Rex.3602

This topic keeps getting brought up repeatedly, and the same points being made over and over again. At this stage I don't think there's much use in discussing this further because I'm pretty sure Anet is aware of this by now. If they feel it's necessary to take action then they will, otherwise there's nothing else we can do as players since it's their game.

And, as i have pointed out, there has never been any basis to even suggest there might have been any other reason. Remember, that if you dislike template system, you can just not use it, but if you dislike dps meter, and suddenly find that everyone around you has access to one, there's no way to avoid it. Also, if you think that implementing in-game a solution that would be as good as ArcDPS would be easy, you are severely underestimating complexity of that plugin. And the fact that this plugin is only half of the whole package (the other half is the visualizer that enables you to read logs. Currently the most popular one would be the Elite Insights Parser, i believe - implementing that element ingame would be even harder than Arc) Also, out of curiosity, which MMORPGs exactly of those you played had DPS meters as a standard feature (in-game, not as a third-party addon)? Because i don't remember such feature in any MMORPG i have played so far. Edit: also, as a general plea to other posters here: please, please, can you stop with chain-quoting? It's really enough to just quote the parts you are responding to. There's no need to quote massive posts if you are only responding to one-two sentences. Sorry, I can't be bothered to post massive amounts of words that mean nothing like you do. If you for some reason don't like it well... I guess too bad for you? Using paragraphs has always worked perfectly well to get meaning across to me. Yet they have had plenty of time to announce it if they wanted to monetize it. So announcing it wouldn't have been a problem by now if they wanted to only monetize features that were already available in plugins. Again, the rest is just plain nonsense to try to support your agenda, without addressing my points. Who even said that I didn't like the answers. Please don't put words in my mouth, because you can't agree with what I am saying. That is pretty low. I appreciate the thoughts, and I responded with my own answer explaining why it was invalid, which for some reason you can't accept and therefore choose to ignore... I never said that an "in-built" dps meter was a standard feature. Again don't put words in my mouth. What I was saying there is that dps meters through, at least through plugins, are widely available in many MMOs. If you have actually tried a few other MMOs this would not be hard to see, especially if you raided in them. Also, again you might want to look up the meaning of the word "assumption" before using it. An assumption is not something that is claimed to may be true, it is something that is said to be true. And how would that even mean that I had no argument at all, since that clearly has not been the point I was making in this discussion? On the other hand, you failing to address my enquiries that completely contradict your suggestions that templates were introduced only for monetization provides pretty clear evidence that you have no remotely sensible argument against this at all. I'm curious, what could that other reason be? I don't exactly know what their reason was nor do I care. I also don't want to speculate where there is no need to because these speculations may be factually correct or incorrect, so are pretty meaningless. My whole point in the discussion was that it is perfectly possible that monetization was not the only reason for Anet adding their own template system and the arc templates plugin to be disallowed. Personally, I think it would have been great if they could have also allowed the plugin to work, but maybe they had an actual reason (besides monetization only) to disallow it. If that was the case, why would Arenanet continue to allow ArcDPS? I don't know and TBH, that isn't the point being made here anyways so it's not really worth speculating it. I think Anet does themselves a big disservice allowing these things but there could be lots of reasons they are still around ... maybe they find it to impractical to deal with trying to remove ARCDPS? Maybe it's not worth it to them? Maybe they ARE working on it? Who knows ... not me, not you, not any player ... The existence of ARCDPS doesn't mean Anet doesn't care about their sovereignty over the game though. The point is that there are MANY factors that go into making business decisions, so even if you prove or disprove any single one of them, it's irrelevant because you are ignoring all the others. It's likely NOT just one factor that influences these decisions. If you want the answer to why YES to ARCDPS and why NO to ARC Templates ... it's in there ... I'm glad that someone at least gets it. People claim that monetization is the only reason, and then when another possibility is given they refuse to accept it as even remotely possible despite them having no idea about exactly how the plugin worked, how it interacted with the game and the ever-changing stance that Anet may have on plugins. Then when I ask them to give a real reason that can adequately explain why the templates were supposedly only introduced for "monetization" purposes, but a dps meter which many people use (but would still not somehow be an appropriate candidate for "monetization") they resort to claiming that somehow I did not acknowledge their illogical explanations and ignore my points that show the explanations are invalid. It honestly seems like some people believe that a plugin must always have been flawless and perfect. This gets close to the realm of fanboy-ism. Also, just to clarify my thoughts on the actual topic discussed in the opening post: I don't think there is any need to waste dev resources on creating an in-built dps meter when there is already a perfectly functional dps meter available through a plugin that people can use if they would like to see their dps.

I think that this is a good point. Personally, I think that the core game going free was a mistake because overall the quality of it was not that great imo. I'm glad I decided to stick around and give HoT a chance because I found it much more replayable. this doesnt make sense, if core was bad, going F2P should had been done sooner. they didnt because it was still selling.and if REPLAYABILTY was the big seller, then hot should had done far better, than it actually did Compared to other MMOs that I have played core did actually go f2p very soon. You can't measure replayability simply by taking sales at a point in time soon after release. That is in fact the opposite of measuring any replayability. tell that to swtor. and tera. an teso. and sto. and prolly a bunch of other mmos, that i didnt play.and if the core game was so replayable, how would you ever sell any expansions?OTOH, if hot had the replay value, that you think, it would had done far better.fact is, that only a small fraction of players ever FINISHED it. that is not reply value, that is simply a bad product for the consumers it was sold todoesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out, that those customers will be less than pleased with the company, that made itand when you have several millions of disappointed customers, your company is going to nowhere pretty fastI haven't played those MMOs so I can't compare GW2 f2p to them. But like I said before GW2 went f2p quite early compared to MMOs I have played. No one is going to buy a product early on just because the devs claim it has replay value, unless they are naive. I have seen plenty of games claim this only to later be disappointed. So early sales figures are quite meaningless here for this purpose. Actually, I see plenty of players in game in all of the HoT maps all the time, even years and years after release (but I guess these are all bots right?). In comparison I found the PoF maps to be quite dead as well as boring to me. In my experience core Tyria was in between these too. The map designs in that area are great, which probably helps to attract players there. Do you actually have any exact numbers to support your bold claim of several millions of disappointed customers as a result of HoT?

