Improve Limited Loadout Tabs and general loadout system.

[Demalii.9435]

**If you agree that the loadout system needs much improvement - Please +1 this thread.

 

We are allowed.. 6 Loadouts for Skill Builds and 6 Loadouts for Weapons - This is quite the relic of a system, and was a clever idea to add monetization to the game. Unfortunately it has only embarrassed the long time players. We are on the 3rd expansion now, many people have to cope with having 10+ builds for 1 profession by using alternative methods or extra characters. You give us quick loadout change option, but not the ability to actually loadout a character that you've played for ages.
 

It's not hard to drop in a new build, then change your gear and you're set. However, now how do you go about remembering all of the stats/runes/sigils from your previous gearset.

 

Depending on what I'm doing, I will have for 1 profession:

1 or 2 dungeon builds

1 or 2 fractal builds

3 or 4 WvW builds

MANY PvP builds

1 or 2 Raid builds

3 or 4 Open World builds

 

I don't mind too much personally about monetization.. Sure, I'd love to save all the builds in game, but it's monetized just to save your builds (Somewhere an angel is crying). Sure I'd love to save gearsets for later use, but it's impossible.

 

Please, highly consider how this affects some players as nothing more than an annoyance. The lack of build/gearset tabs limits players from truly enjoying the spirit of what guild wars.. was. Hundreds of skills, and nothing but time to try out every possible combination - No limitations.

 

**If you agree that the loadout system needs much improvement - Please +1 this thread.

 

 


 

 

 

Edited February 25, 2022 by Demalii.9435

[mythical.6315]

Out of all of the players who play this game, what percentage actively use all six existing templates/load outs?

How different are the templates/load outs really from each other for those that use 6+?  How about for those that use 10+?

Edited February 22, 2022 by mythical.6315

[Freya.9075]

It would be great if they added more slots for the players that needs it. Personally I don’t, but I can see why someone would want it. 
 

What if you make an own list in notepad or something if you need more of them. Copy and paste the build template. Sure it takes a few more steps then just clicking a button to change it, but it is a workable solution to the builds at least. 

[The Boz.2038]

11 hours ago, Demalii.9435 said:

and was a clever idea to add monetization to the game

No.

Never.

 

[The Boz.2038]

10 hours ago, mythical.6315 said:

Out of all of the players who play this game, what percentage actively use all six existing templates/load outs?

How different are the templates/load outs really from each other for those that use 6+?  How about for those that use 10+?

Few, because they get 2, and they're discouraged from entering "more serious content that requires some other builds that aren't the PvE tag cookie cutter" because they don't have the tabs for that.

Still irrelevant. "Feature" still insulting.

[mythical.6315]

5 hours ago, The Boz.2038 said:

Few, because they get 2, and they're discouraged from entering "more serious content that requires some other builds that aren't the PvE tag cookie cutter" because they don't have the tabs for that.

Still irrelevant. "Feature" still insulting.

So you’re saying that build templates are causing players to not enter into more serious content despite that content existing before them?

Edited February 23, 2022 by mythical.6315

[The Boz.2038]

No.

[mythical.6315]

44 minutes ago, The Boz.2038 said:

No.

Except that’s exactly what you’re suggesting. 

 

 

[The Boz.2038]

But no.

[Krzysztof.5973]

Are we realizing just now that current system is inferior to delta's free arc dps build templates? 

[mythical.6315]

55 minutes ago, The Boz.2038 said:

But no.

You stated: “they're discouraged from entering "more serious content that requires some other builds that aren't the PvE tag cookie cutter" because they don't have the tabs for that”. 
 

This is fairly much the same as what I said which was: “So you’re saying that build templates are causing players to not enter into more serious content”. 
 

You’re saying that the lack of build tabs is discouraging players from doing more serious content. This is exactly what your post is suggesting. The second part of my post countered this suggestion stating that the serious content you referred to existed before build templates. 

[Asum.4960]

18 hours ago, mythical.6315 said:

Out of all of the players who play this game, what percentage actively use all six existing templates/load outs?

That's imo a fairly irrelevant argument.

I'd wager the vast majority of players don't use any more than 1-2 builds per character, but those players are hardly the demographic for this feature. And the players that are heavily into buildcraft or a variety of content aren't catered to by it either due to it being too limiting (besides being far to costly, but that's an already lost battle). 

That's a problem. 

 

Besides, how many of all the players actively use 20+ shared inventory slots? That didn't prevent them from raising the limits and selling more either. 

