your hero equipment panel you can see all sigils/runes and infusions on the left side including linked sigils, runes and infusions, but if you click customize on the weapon or armor you can only see the sigils/runes and infusions in your inventory.

When you equip a legendary weapon or armor that has sigils/runes or infusions on it and there are already same linked sigils/runes and infusions on another equipment panel all upgrades get unequipped and replaced with linked versions. So if I want to swap stuff in and out and don't want linked sigils in my weapons i have to select and equip them again every time.

If i equip a weapon/armor that is already linked, can you just leave at least infusions in it and possibly sigils/runes? So i atleast have something in them and don't run around with under 150AR and no sigils.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may be beating a dead horse, but I still think the biggest problem is that you can only unlock tabs per character, not account. If the purchases for Equipment Tabs and Specs were account-wide, I'd be more tempted to buy them. If I only had to buy four more Equipment Template Slots for 2000 gems total (a $35 purchase there) and every single character I have, and will ever make will have six slots, most of my criticisms would be gone. I think these templates should either be dirt cheap per character ($10 can get you everything with a few gems left over), or account-wide purchases to justify their hard prices. With the prices you're charging, I can just buy character slots and make new toons to fulfill new purchases. Engineers and Elementalists having weapon swap now helps save on the space a bit, but it still much.

I don't know. I never used ARC, I can't really compare how much better it was, and I'm a really casual PvE primary player. But there's something about the prices for these single purchases that just... don't feel right, honestly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@AzureNightmare.3914 said:I may be beating a dead horse, but I still think the biggest problem is that you can only unlock tabs per character, not account. If the purchases for Equipment Tabs and Specs were account-wide, I'd be more tempted to buy them. If I only had to buy four more Equipment Template Slots for 2000 gold total and every single character I have, and will ever make will have six slots, most of my criticisms would be gone. I think these templates should either be dirt cheap per character ($10 can get you everything with a few gems left over), or account-wide purchases to justify their hard prices. With the prices you're charging, I can just buy character slots and make new toons to fulfill new purchases. Engineers and Elementalists having weapon swap now helps save on the space a bit, but it still much.

I don't know. I never used ARC, I can't really compare how much better it was, and I'm a really casual PvE primary player. But there's something about the prices for these single purchases that just... don't feel right, honestly.

Which is something a lot of people has been asking but were still not addressed.

I too want account-wide unlock - if I unlock 1 slot on 1 character, the other characters also gain 1 slot, so each character now has 4 slots (including the 3 default slots). If not, I refuse to buy any just like I won't unlock bag slot that only unlock on 1 character but not the whole account.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just do the right thing and give 3 build and 3 equipment for each toon it makes 0 sense not to.... unless that is you want to manipulate the situation so that out of frustration people buy at least 1 equipment slot per toon.

I know you won't but it doesn't hurt to ask and at the end of the day I am still never going to spend another dime of my money on this game. You have just started reaching way to deeply into people's pockets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Balthzar.3807 said:Just do the right thing and give 3 build and 3 equipment for each toon it makes 0 sense not to.... unless that is you want to manipulate the situation so that out of frustration people buy at least 1 equipment slot per toon.

I know you won't but it doesn't hurt to ask and at the end of the day I am still never going to spend another dime of my money on this game. You have just started reaching way to deeply into people's pockets.

So we got 1 extra equipment slot for free since before both wvw and pve used the same one now we got 2.Since spvp dont use the equipment slots per say, instead amulet and rune + your blank weapons there was no need for a third equipment slot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...