At the same time my explanation is simply connecting the facts we do have (i mentiond them above), without needing to imagine anything at all. Just a thought but maybe they told delta something they cannot do and delta didn't follow it? Before you get to worked up on this it is a possibility since the people at delta are not perfect, although you might believe so. As for the rest, again it's the same nonsense. I really couldn't care less about how arc templates worked in the past. Your "explanation" hasn't explained anything, because you still haven't answered my question asking why they wouldn't have monetized a dps meter and disallowed arc dps already, if they were making these changes only for monetization purposes. Still waiting for a proper answer on this. I'm sure that they wouldn't have needed your suggestion to come up with this idea already, since they already came up with the idea to monetize templates and disallow arc templates by themselves, right? what should this thing be that they told them and delta couldn't do? it was the deal from the beginning, delta is allowed to release the build template plugin till to the point anet brings out his own.there was nothing critical delta couldnt solve there was nothing else that causes any problems, it was this deal and nothing else because this was communicatet so. and even if you ignore all things you got told till now bcause you are white knighting and thinking others are only hater, it doesnt change the fact that anet monotized the build template in the worst way possible. no one would have any problems for paying a bit to extend the template bars but it was not enough to charge money for 3 diffrent things no they maked it charackter bound to charge even more, this is greedines of the highest level and thats why most of us have problems with it and thats why the only logical reason for disallowing arc template was money. Not something necessarily that delta couldn't do, but rather was at least unable to do, because for example it may take a lot of redesigning and coding to change how it works. Anyway, it was just a thought that may or may not be correct, so you shouldn't get too fixed up on it. Ok... I guess as soon as anyone disagrees with you you consider them to be white knighting. If you see my posts, you will see I give criticism where it's due. I could put it in reverse, you just hate Anet so much that you think anyone who doesn't agree with you is white knighting. The actual important question is if they wanted to disallow arc templates and add their own templates only for monetization, then why didn't they do that for a dps meter and arc dps by now too? It's been ages since the templates were "monetized". I'm still waiting for a sensible response to explain this. simple dps meter wasn't requested that much on the other side the missing build template system was complained about since day 1 since gw1 had one from the beginning. then you have to calculate is it worth to develop a dps meter? if they hink it is not worth bc only a small audience uses it (i.e. Raiders) it would be wastet time and resources that they could use for making more skins for the shop that brings more money in. and dont let us start with all the problems they have thanks to spaghetti code like they call it, maybe they havent found a way to implement one without problems. Who said dps meters weren't requested that much? They've been requested for a very long time, are very useful and widely used. There have even been posts complaining that the same topic on dps meters are repeated every 6 months. Seems like a perfect opportunity to monetize it to me if they wanted to. This really doesn't sound like sensible reasoning. so then i can tell you what i want you will every time coming up defensively and not accept any answer as long as it isn't like minded. i said the request wasnt that much like template and never said there was no request at all and even then it isnt something that all want or use while templates is a QoL for all. no one said oh pls no don´t implement templates but dps meter are controversal thats why it is better to not implement them and leave them optional throug 3rd party. bringing the own dps meter ingame could go wrong causing "casuals" that dont like it to leave which resolves in less money income from the shop. at the end it is always money that is in the focus and decides what and if something be done. but hey it doesnt matter what i say because you find something new or simply dont accept what others try to tell you. I'm not being defensive, I'm being sensible here. I don't accept things others tell me if they make no sense. What a horrible way that would be to go through life. So, again, getting back to dps meters. If they decided to make their own meter:ArcDPS is a very complex system, and Anet would be really hard-pressed to equal it. It's very likely that the version they would make would be simpler, with lower functionality.If they can think of a way to monetize it, they are extremely likely to do soAny attempt to do so is likely to make the whole system even less useable.If they introduce a monetized dps meter, they are absolutely certain to kill ArcDPS, because at this point it would become a business competition.All of this would leave us with a simpler version of dps meter (monetized), and without Arc. For those that already use Arc, it would be a step down. Of course, it's not absolutely certain it would happen, but the whole template system debacle gives us a pretty good example that it can happen, and that the potential consequences are too big to risk it. Seems quite silly to claim someone makes false assumptions because they don't want you want... Of course they don't have a dps meter yet captain obvious. But they could have added one if they wanted to "monetize" it, just like for templates. That doesn't make any sense. If Anet want an in-game dps-meter (very unlikely imo), it will take them TIME to develop it and that even if it wouln't be monetized. Do you realise that years happens between the date they announce to actively start developing their actual template system and the actual release? What do you mean by that? Are you claiming that the actual system is not heavily monetized? Because it is and that is a fact, you can just check the prices IG (i can do the Maths here if you don't want to).Make me wonder, how many "templates" (gear loadouts and/or build loadouts and/or build storages) did you buy? At the same time my explanation is simply connecting the facts we do have (i mentiond them above), without needing to imagine anything at all. Just a thought but maybe they told delta something they cannot do and delta didn't follow it? Before you get to worked up on this it is a possibility since the people at delta are not perfect, although you might believe so. As for the rest, again it's the same nonsense. I really couldn't care less about how arc templates worked in the past. Your "explanation" hasn't explained anything, because you still haven't answered my question asking why they wouldn't have monetized a dps meter and disallowed arc dps already, if they were making these changes only for monetization purposes. Still waiting for a proper answer on this. I'm sure that they wouldn't have needed your suggestion to come up with this idea already, since they already came up with the idea to monetize templates and disallow arc templates by themselves, right? what should this thing be that they told them and delta couldn't do? it was the deal from the beginning, delta is allowed to release the build template plugin till to the point anet brings out his own.there was nothing critical delta couldnt solve there was nothing else that causes any problems, it was this deal and nothing else because this was communicatet so. and even if you ignore all things you got told till now bcause you are white knighting and thinking others are only hater, it doesnt change the fact that anet monotized the build template in the worst way possible. no one would have any problems for paying a bit to extend the template bars but it was not enough to charge money for 3 diffrent things no they maked it charackter bound to charge even more, this is greedines of the highest level and thats why most of us have problems with it and thats why the only logical reason for disallowing arc template was money. Not something necessarily that delta couldn't do, but rather was at least unable to do, because for example it may take a lot of redesigning and coding to change how it works. Anyway, it was just a thought that may or may not be correct, so you shouldn't get too fixed up on it. Ok... I guess as soon as anyone disagrees with you you consider them to be white knighting. If you see my posts, you will see I give criticism where it's due. I could put it in reverse, you just hate Anet so much that you think anyone who doesn't agree with you is white knighting. The actual important question is if they wanted to disallow arc templates and add their own templates only for monetization, then why didn't they do that for a dps meter and arc dps by now too? It's been ages since the templates were "monetized". I'm still waiting for a sensible response to explain this. simple dps meter wasn't requested that much on the other side the missing build template system was complained about since day 1 since gw1 had one from the beginning. then you have to calculate is it worth to develop a dps meter? if they hink it is not worth bc only a small audience uses it (i.e. Raiders) it would be wastet time and resources that they could use for making more skins for the shop that brings more money in. and dont let us start with all the problems they have thanks to spaghetti code like they call it, maybe they havent found a way to implement one without problems. Who said dps meters weren't requested that much? They've been requested for a very long time, are very useful and widely used. There have even been posts complaining that the same topic on dps meters are repeated every 6 months. Seems like a perfect opportunity to monetize it to me if they wanted to. This really doesn't sound like sensible reasoning. Well only the hardcore playerbase have a use of it (Raid, Fractal, orga WvW). The vast majority don't care of it at all i.e. open-world players. Like you said there would be no problem in announcing it before if it would take a very long time to develop one (which I doubt). So why hasn't one even been announced (if you go that route)? No one has said that the system could not be considered to be monetized. My whole point all along has been that monetization may not be the only reason for disallowing arc templates. If the issue were some sort of "potential problem" with the plugin they could have just told Delta to stop enabling the feature without rolling out their alternative. Had they done this and been transparent about the "potential problems" the community would have been much more understanding about it than they were with what Arc's build templates were replaced with. But that isnt at all what happened is it?We were given a system that triple-dipped the consumer instead. Not sure how seeing this reality is narrow-minded. It's the logival conclusion when you aren't playing make-believe about problems that weren't there. Narrow minded as in not accepting that reasons other than only monetization could also be a possibility... And what if Delta refused to or wasn't able to change the way their plugin works? I find it hard to believe that Anet would go out and develop a feature that a plugin already covers without a good reason, especially when they could have done the same for arc dps by now if they wanted to monetize everything. No one is playing make believe problems. You're simply refusing to believe that problems could have existed. I find it funny that people feel the need to defend a plugin so vehemently. If delta refused they would have just banned arc templates. As they had done with the other dps meter which allowed Wall hacks. The reason people hang onto the money thing is because if it had to do with some problems caused by arc templates they would have immediately cut it the moment they realized the problem. They could have still developed the templates while arc templates where down. But that is not what happened. The reason I asked for a reason is because while it's true that their are lots of possible reasons for everything. That doesn't mean these are likely, so giving a decent explanation would help convince people. Wait... aren't arc templates already disallowed by Anet, which is what this discussion was about? It's highly likely that delta wouldn't have access to detailed information that Anet devs would. Updates to plugins create changes over time, so past behaviour is not necessarily indicative of their future behaviour. Also Anet can change their stance on plugins at any moment if they feel it creates undesirable behaviour. I also highly doubt that if there were any problems in Anet's mind that they would share the information publicly, since it could lead to potentially more problems in the future through a different plugin. I find the whole out for money only thing to be very unlikely. If they were out to monetize everything why wouldn't they have also monetized an in-game dps meter by now and disallow arc dps too? Are you purposely ignoring what I'm writing or did I write something so unclear you aren't getting the main point? The timeline of events is as follows-anet announces they' re developing a templete system-anet communicates to delta that ones their one is ready arc needs to stop their version-anet releases their version and arcs stopped. Now from this we can conclude that they didn't have a problem with arc perse when they asked it to be closed as they allowed for a while after the question. They did however apperently have a problem with the combined existence of arcs and their template system. I'm not ignoring anything you said. But you seem to be ignoring the main point that I made in that post you quoted which was: "I find the whole out for money only thing to be very unlikely. If they were out to monetize everything why wouldn't they have also monetized an in-game dps meter by now and disallow arc dps too?" I didn't respond to that because i was assuming you where using hyperbole. Otherwise that argulent would be a giant strawman. Nobody that i have seen has said that money was the only reason for adding it. They said it was a mayor part of how they are implemented and one of the most likely big reasons for disallowing arc. No hyperbole in there at all, just plain facts about the current situation. There is no strawman either. If you somehow missed all the posts earlier in the thread the discussion that started between me and Astralporing was about how a supposed built-in dps meter would only be introduced for monetization purposes. You may have not noticed but that is not what astral said. Like at all. You seem to be missing the point that he made and the part that I was agreeing with in that post. Just because you don't think it holds water doesn't make this true. What they said was"their is already elitism