 

2 hours ago, mythical.6315 said:

So you’re saying that build templates are causing players to not enter into more serious content despite that content existing before them?

Arc Templates existed before, in which players like me had around 20 builds saved per character. I can only speak for myself, but the introduction of Anet's Loadouts and removal of Arc Templates actively made me quit some content which I enjoyed with specialised builds before, because every time I feel like engaging with it for a bit again, I'm faced with the hassle of changing out all my gear and build (and then remembering and putting everything back again after), and then rather just not bother and log off for something else instead. 

While that might not be a widespread issue, it's definitely an entirely unnecessary hurdle harming the game and content accessibility. 

[mythical.6315]

1 hour ago, Asum.4960 said:

That's imo a fairly irrelevant argument.

I'd wager the vast majority of players don't use any more than 1-2 builds per character, but those players are hardly the demographic for this feature. And the players that are heavily into buildcraft or a variety of content aren't catered to by it either due to it being too limiting (besides being far to costly, but that's an already lost battle). 

That's a problem. 

 

Besides, how many of all the players actively use 20+ shared inventory slots? That didn't prevent them from raising the limits and selling more either. 

 

Arc Templates existed before, in which players like me had around 20 builds saved per character. I can only speak for myself, but the introduction of Anet's Loadouts and removal of Arc Templates actively made me quit some content which I enjoyed with specialised builds before, because every time I feel like engaging with it for a bit again, I'm faced with the hassle of changing out all my gear and build (and then remembering and putting everything back again after), and then rather just not bother and log off for something else instead. 

While that might not be a widespread issue, it's definitely an entirely unnecessary hurdle harming the game and content accessibility. 

People have argued against the developers doing more raids because the player population that does them is very small. Why should cost of adding more build templates be any different when the player population that use more than what’s available is very small?

 

Arc templates are/were against the TOS. These were temporarily allowed until an in-game version was added. 

[Asum.4960]

58 minutes ago, mythical.6315 said:

People have argued against the developers doing more raids because the player population that does them is very small. Why should cost of adding more build templates be any different when the player population that use more than what’s available is very small?

I won't waste much time tackling the fallacy of arguing against developing certain content that sees low participation exactly because it didn't see enough development, but sure, let's equate enabling more shared inventory slots or build slots to sell for essentially pure profit to developing Raid Wings, which include concepting, environment design, encounter design, creature design, animation, voice acting etc.

 

1 hour ago, mythical.6315 said:

Arc templates are/were against the TOS. These were temporarily allowed until an in-game version was added. 

Except they weren't. Also "temporarily allowed until an in-game version was added" is more than deceptive, considering they were in use (sanctioned by Anet) for literally years, long before official templates were even in discussion.

[mythical.6315]

42 minutes ago, Asum.4960 said:

I won't waste much time tackling the fallacy of arguing against developing certain content that sees low participation exactly because it didn't see enough development, but sure, let's equate enabling more shared inventory slots or build slots to sell for essentially pure profit to developing Raid Wings, which include concepting, environment design, encounter design, creature design, animation, voice acting etc.

 

Except they weren't. Also "temporarily allowed until an in-game version was added" is more than deceptive, considering they were in use (sanctioned by Anet) for literally years, long before official templates were even in discussion.

I believe that the devs specifically stated that there were design limitations which prevented additional slots. There are costs associated with resolving this. 
 

You may see it as a fallacy but it’s the exact same argument people have used against more raids.
 

If they were not against TOS then why are there no active alternatives?  Why did the developer of ARC templates have to stop updating it?  

Edited February 23, 2022 by mythical.6315

[Asum.4960]

1 minute ago, mythical.6315 said:

I believe that the devs specifically stated that there were design limitations which prevented additional slots. There are costs associated with resolving this. 

I recall quite the opposite, with that_shaman uncovering code at launch of the feature already supporting 10 Loadout Slots. 

 

4 minutes ago, mythical.6315 said:

If they were not against TOS then why are there no active alternatives?  Why did the developer of ARC templates have to stop updating it?  

As far as I know that was an agreement made in the leadup to the official launch of them, to discontinue support. That does in no way mean that they were TOS breaking in the years beforehand.

[Krzysztof.5973]

27 minutes ago, mythical.6315 said:

If they were not against TOS then why are there no active alternatives?  Why did the developer of ARC templates have to stop updating it?  