so adding a dps meter wouldn't matter"This doesn't hold water because it assumes a change of the amount of elitism is not relevant. Which is not true. Also I can make the same argument about any part of the game which might show you why the argument is bogus. That was not an assumption because I never claimed it to be true. Perhaps you should look up the meaning of the word before using it lol. I simply stated it as a thought or a possibility. I don't like to delve into pointless speculations that you seem to enjoy. The question that actually matters and I have repeatedly asked has not been answered with even a remotely logical explanation. The thing you keep ignoring, even though i have mentioned it several times over, is that i never said they implemented templates because they wanted to monetize them. They implemented templates because they wanted to implement templates, and because they managed to free some dev resources to do so. Monetizing it was not the primary purpose of implementing the system - they intended to do so long ago, even when gemshop was still very tame compared to how it is today. However, once they did decide to implement it, and started working on it, someone did make a decision to monetize it. That's an undeniable fact. And from how the system was designed it's clear that monetization was one of the primary design goals, one that overridden even its original QoL purpose. Lot of decisions they made about the design of that system simply do not make sense if they were made for QoL - they only make sense if they were made for the purpose of monetization. The same with dps meter - they didn't implement dps meter yet, because either they have no desire to do so, or they don't have enough dev resources for it. That does not affect their potential intention to monetize it if they were to start working on it. I'm glad you can finally understand that the devs won't spend resources on things unless they think it's necessary. That's partially why I think there was some other reason rather than only monetizing templates for devs to spend resources developing their own template system, when a perfectly functional plugin was already available for everyone to use if it caused no problems. Unlike templates were before their implementation, DPS meters are already a very controversial issue. Implementing them in game is bound to anger a lot of people no matter how well the implementation would be. Like i said, most of the threads about dps meters are about banning them. And initially they were not something Anet even wanted in the first place, they eventually caved in and allowed them as third-party tools only after the pressure from raid community. As such, obviously Anet is going to be far more careful about implementing those in game than they were in case of templates. The only reason that many people would think of requesting a ban for DPS meters is that they are currently widely used. Which presented a perfect opportunity for monetization for Anet since ages ago if they were so inclined to make money only from the idea. Also DPS meters are a standard feature in many MMOs that I have played. Implementing DPS meters in game exactly the same way arc dps meter works would not anger anyone anymore than they would be now, since the arc dps plugin is already available to use for everyone if they like.Wow really? Talk about "false assumptions". That may not be what he said recently, but I suggest you go back and read the posts in this thread to actually catch up with the discussion we were having and the point I was making all along... There would be no change in elitism from what we have now if an in-built dps meter was added, since arcdps is available to everyone already. Further to the point elitism is a behaviour, not specifically caused by a tool. I have seen elitism everywhere from open world PvE to WvW and PvP. So, again, getting back to dps meters. If they decided to make their own meter:ArcDPS is a very complex system, and Anet would be really hard-pressed to equal it. It's very likely that the version they would make would be simpler, with lower functionality.If they can think of a way to monetize it, they are extremely likely to do soAny attempt to do so is likely to make the whole system even less useable.If they introduce a monetized dps meter, they are absolutely certain to kill ArcDPS, because at this point it would become a business competition.All of this would leave us with a simpler version of dps meter (monetized), and without Arc. For those that already use Arc, it would be a step down. Of course, it's not absolutely certain it would happen, but the whole template system debacle gives us a pretty good example that it can happen, and that the potential consequences are too big to risk it. Seems quite silly to claim someone makes false assumptions because they don't want you want... Of course they don't have a dps meter yet captain obvious. But they could have added one if they wanted to "monetize" it, just like for templates. That doesn't make any sense. If Anet want an in-game dps-meter (very unlikely imo), it will take them TIME to develop it and that even if it wouln't be monetized. Do you realise that years happens between the date they announce to actively start developing their actual template system and the actual release? What do you mean by that? Are you claiming that the actual system is not heavily monetized? Because it is and that is a fact, you can just check the prices IG (i can do the Maths here if you don't want to).Make me wonder, how many "templates" (gear loadouts and/or build loadouts and/or build storages) did you buy? At the same time my explanation is simply connecting the facts we do have (i mentiond them above), without needing to imagine anything at all. Just a thought but maybe they told delta something they cannot do and delta didn't follow it? Before you get to worked up on this it is a possibility since the people at delta are not perfect, although you might believe so. As for the rest, again it's the same nonsense. I really couldn't care less about how arc templates worked in the past. Your "explanation" hasn't explained anything, because you still haven't answered my question asking why they wouldn't have monetized a dps meter and disallowed arc dps already, if they were making these changes only for monetization purposes. Still waiting for a proper answer on this. I'm sure that they wouldn't have needed your suggestion to come up with this idea already, since they already came up with the idea to monetize templates and disallow arc templates by themselves, right? what should this thing be that they told them and delta couldn't do? it was the deal from the beginning, delta is allowed to release the build template plugin till to the point anet brings out his own.there was nothing critical delta couldnt solve there was nothing else that causes any problems, it was this deal and nothing else because this was communicatet so. and even if you ignore all things you got told till now bcause you are white knighting and thinking others are only hater, it doesnt change the fact that anet monotized the build template in the worst way possible. no one would have any problems for paying a bit to extend the template bars but it was not enough to charge money for 3 diffrent things no they maked it charackter bound to charge even more, this is greedines of the highest level and thats why most of us have problems with it and thats why the only logical reason for disallowing arc template was money. Not something necessarily that delta couldn't do, but rather was at least unable to do, because for example it may take a lot of redesigning and coding to change how it works. Anyway, it was just a thought that may or may not be correct, so you shouldn't get too fixed up on it. Ok... I guess as soon as anyone disagrees with you you consider them to be white knighting. If you see my posts, you will see I give criticism where it's due. I could put it in reverse, you just hate Anet so much that you think anyone who doesn't agree with you is white knighting. The actual important question is if they wanted to disallow arc templates and add their own templates only for monetization, then why didn't they do that for a dps meter and arc dps by now too? It's been ages since the templates were "monetized". I'm still waiting for a sensible response to explain this. simple dps meter wasn't requested that much on the other side the missing build template system was complained about since day 1 since gw1 had one from the beginning. then you have to calculate is it worth to develop a dps meter? if they hink it is not worth bc only a small audience uses it (i.e. Raiders) it would be wastet time and resources that they could use for making more skins for the shop that brings more money in. and dont let us start with all the problems they have thanks to spaghetti code like they call it, maybe they havent found a way to implement one without problems. Who said dps meters weren't requested that much? They've been requested for a very long time, are very useful and widely used. There have even been posts complaining that the same topic on dps meters are repeated every 6 months. Seems like a perfect opportunity to monetize it to me if they wanted to. This really doesn't sound like sensible reasoning. Well only the hardcore playerbase have a use of it (Raid, Fractal, orga WvW). The vast majority don't care of it at all i.e. open-world players. Like you said there would be no problem in announcing it before if it would take a very long time to develop one (which I doubt). So why hasn't one even been announced (if you go that route)? Like i said, i don't think they are interested in develop meter (but that just my opinion) and they could still anounce it in the future if they make that choice. I don't understand your logic here. That was not an assumption because I never claimed it to be true. Perhaps you should look up the meaning of the word before using it lol. An assumption is not always a truce by definition. Maybe assumption is not the right word here? And yet, you made severals clueless speculations here. Just because you don't like our answers doesn't mean we didn't answer it. The thing you keep ignoring, even though i have mentioned it several times over, is that i never said they implemented templates because they wanted to monetize them. They implemented templates because they wanted to implement templates, and because they managed to free some dev resources to do so. Monetizing it was not the primary purpose of implementing the system - they intended to do so long ago, even when gemshop was still very tame compared to how it is today. However, once they did decide to implement it, and started working on it, someone did make a decision to monetize it. That's an undeniable fact. And from how the system was designed it's clear that monetization was one of the primary design goals, one that overridden even its original QoL purpose. Lot of decisions they made about the design of that system simply do not make sense if they were made for QoL - they only make sense if they were made for the purpose of monetization. The same with dps meter - they didn't implement dps meter yet, because either they have no desire to do so, or they don't have enough dev resources for it. That does not affect their potential intention to monetize it if they were to start working on it. I'm glad you can finally understand that the devs won't spend resources on things unless they think it's necessary. That's partially why I think there was some other reason rather than only monetizing templates for devs to spend resources developing their own template system, when a perfectly functional plugin was already available for everyone to use if it caused no problems. Do you realize that no one here claim that the template system was made for monetization only? We just said the core design of it is made in a way that allow to heavily monetize it, that's not the same thing. I would like you to give us your thoughts about the sentence i quote above in bold : Unlike templates were before their implementation, DPS meters are already a very controversial issue. Implementing them in game is bound to anger a lot of people no matter how well the implementation would be. Like i said, most of the threads about dps meters are about banning them. And initially they were not something Anet even wanted in the first place, they eventually caved in and allowed them as third-party tools only after the pressure from raid community. As such, obviously Anet is going to be far more careful about implementing those in game than they were in case of templates. The only reason that many people would think of requesting a ban for DPS meters is that they are currently widely used. If you look at these theads, you will see it's widely used in hardcore content where teamplays is needed, not in the entire game. GW2 is not like others MMO (in many aspects). Well it could anger the large part of the community that don't care of it at all by showing them how badly they perform (not a lot ppl like it). There is a hugh disparity between players skills in gw2. Again, see above for what I said to the above quoted post saying no one suggested monetization was the only reason. I suggest you actually go back and read the whole discussion to see the point that was and is actually being discussed. I find it hard to believe that people can pretend to contribute to a discussion without having a proper idea of what the discussion was about in the first place. You then proceeded to start talking about templates, which is a different topic to a dps meter, and I responded with my own thoughts. I can see that you can't understand logic here even though I have stated my points in several posts already, especially in relation to the point I was making with the parts you quoted. Anything can be hard to understand when you refuse to consider it at all in the first place. I gave you a reason why the answer isn't valid, but if you don't like my own answer I can't help you anymore. Yes assumptions was not the right word... which was my point there... What clueless speculations? You are only speculating yourself that what I said could not even be remotely possible since you don't know exactly how arc templates worked, interacted with the game and the policy on plugins that Anet could change at any moment. I'll quote a previous post of mine in this thread to make it a bit clearer for you: "How do you even know that it's simply a hypothetical scenario and not a fact? You don't have the knowledge of how exactly arc templates worked, how it interacts exactly with the game and Anet's stance on plugins. I don't claim to fictitiously know these things, and you shouldn't either if you want any credibility. Despite what you may so determinedly think, arc templates may not have been perfect." If people get angry because they find out only for themselves how poor their dps is and can thus find ways to make their dps better, then I don't think that is even a healthy way of thinking by being clueless and never even trying to ever improve by themselves...

At the same time my explanation is simply connecting the facts we do have (i mentiond them above), without needing to imagine anything at all. Just a thought but maybe they told delta something they cannot do and delta didn't follow it? Before you get to worked up on this it is a possibility since the people at delta are not perfect, although you might believe so. As for the rest, again it's the same nonsense. I really couldn't care less about how arc templates worked in the past. Your "explanation" hasn't explained anything, because you still haven't answered my question asking why they wouldn't have monetized a dps meter and disallowed arc dps already, if they were making these changes only for monetization purposes. Still waiting for a proper answer on this. I'm sure that they wouldn't have needed your suggestion to come up with this idea already, since they already came up with the idea to monetize templates and disallow arc templates by themselves, right? what should this thing be that they told them and delta couldn't do? it was the deal from the beginning, delta is allowed to release the build template plugin till to the point anet brings out his own.there was nothing critical delta couldnt solve there was nothing else that causes any problems, it was this deal and nothing else because this was communicatet so. and even if you ignore all things you got told till now bcause you are white knighting and thinking others are only hater, it doesnt change the fact that anet monotized the build template in the worst way possible. no one would have any problems for paying a bit to extend the template bars but it was not enough to charge money for 3 diffrent things no they maked it charackter bound to charge even more, this is greedines of the highest level and thats why most of us have problems with it and thats why the only logical reason for disallowing arc template was money. Not something necessarily that delta couldn't do, but rather was at least unable to do, because for example it may take a lot of redesigning and coding to change how it works. Anyway, it was just a thought that may or may not be correct, so you shouldn't get too fixed up on it. Ok... I guess as soon as anyone disagrees with you you consider them to be white knighting. If you see my posts, you will see I give criticism where it's due. I could put it in reverse, you just hate Anet so much that you think anyone who doesn't agree with you is white knighting. The actual important question is if they wanted to disallow arc templates and add their own templates only for monetization, then why didn't they do that for a dps meter and arc dps by now too? It's been ages since the templates were "monetized". I'm still waiting for a sensible response to explain this. simple dps meter wasn't requested that much on the other side the missing build template system was complained about since day 1 since gw1 had one from the beginning. then you have to calculate is it worth to develop a dps meter? if they hink it is not worth bc only a small audience uses it (i.e. Raiders) it would be wastet time and resources that they could use for making more skins for the shop that brings more money in. and dont let us start with all the problems they have thanks to spaghetti code like they call it, maybe they havent found a way to implement one without problems. Who said dps meters weren't requested that much? They've been requested for a very long time, are very useful and widely used. There have even been posts complaining that the same topic on dps meters are repeated every 6 months. Seems like a perfect opportunity to monetize it to me if they wanted to. This really doesn't sound like sensible reasoning. so then i can tell you what i want you will every time coming up defensively and not accept any answer as long as it isn't like minded. i said the request wasnt that much like template and never said there was no request at all and even then it isnt something that all want or use while templates is a QoL for all. no one said oh pls no don´t implement templates but dps meter are controversal thats why it is better to not implement them and leave them optional throug 3rd party. bringing the own dps meter ingame could go wrong causing "casuals" that dont like it to leave which resolves in less money income from the shop. at the end it is always money that is in the focus and decides what and if something be done. but hey it doesnt matter what i say because you find something new or simply dont accept what others try to tell you.I'm not being defensive, I'm being sensible here. I don't accept things others tell me if they make no sense. What a horrible way that would be to go through life. So, again, getting back to dps meters. If they decided to make their own meter:ArcDPS is a very complex system, and Anet would be really hard-pressed to equal it. It's very likely that the version they would make would be simpler, with lower functionality.If they can think of a way to monetize it, they are extremely likely to do soAny attempt to do so is likely to make the whole system even less useable.If they introduce a monetized dps meter, they are absolutely certain to kill ArcDPS, because at this point it would become a business competition.All of this would leave us with a simpler version of dps meter (monetized), and without Arc. For those that already use Arc, it would be a step down. Of course, it's not absolutely certain it would happen, but the whole template system debacle gives us a pretty good example that it can happen, and that the potential consequences are too big to risk it. Seems quite silly to claim someone makes false assumptions because they don't want you want... Of course they don't have a dps meter yet captain obvious. But they could have added one if they wanted to "monetize" it, just like for templates. That doesn't make any sense. If Anet want an in-game dps-meter (very unlikely imo), it will take them TIME to develop it and that even if it wouln't be monetized. Do you realise that years happens between the date they announce to actively start developing their actual template system and the actual release? What do you mean by that? Are you claiming that the actual system is not heavily monetized? Because it is and that is a fact, you can just check the prices IG (i can do the Maths here if you don't want to).Make me wonder, how many "templates" (gear loadouts and/or build loadouts and/or build storages) did you buy? At the same time my explanation is simply connecting the facts we do have (i mentiond them above), without needing to imagine anything at all. Just a thought but maybe they told delta something they cannot do and delta didn't follow it? Before you get to worked up on this it is a possibility since the people at delta are not perfect, although you might believe so. As for the rest, again it's the same nonsense. I really couldn't care less about how arc templates worked in the past. Your "explanation" hasn't explained anything, because you still haven't answered my question asking why they wouldn't have monetized a dps meter and disallowed arc dps already, if they were making these changes only for monetization purposes. Still waiting for a proper answer on this. I'm sure that they wouldn't have needed your suggestion to come up with this idea already, since they already came up with the idea to monetize templates and disallow arc templates by themselves, right? what should this thing be that they told them and delta couldn't do? it was the deal from the beginning, delta is allowed to release the build template plugin till to the point anet brings out his own.there was nothing critical delta couldnt solve there was nothing else that causes any problems, it was this deal and nothing else because this was communicatet so. and even if you ignore all things you got told till now bcause you are white knighting and thinking others are only hater, it doesnt change the fact that anet monotized the build template in the worst way possible. no one would have any problems for paying a bit to extend the template bars but it was not enough to charge money for 3 diffrent things no they maked it charackter bound to charge even more, this is greedines of the highest level and thats why most of us have problems with it and thats why the only logical reason for disallowing arc template was money. Not something necessarily that delta couldn't do, but rather was at least unable to do, because for example it may take a lot of redesigning and coding to change how it works. Anyway, it was just a thought that may or may not be correct, so you shouldn't get too fixed up on it. Ok... I guess as soon as anyone disagrees with you you consider them to be white knighting. If you see my posts, you will see I give criticism where it's due. I could put it in reverse, you just hate Anet so much that you think anyone who doesn't agree with you is white knighting. The actual important question is if they wanted to disallow arc templates and add their own templates only for monetization, then why didn't they do that for a dps meter and arc dps by now too? It's been ages since the templates were "monetized". I'm still waiting for a sensible response to explain this. simple dps meter wasn't requested that much on the other side the missing build template system was complained about since day 1 since gw1 had one from the beginning. then you have to calculate is it worth to develop a dps meter? if they hink it is not worth bc only a small audience uses it (i.e. Raiders) it would be wastet time and resources that they could use for making more skins for the shop that brings more money in. and dont let us start with all the problems they have thanks to spaghetti code like they call it, maybe they havent found a way to implement one without problems. Who said dps meters weren't requested that much? They've been requested for a very long time, are very useful and widely used. There have even been posts complaining that the same topic on dps meters are repeated every 6 months. Seems like a perfect opportunity to monetize it to me if they wanted to. This really doesn't sound like sensible reasoning. Well only the hardcore playerbase have a use of it (Raid, Fractal, orga WvW). The vast majority don't care of it at all i.e. open-world players.Like you said there would be no problem in announcing it before if it would take a very long time to develop one (which I doubt). So why hasn't one even been announced (if you go that route)? No one has said that the system could not be considered to be monetized. My whole point all along has been that monetization may not be the only reason for disallowing arc templates. If the issue were some sort of "potential problem" with the plugin they could have just told Delta to stop enabling the feature without rolling out their alternative. Had they done this and been transparent about the "potential problems" the community would have been much more understanding about it than they were with what Arc's build templates were replaced with. But that isnt at all what happened is it?We were given a system that triple-dipped the consumer instead. Not sure how seeing this reality is narrow-minded. It's the logival conclusion when you aren't playing make-believe about problems that weren't there. Narrow minded as in not accepting that reasons other than only monetization could also be a possibility... And what if Delta refused to or wasn't able to change the way their plugin works? I find it hard to believe that Anet would go out and develop a feature that a plugin already covers without a good reason, especially when they could have done the same for arc dps by now if they wanted to monetize everything. No one is playing make believe problems. You're simply refusing to believe that problems could have existed. I find it funny that people feel the need to defend a plugin so vehemently. If delta refused they would have just banned arc templates. As they had done with the other dps meter which allowed Wall hacks. The reason people hang onto the money thing is because if it had to do with some problems caused by arc templates they would have immediately cut it the moment they realized the problem. They could have still developed the templates while arc templates where down. But that is not what happened. The reason I asked for a reason is because while it's true that their are lots of possible reasons for everything. That doesn't mean these are likely, so giving a decent explanation would help convince people. Wait... aren't arc templates already disallowed by Anet, which is what this discussion was about? It's highly likely that delta wouldn't have access to detailed information that Anet devs would. Updates to plugins create changes over time, so past behaviour is not necessarily indicative of their future behaviour. Also Anet can change their stance on plugins at any moment if they feel it creates undesirable behaviour. I also highly doubt that if there were any problems in Anet's mind that they would share the information publicly, since it could lead to potentially more problems in the future through a different plugin. I find the whole out for money only thing to be very unlikely. If they were out to monetize everything why wouldn't they have also monetized an in-game dps meter by now and disallow arc dps too? Are you purposely ignoring what I'm writing or did I write something so unclear you aren't getting the main point? The timeline of events is as follows-anet announces they' re developing a templete system-anet communicates to delta that ones their one is ready arc needs to stop their version-anet releases their version and arcs stopped. Now from this we can conclude that they didn't have a problem with arc perse when they asked it to be closed as they allowed for a while after the question. They did however apperently have a problem with the combined existence of arcs and their template system. I'm not ignoring anything you said. But you seem to be ignoring the main point that I made in that post you quoted which was: "I find the whole out for money only thing to be very unlikely. If they were out to monetize everything why wouldn't they have also monetized an in-game dps meter by now and disallow arc dps too?" I didn't respond to that because i was assuming you where using hyperbole. Otherwise that argulent would be a giant strawman. Nobody that i have seen has said that money was the only reason for adding it. They said it was a mayor part of how they are implemented and one of the most likely big reasons for disallowing arc.No hyperbole in there at all, just plain facts about the current situation. There is no strawman either. If you somehow missed all the posts earlier in the thread the discussion that started between me and Astralporing was about how a supposed built-in dps meter would only be introduced for monetization purposes. You seem to be missing the point that he made and the part that I was agreeing with in that post. Just because you don't think it holds water doesn't make this true. That was not an assumption because I never claimed it to be true. Perhaps you should look up the meaning of the word before using it lol. I simply stated it as a thought or a possibility. I don't like to delve into pointless speculations that you seem to enjoy. The question that actually matters and I have repeatedly asked has not been answered with even a remotely logical explanation. The thing you keep ignoring, even though i have mentioned it several times over, is that i never said they implemented templates because they wanted to monetize them. They implemented templates because they wanted to implement templates, and because they managed to free some dev resources to do so. Monetizing it was not the primary purpose of implementing the system - they intended to do so long ago, even when gemshop was still very tame compared to how it is today. However, once they did decide to implement it, and started working on it, someone did make a decision to monetize it. That's an undeniable fact. And from how the system was designed it's clear that monetization was one of the primary design goals, one that overridden even its original QoL purpose. Lot of decisions they made about the design of that system simply do not make sense if they were made for QoL - they only make sense if they were made for the purpose of monetization. The same with dps meter - they didn't implement dps meter yet, because either they have no desire to do so, or they don't have enough dev resources for it. That does not affect their potential intention to monetize it if they were to start working on it. I'm glad you can finally understand that the devs won't spend resources on things unless they think it's necessary. That's partially why I think there was some other reason rather than only monetizing templates for devs to spend resources developing their own template system, when a perfectly functional plugin was already available for everyone to use if it caused no problems. Unlike templates were before their implementation, DPS meters are already a very controversial issue. Implementing them in game is bound to anger a lot of people no matter how well the implementation would be. Like i said, most of the threads about dps meters are about banning them. And initially they were not something Anet even wanted in the first place, they eventually caved in and allowed them as third-party tools only after the pressure from raid community. As such, obviously Anet is going to be far more careful about implementing those in game than they were in case of templates. The only reason that many people would think of requesting a ban for DPS meters is that they are currently widely used. Which presented a perfect opportunity for monetization for Anet since ages ago if they were so inclined to make money only from the idea. Also DPS meters are a standard feature in many MMOs that I have played. Implementing DPS meters in game exactly the same way arc dps meter works would not anger anyone anymore than they would be now, since the arc dps plugin is already available to use for everyone if they like.

If the issue were some sort of "potential problem" with the plugin they could have just told Delta to stop enabling the feature without rolling out their alternative. Had they done this and been transparent about the "potential problems" the community would have been much more understanding about it than they were with what Arc's build templates were replaced with. But that isnt at all what happened is it?We were given a system that triple-dipped the consumer instead. Not sure how seeing this reality is narrow-minded. It's the logival conclusion when you aren't playing make-believe about problems that weren't there. Narrow minded as in not accepting that reasons other than only monetization could also be a possibility... And what if Delta refused to or wasn't able to change the way their plugin works? I find it hard to believe that Anet would go out and develop a feature that a plugin already covers without a good reason, especially when they could have done the same for arc dps by now if they wanted to monetize everything. No one is playing make believe problems. You're simply refusing to believe that problems could have existed. I find it funny that people feel the need to defend a plugin so vehemently. If delta refused they would have just banned arc templates. As they had done with the other dps meter which allowed Wall hacks. The reason people hang onto the money thing is because if it had to do with some problems caused by arc templates they would have immediately cut it the moment they realized the problem. They could have still developed the templates while arc templates where down. But that is not what happened. The reason I asked for a reason is because while it's true that their are lots of possible reasons for everything. That doesn't mean these are likely, so giving a decent explanation would help convince people. Wait... aren't arc templates already disallowed by Anet, which is what this discussion was about? It's highly likely that delta wouldn't have access to detailed information that Anet devs would. Updates to plugins create changes over time, so past behaviour is not necessarily indicative of their future behaviour. Also Anet can change their stance on plugins at any moment if they feel it creates undesirable behaviour. I also highly doubt that if there were any problems in Anet's mind that they would share the information publicly, since it could lead to potentially more problems in the future through a different plugin. I find the whole out for money only thing to be very unlikely. If they were out to monetize everything why wouldn't they have also monetized an in-game dps meter by now and disallow arc dps too? Are you purposely ignoring what I'm writing or did I write something so unclear you aren't getting the main point? The timeline of events is as follows-anet announces they' re developing a templete system-anet communicates to delta that ones their one is ready arc needs to stop their version-anet releases their version and arcs stopped. Now from this we can conclude that they didn't have a problem with arc perse when they asked it to be closed as they allowed for a while after the question. They did however apperently have a problem with the combined existence of arcs and their template system. I'm not ignoring anything you said. But you seem to be ignoring the main point that I made in that post you quoted which was: "I find the whole out for money only thing to be very unlikely. If they were out to monetize everything why wouldn't they have also monetized an in-game dps meter by now and disallow arc dps too?" At the same time my explanation is simply connecting the facts we do have (i mentiond them above), without needing to imagine anything at all. Just a thought but maybe they told delta something they cannot do and delta didn't follow it? Before you get too worked up on this one single suggestion, it is a possibility since the people at delta are not perfect, although you might believe so. As for the rest, again it's the same nonsense. I really couldn't care less about how arc templates worked in the past. Your "explanation" hasn't explained anything, because you still haven't answered my question asking why they wouldn't have monetized a dps meter and disallowed arc dps already, if they were making these changes only for monetization purposes. Still waiting for a proper answer on this. I'm sure that they wouldn't have needed your suggestion to come up with this idea already, since they already came up with the idea to monetize templates and disallow arc templates by themselves, right? Oh no, don't bring logic into this! They'll severely monetize dps meters by charging you for every time you want to see your dps. :p You do realize dps meters decreased elitism? So not much logic here. You do realize what the poster was saying is that there is already elitism in the stated content. Not that dps meters increased elitism... So, again, getting back to dps meters. If they decided to make their own meter:ArcDPS is a very complex system, and Anet would be really hard-pressed to equal it. It's very likely that the version they would make would be simpler, with lower functionality.If they can think of a way to monetize it, they are extremely likely to do soAny attempt to do so is likely to make the whole system even less useable.If they introduce a monetized dps meter, they are absolutely certain to kill ArcDPS, because at this point it would become a business competition.All of this would leave us with a simpler version of dps meter (monetized), and without Arc. For those that already use Arc, it would be a step down. Of course, it's not absolutely certain it would happen, but the whole template system debacle gives us a pretty good example that it can happen, and that the potential consequences are too big to risk it. Seems quite silly to claim someone makes false assumptions because they don't want you want... Of course they don't have a dps meter yet captain obvious. But they could have added one if they wanted to "monetize" it, just like for templates. The rest of your post is only complete speculation and excuses to try to weakly justify there being a supposed monetized templates system but a free dps meter plugin available to use. At the same time my explanation is simply connecting the facts we do have (i mentiond them above), without needing to imagine anything at all. Just a thought but maybe they told delta something they cannot do and delta didn't follow it? Before you get to worked up on this it is a possibility since the people at delta are not perfect, although you might believe so. As for the rest, again it's the same nonsense. I really couldn't care less about how arc templates worked in the past. Your "explanation" hasn't explained anything, because you still haven't answered my question asking why they wouldn't have monetized a dps meter and disallowed arc dps already, if they were making these changes only for monetization purposes. Still waiting for a proper answer on this. I'm sure that they wouldn't have needed your suggestion to come up with this idea already, since they already came up with the idea to monetize templates and disallow arc templates by themselves, right? what should this thing be that they told them and delta couldn't do? it was the deal from the beginning, delta is allowed to release the build template plugin till to the point anet brings out his own.there was nothing critical delta couldnt solve there was nothing else that causes any problems, it was this deal and nothing else because this was communicatet so. and even if you ignore all things you got told till now bcause you are white knighting and thinking others are only hater, it doesnt change the fact that anet monotized the build template in the worst way possible. no one would have any problems for paying a bit to extend the template bars but it was not enough to charge money for 3 diffrent things no they maked it charackter bound to charge even more, this is greedines of the highest level and thats why most of us have problems with it and thats why the only logical reason for disallowing arc template was money. Not something necessarily that delta couldn't do, but rather was at least unable to do, because for example it may take a lot of redesigning and coding to change how it works. Anyway, it was just a thought that may or may not be correct, so you shouldn't get too fixed up on it. Ok... I guess as soon as anyone disagrees with you you consider them to be white knighting. If you see my posts, you will see I give criticism where it's due. I could put it in reverse, you just hate Anet so much that you think anyone who doesn't agree with you is white knighting. The actual important question is if they wanted to disallow arc templates and add their own templates only for monetization, then why didn't they do that for a dps meter and arc dps by now too? It's been ages since the templates were "monetized". I'm still waiting for a sensible response to explain this. simple dps meter wasn't requested that much on the other side the missing build template system was complained about since day 1 since gw1 had one from the beginning. then you have to calculate is it worth to develop a dps meter? if they hink it is not worth bc only a small audience uses it (i.e. Raiders) it would be wastet time and resources that they could use for making more skins for the shop that brings more money in. and dont let us start with all the problems they have thanks to spaghetti code like they call it, maybe they havent found a way to implement one without problems.Who said dps meters weren't requested that much? They've been requested for a very long time, are very useful and widely used. There have even been posts complaining that the same topic on dps meters are repeated every 6 months. Seems like a perfect opportunity to monetize it to me if they wanted to. This really doesn't sound like sensible reasoning.

At the same time my explanation is simply connecting the facts we do have (i mentiond them above), without needing to imagine anything at all. Just a thought but maybe they told delta something they cannot do and delta didn't follow it? Before you get too worked up on this one single suggestion, it is a possibility since the people at delta are not perfect, although you might believe so. As for the rest, again it's the same nonsense. I really couldn't care less about how arc templates worked in the past. Your "explanation" hasn't explained anything, because you still haven't answered my question asking why they wouldn't have monetized a dps meter and disallowed arc dps already, if they were making these changes only for monetization purposes. Still waiting for a proper answer on this. I'm sure that they wouldn't have needed your suggestion to come up with this idea already, since they already came up with the idea to monetize templates and disallow arc templates by themselves, right? Oh no, don't bring logic into this! They'll severely monetize dps meters by charging you for every time you want to see your dps. :p

As I said in my last post, plugins change over time and past behaviour is not indicative of their future behaviour. Why would they feel a need to inform the developer to stop working on it at all? By disallowing it, it sends a pretty clear message that they want the developer to stop. Again what you are describing is a desire from the templates feature that you seem to care about, but guess what, I don't need it at all so I'm fine with how it currently is. I have no idea what you are talking about with your nonsense about conspiracy theories. I think your theory is more of a conspiracy in that Anet must only be out to get money with every little change lol. There are many examples where the simplest, most obvious reason is not correct. Especially when it involves some sort of crusade against any perceived form of monetization meaning any changes are always done only for money. Like I said before if they were out for money only why wouldn't they have added their own monetization-based dps meter and disallowed arc dps by now too? Still waiting for an answer. You seem to have a personal issue with any form of monetization which is not my problem. Again you claim that I do not need this feature, which is clearly wrong since I use it all the time. Sure you may have loved arc templates and how it works to fulfil all your needs, but seriously get over it. Read what I said just above. I'm not a mind reader that can know why exactly Anet would not share the information in this case, but one explanation could be it had a serious impact on the game unlike other cases where the issue may have been simple and quick to resolve. I gave examples of other cases because one person felt the need for it, not a reason for disallowing arc templates specifically in this case. So I haven't created any string of events since I never claimed it to be true in this case. You seem to be struggling hard to hang onto the belief that everything was done only for monetization in disallowing arc templates. I don't find it likely to happen for their own dps meter despite your claims that they will only be out for money. If they wanted to do it for monetization, I'm sure they would have done it by now. They don't need your expert advice to come up with the idea.

If the issue were some sort of "potential problem" with the plugin they could have just told Delta to stop enabling the feature without rolling out their alternative. Had they done this and been transparent about the "potential problems" the community would have been much more understanding about it than they were with what Arc's build templates were replaced with. But that isnt at all what happened is it?We were given a system that triple-dipped the consumer instead. Not sure how seeing this reality is narrow-minded. It's the logival conclusion when you aren't playing make-believe about problems that weren't there. Narrow minded as in not accepting that reasons other than only monetization could also be a possibility... And what if Delta refused to or wasn't able to change the way their plugin works? I find it hard to believe that Anet would go out and develop a feature that a plugin already covers without a good reason, especially when they could have done the same for arc dps by now if they wanted to monetize everything. No one is playing make believe problems. You're simply refusing to believe that problems could have existed. I find it funny that people feel the need to defend a plugin so vehemently. If delta refused they would have just banned arc templates. As they had done with the other dps meter which allowed Wall hacks. The reason people hang onto the money thing is because if it had to do with some problems caused by arc templates they would have immediately cut it the moment they realized the problem. They could have still developed the templates while arc templates where down. But that is not what happened. The reason I asked for a reason is because while it's true that their are lots of possible reasons for everything. That doesn't mean these are likely, so giving a decent explanation would help convince people. Wait... aren't arc templates already disallowed by Anet, which is what this discussion was about? It's highly likely that delta wouldn't have access to detailed information that Anet devs would. Updates to plugins create changes over time, so past behaviour is not necessarily indicative of their future behaviour. Also Anet can change their stance on plugins at any moment if they feel it creates undesirable behaviour. I also highly doubt that if there were any problems in Anet's mind that they would share the information publicly, since it could lead to potentially more problems in the future through a different plugin. I find the whole out for money only thing to be very unlikely. If they were out to monetize everything why wouldn't they have also monetized an in-game dps meter by now and disallow arc dps too?

I have only been online during daily reset time once recently so I couldn't test this on multiple occasions. However on the one time I was online during reset this same thing did happen to me.

I think that this is a good point. Personally, I think that the core game going free was a mistake because overall the quality of it was not that great imo. I'm glad I decided to stick around and give HoT a chance because I found it much more replayable. this doesnt make sense, if core was bad, going F2P should had been done sooner. they didnt because it was still selling.and if REPLAYABILTY was the big seller, then hot should had done far better, than it actually didCompared to other MMOs that I have played core did actually go f2p very soon. You can't measure replayability simply by taking sales at a point in time soon after release. That is in fact the opposite of measuring any replayability.

If the issue were some sort of "potential problem" with the plugin they could have just told Delta to stop enabling the feature without rolling out their alternative. Had they done this and been transparent about the "potential problems" the community would have been much more understanding about it than they were with what Arc's build templates were replaced with. But that isnt at all what happened is it?We were given a system that triple-dipped the consumer instead. Not sure how seeing this reality is narrow-minded. It's the logival conclusion when you aren't playing make-believe about problems that weren't there. Narrow minded as in not accepting that reasons other than only monetization could also be a possibility... And what if Delta refused to or wasn't able to change the way their plugin works?Ask Bhagwan "what if...". You ignoring that does not show those who recall it as "vehemently defending" anything.It just shows your reliance on hypothetical scenarios while others deal in fact.What are you even talking about now lol? How do you even know that it's simply a hypothetical scenario and not a fact? You don't have the knowledge of how exactly arc templates worked, how it interacts exactly with the game and Anet's stance on plugins. I don't claim to fictitiously know these things, and you shouldn't either if you want any credibility. Despite what you may so determinedly think, arc templates may not have been perfect.

If the issue were some sort of "potential problem" with the plugin they could have just told Delta to stop enabling the feature without rolling out their alternative. Had they done this and been transparent about the "potential problems" the community would have been much more understanding about it than they were with what Arc's build templates were replaced with. But that isnt at all what happened is it?We were given a system that triple-dipped the consumer instead. Not sure how seeing this reality is narrow-minded. It's the logival conclusion when you aren't playing make-believe about problems that weren't there. Narrow minded as in not accepting that reasons other than only monetization could also be a possibility... And what if Delta refused to or wasn't able to change the way their plugin works? I find it hard to believe that Anet would go out and develop a feature that a plugin already covers without a good reason, especially when they could have done the same for arc dps by now if they wanted to monetize everything. No one is playing make believe problems. You're simply refusing to believe that problems could have existed. I find it funny that people feel the need to defend a plugin so vehemently.

They could be waiting until they have released the voice acting for Drizzlewood Coast first before releasing the next episode (I'm guessing probably with voice acting too).

I will repeat it again. Up until certain point, the template plugin was considered to be okay (we know it was, because we know Anet devs were in contact with its author and constantly monitored both Templates and ArcDPS). It stopped being okay only after Anet made their own version - nothing else has changed, the existence of their own version was the only factor here. You may choose to believe that it was also a moment when they accidentally suddenly realized something else that made them change their mind about the plugin, but that's just trying to find convoluted reasons to disbelieve what's in front of your face.They didn;t want the plugin to compete with their version. It's as simple as that. Again, the template plugin was something they were completely fine with, until they made their own. You are free to believe there were some other mysterious reasons they wanted that plugin gone, instead of the most obvious ones, but that's, for me, skirting heavily into the conspiracy theories territory. There's absolutely nothing supporting an existence of those mysterious, hidden reasons. The only reason someone might believe in those is if they don't want to accept the obvious answer. Actually I think that the whole reason they decided to spend resources to implement their own system so that people don't have to use arc templates may be to stop any potential problems the plugin itself was causing. Just because you or others decide to think it's all about monetization when there is even a hint of monetization in a system doesn't mean it's necessarily the only reason. You can believe your narrow minded theories all you want, but it doesn't mean it's correct.

I think that this is a good point. Personally, I think that the core game going free was a mistake because overall the quality of it was not that great imo. I'm glad I decided to stick around and give HoT a chance because I found it much more replayable.

Not sure how the map instancing system work, but for this map in particular it doesn't seem to work that well since I nearly always get placed in either a dead map that doesn't have enough people to capture Vloxen or Petraj, or a map that has almost finished the meta. A shame really, since otherwise it can be quite a fun map to play.

As Aliam said it depends a lot on exactly what kind of content you are trying to do. For PvE and WvW I use a staff air weaver and find that I have a lot of CC skills available to use. Fire and air seems to be a popular combo for high damage in weaver. But I can't specifically help you anymore there because the main attractive feature of weaver to me is the ability to move around very quickly after using CC skills.

No, I can't even remember the last time that I used it to be honest, since unlocking the roller beetle and skyscale. I guess the only reason that I would ever use it now is for the mount skins.

Don't worry, like many others i bypass it with chatcodes (only works for builds though). I use the BuildPad which is really nice (and ok by anet standard as it just use the copy/paste fonction), but that's still a shame we need to bypass Anet version. Equipment loadouts are more an issue here, but well i just duplicate class with new character... And no, it is not exactly the same as gw1 in which templates was integrated into the game/UI but stored client-side. So it's fine, there's no need for Anet to build special functionality for you. I don't think built-in templates or a dps meter are needed in the game, but not for the reasons you seem to think. Why should they bother making complex systems when plugins or other workarounds already fulfil your niche needs? That's still a shame that we need to use EXTERNAL storage for that (and again only work for build, not gear). It would not be an issue if arc template was still a thing. And there are still issues with legendary gear and revenant template after one year. If i had the choice i would came back to the previous version without anet feature (that make game worse for me).Yes, it would have been better if they could allow arc templates to also work. But maybe they have a good reason not to allow it. And still, i actively played most of my characters, i will just take the example of the guardian class to illustrate : [Raid/Fotm] Heal FireBrand[Raid/Fotm] Power QuickBrand (Condi QuickBrand is also a thing)[Raid/Fotm] Power DH (2 gears depending if signet share is needed or not)[Raid/Fotm] Condi FireBrand[WvW_zerg] Heal FireBrand (minestrel)[WvW_zerg] Power DH/core guard[WvW_zerg] Condi (Burn) DH/core guard[WvW_roaming] Power Medit DHAnd you can add severals variants of traits/skills depending on situation.. Actively playing does not mean you are good at playing the class. I never talk about good or bad, that's totally irrevelant here and that's also condescending to me (i don't if it is on purpose?). I don't know how you play and you don't know about me either... Sure, you can afk auto-attack most of the game (ie open world) because it is easy enough to still work but that's your choice to make and not everyone like it. But even that is irrevelant here.I think it is fun to play different builds and class and there is some optimization needed in some part of the game i.e. raid, CM fractals or fighting wvw guild for example. If you don't like it, that's totally fine, but again it doesn't mean it will be for everyone. I agree that skill matters a lot (i never tell otherwise). There is a big skill gap between player in this game. But i fail to see how this is revelant here again. Builds also matters (WITH skills).I'm not trying to be condescending at all. Just sharing my experience in the game. Different builds are fun and useful, but I have never needed to use that many builds for any situation at all. They may have introduced their own system because they felt like the arc templates may be detrimental to gameplay or causing problems with the game. I don't see how money is more of a reasonable suggestion than what I suggested. Perhaps you should go back and actually read my posts? I have no idea why I would have to give a specific example since there are virtually an infinite amount of reasons if you put some thought into it. I guess if you don't agree, deflection is a good strategy. But if you need an example, another game that I play had an issue with very fast swapping of builds with plugins that could lead to exploits in skills and traits, which eventually lead to a long cooldown timer for swapping traits to prevent the issue. Just to be clear, I'm not saying this is the exact issue that caused Anet to disallow arc templates. It is just one example of how plugins could cause undesirable behaviour in the minds of devs.

Don't worry, like many others i bypass it with chatcodes (only works for builds though). I use the BuildPad which is really nice (and ok by anet standard as it just use the copy/paste fonction), but that's still a shame we need to bypass Anet version. Equipment loadouts are more an issue here, but well i just duplicate class with new character... And no, it is not exactly the same as gw1 in which templates was integrated into the game/UI but stored client-side. So it's fine, there's no need for Anet to build special functionality for you. I don't think built-in templates or a dps meter are needed in the game, but not for the reasons you seem to think. Why should they bother making complex systems when plugins or other workarounds already fulfil your niche needs? And still, i actively played most of my characters, i will just take the example of the guardian class to illustrate : [Raid/Fotm] Heal FireBrand[Raid/Fotm] Power QuickBrand (Condi QuickBrand is also a thing)[Raid/Fotm] Power DH (2 gears depending if signet share is needed or not)[Raid/Fotm] Condi FireBrand[WvW_zerg] Heal FireBrand (minestrel)[WvW_zerg] Power DH/core guard[WvW_zerg] Condi (Burn) DH/core guard[WvW_roaming] Power Medit DHAnd you can add severals variants of traits/skills depending on situation.. Actively playing does not mean you are good at playing the class. Like I said I'm sure you can trim your build requirements down to much, much less if you put some thought into them. You don't need to min/max every tiny bit of a build on every character you have to be successful in any content in this game. Player skill is much more important than builds here. No idea exactly why they disallowed it, but I'm pretty sure they would have had a good reason other than supposedly trying to increase their revenue.Of course they had a good reason. They wanted to eliminate a competing product. I mean, it's not so easy to offer a heavily monetized product, when you need to compete with something that is both free, and of a much higher quality.Like I said before, think outside the box. There are other good reasons to besides eliminating a so called competing product. Plugins can be disallowed for many reasons by devs in games, especially if they find them detrimental to gameplay or the game for some reason. Please share your business insights on how many people would be willing to go out and buy templates from Anet for a minute niche need that will only affect some players. I don't claim to falsely think that it would be worth spending dev resources to eliminate competition in order to possibly gain some small amount of extra revenue. I'm not suggesting they would eliminate Arc or not. I'm saying they may not do it for purely monetary reasons. Again think outside the box, and read what I said above. There are reasons to remove plugins besides monetization only. Who has said that the main target group for this system was the hardcore crowd? I have many trait, gear and weapon set ups that I use. I still find the system functional, although it could be improved. Maybe a reason for Anet not improving it is that it may not be worthwhile financially to develop it extensively for a niche crowd's needs. Again, there are reasons to remove a plugin besides purely monetization based ones. Your speculations that they only did it for monetization and will do it again for monetization are not well justified and seem resentful.

For PvE I would say yes. There's plenty of content to do and it seems like there will be a lot more too in the future. The population in PvE is quite active, especially in the more popular maps. WvW and PvP seem to be less frequently updated. So if you do them infrequently and can accept the issues that they currently have, they can still be enjoyable from time to time.

I don't really care that it was flawed fir 8 years, it's never too late to make it better. I won't feel scammed after countless of hours of enjoyment the game gave me just because they offered better value for new players. If a player has countless hours playing the game, then he/she should have plenty of gold to convert to gems to buy LS chapters. They're not that expensive. New player probably prioritize other things besides converting Gems, finishing 1-80 story won't yield you nowhere near enough for even 400gems.I'm not saying make it better for me, but communicate game content better for new players.You may not get enough gems from that, but is there really a need to finish the entire game's story quickly? If you do other activities too it doesn't take long to stockpile a lot of gold to use for living world seasons.

No idea exactly why they disallowed it, but I'm pretty sure they would have had a good reason other than supposedly trying to increase their revenue. It would actually take extra effort to go out and disallow plugins, and probably is not worth it financially unless there is some other reason to also disallow it. They are not some evil company that is out to make money in every possible way that they can, despite what the haters think. They are no better or worse than any other business. We don't say they are evil, but like @Obtena.7952 like to repeat it (:p <3), they are still a business. If the monetization was secondary they wouldn't implement it this way. For example they could have made real build templates without cutting it in 2 (the account version are templates but only 24 max), it doesn't take space cause it is just text file i.e. (and with chatcodes players can completely bypass it, so anet ones slots are meaningless). They could also made the unlocks account-wise (even with a higher price), so it could be reroll friendly like the rest of the game... (that's just few examples) And we don't know who tells them to do it that way (it could be a demand from ncsoft)... Yes I agree they are a business and will act as such. Which is why it doesn't make much financial sense to spend development time in disallowing a plugin, unless it affects gameplay detrimentally or causes some other issue that the devs may think worthwhile addressing. Well template implementation prove you wrong on this (and it is easy for them because arcdps developper is in contact with anet to be sure it is always tos compliant). It hasn't proven anything wrong, because there are many reasons other than simply making money to disallow a plugin. I don't know anything about this arcdps developer and their relation with anet. I don't think the arcdps developer is perfect though, and there may be accidental mistakes made by the plugin developer or changes in opinion from anet. Well i gave some examples.. Sure it can be always be the case hypothetically, but they would have stated it explicitly if that was the case. And that's not just my random opinion on the matter, we have precedents like the BGDM case.Why would they have any need to state it explicitly? You realize that this is a game that they own and can control, right? Of course it's okay with a casual approach, which is what I am getting at. Just because it's not useful for you doesn't mean it's not useful. I find it very useful, especially since I don't have to use a plugin to have this feature now. Again, you are complaining about how it's currently implemented, which is not what the topic of this thread is about. I agree, let's not talk about how to improve templates because it's not the purpose of the original post. We also don't say it's not usefull for some people , we said it's ok/nice for those who don't really need a template system (like adding some inventory slots). Anet just seems to miss the target audience for this feature. Who said I don't really need a template system? Your so called target audience seems to be dictated by you and not the actual devs at anet. Sure, and like i said i'm happy for you that you like it. But thing is you don't seems to have many builds in the first place. It is weird for me to have these kind of limitations (numbers).Thanks, that means a lot. I have no idea how many builds you must need for this to be a problem. I find that I have more than enough builds to cover all situations. That sounds like a problem that you have had with the implementation, which is a separate issue.It's not a separate issue. It's very much a core of the problem. A badly implemented system that costs us an already well-working solution (even if that solution was a third-party implementation, not an ingame system) is a straight out loss - something worse than not having that system implemented at all. And having that loss be heavily overmonetized is just adding insult to the injury. Personally I haven't encountered any problems yet with the way the templates currently work.Then you probably didn't have a need for a template system in the first place. It's not that this system has problems (it does have them, but let's leave it for another discussion). It's that it is way too limited to be of serious use for someone that truly needs it. Yes, even fully unlocked.And those limitations are a direct consequence of this system being designed primarily for monetization, not for QoL. If the devs can make a functional dps meter with basic features I would be satisfied. I wouldn't need any advanced or special features.Remember, that them implementing an ingame dps meter would mean an end to ArcDPS development. As such, implementing a solution that would offer us less than Arc would be a loss. Especially if we'd need to pay for it.You might not need anything more than that basic functionality, but for many players that are actively using Arc, that basic functionality is one of its least important functions. At this point i do not believe they could implement something that would even equal Arc, and i do not have faith in that system not getting monetized. As such, i'd rather they left things as they are. I would rather not use any plugins, and I don't use them at the moment since I don't raid. I don't see any reason why they couldn't allow the plugin to also be used instead if some people find it better. I am using templates for all of my characters. I'm not saying the system couldn't be improved, but the way it is right now I have found it to be perfectly functional for all of my needs. As @Astralporing.1957 said, the "template" system (loadout is the right word) is ok for people that barely need it like if you don't use many builds (1 or 2 per character), don't have many characters, don't use legendary gears outside loadouts (i.e. not swapping with inventory or others char), don't really use revenant (build loadout still bugged as hell after one year)...That's a bit restrictive imo.And if you didn't know/use Arc templates before Anet release the current version, i totally understand that you like it (that's nice for you :) ). But for those who did, anet version is litteraly WORSE than nothing (i.e. leg and revenant issues).Thing is it was quite obvious at release that the loadout system was crippled on purpose to promote monetization (triple layers of it) first and quality of life after (Anet usually don't do that but here it is). I don't know who exactly these raiders consider to be "casual" or don't need the template system. I use the template system a lot when switching builds between PvE and WvW (for example between CC and healing), so it's definitely useful for me and the purposes I require. Well maybe not casual, but how many builds (traits +gears) do you use with yours characters ? I use different gear, weapons and traits for builds in all 5 of my level 80 characters. See, you don't even have all the 9 class.I will take my case as example (and i'm not even the more annoyed by this). I played actively endgame pve content (raid+cms fract) and wvw, and as a multi-class players i have (and i need) more than 6 gears by class, for the builds (traits + skills) side some class have more than 20 builds... and that's not huge, i know ppl that have many more...So yes, for me (and for some others), this system is a loss compared to arctemplates. So the solution for us is to make others characters with the same class (i have 23 char in total right now), as we can't fully use anet system. As side note (on monetization), if you wish to unlock all "anet templates" available just for 9 characters (1 by class), it will just cost you more than 200 euros worth of gems.. I guess it fine right?How does not having 9 classes mean I don't use many builds? I highly doubt that you can play all your 9 classes and hundreds of builds at a high level frequently so I have no idea what you even use them for lol. And it is not the case here, Anet was totally fine with arctemplates for years (as i said the dev are in contact with anet) before releasing their own poor version (imo) and demand deltaconnected to stop it. So why couldn't Anet change their policy or stance at any point in time on plugins? Past behaviour is not necessarily indicative of future behaviour. And i could tell you exactly the same :) Why would they ask arc templates to be disabled otherwise? I just gave you a reason in the previous sentence in the post that you quoted. Not my problem if you for some reason refuse to accept it as a possibility. Well you don't really give a reason, you just said maybe there is another explanation but you don't really point it (we can do a lot with some maybe).But you are right, this is not my problem if for some reason you refuse to accept monetization as a possibility :p (don't take it too seriously^^)My point was that there are other possible explanations. I don't think it was too hard to understand. Monetization could be a possibility, just like the other things could too...

A new roadmap would be nice. I too have been waiting for a new episode. I am quite bored of Drizzlewood Coast now, after so long.