They told Delta to discontinue development on build templates and remove them from the plugin in the next update right before anet released their own "templates". Before that they were completely fine with it. Delta's templates were working perfectly and even better than anet's loadouts - these are not templates, let's get that one thing right. 

[mythical.6315]

1 hour ago, Asum.4960 said:

I recall quite the opposite, with that_shaman uncovering code at launch of the feature already supporting 10 Loadout Slots. 

 

As far as I know that was an agreement made in the leadup to the official launch of them, to discontinue support. That does in no way mean that they were TOS breaking in the years beforehand.

 

If that's true, then you can provide a source?

 

If it wasn't against TOS, why would they have to discontinue support? 

[Pifil.5193]

36 minutes ago, mythical.6315 said:

 

If that's true, then you can provide a source?

 

If it wasn't against TOS, why would they have to discontinue support? 

Here you go:

The code allows for ten of each.

As for why did the developer of arcdps have to discontinue support? Well, that add-on was developed with ArenaNets "blessing" so long as the developer agreed to abide by ArenaNets rules. Part of the agreement was that arcdps could have templates but had to remove them when the official templates came along.

[Krzysztof.5973]

1 hour ago, mythical.6315 said:

 

If that's true, then you can provide a source?

 

If it wasn't against TOS, why would they have to discontinue support? 

(as an addition to what Pifil said)

[Asum.4960]

1 hour ago, mythical.6315 said:

If that's true, then you can provide a source?

In accordance with the Forum's Code of Conduct concerning datamined content, I may not. ( @Pifil.5193 good luck :P)

 

But whatever the case might be, I'd still find the comparison silly - even if that argument wasn't already flawed to begin with.

 

1 hour ago, mythical.6315 said:

If it wasn't against TOS, why would they have to discontinue support? 

Because it was a better, free and already established product, up to compete with something Anet was then about to monetize - so Anet asked the third party Dev to not update their version further, with which they complied (likely in order to be allowed to maintain the core product, the DPS Meter). 

 

But again, we know the developer of Arc was actually working with/in communication with Anet to make sure their program didn't break ToS, and Anet's stance has always been (for legal reasons) "use at own risk" - not active violation. 

To state otherwise is just blatant misinformation. 

Edited February 23, 2022 by Asum.4960

[mythical.6315]

4 minutes ago, Asum.4960 said:

In accordance with the Forum's Code of Conduct concerning datamined content, I may not. ( @Pifil.5193 good luck :P)

 

But whatever the case might be, I'd still find the comparison silly - even if that argument wasn't already flawed to begin with.

 

Because it was a better, free and already established product, up to compete with something Anet was then about to monetize - so Anet asked the third party Dev to not update their version further, with which they complied (likely in order to be allowed to maintain the core product, the DPS Meter). 

 

But again, we know the developer of Arc was actually working with/in communication with Anet to make sure their program didn't break ToS, and Anet's stance has always been (for legal reasons) "use at own risk" - not active violation. 

To state otherwise is just blatant misinformation. 

It was allowed under certain conditions. If something by itself wasn’t against TOS, why would it need conditional approval?

[mythical.6315]

8 minutes ago, Krzysztof.5973 said:

(as an addition to what Pifil said)

More evidence that templates itself was against TOS until a temporary exception was made. 
 

If something is not against TOS then you wouldn’t need the developers blessing nor would there be conditions set on its support. 

Edited February 24, 2022 by mythical.6315

[mythical.6315]

31 minutes ago, Pifil.5193 said:

Here you go:

The code allows for ten of each.

 

Thank you for providing that. 

[Asum.4960]

50 minutes ago, mythical.6315 said:

More evidence that templates itself was against TOS until a temporary exception was made. 
 

If something is not against TOS then you wouldn’t need the developers blessing nor would there be conditions set on its support. 

ToS' are purposefully vague so companies can wield them more effectively at their digression. Being an "exception" as you put it is the best any third party program can hope for, since no sane company would openly endorse or vouch for anything outside of their control (becoming liable for any issues).

Either Arc Templates were not in violation of ToS, or they were technically, but not effectively as tolerated by exception. The result is effectively the same, so I'm not sure why you are arguing about this other than to derail the thread. 

 

It's very unlikely it was in violation though, as the only contenders in the ToS would be "automating gameplay" (via automatically swapping builds), aka botting, or "providing players an unfair advantage" via the quicker build swapping. 

If Anet were to rule those as botting and/or unfair advantage violations, Anet would basically be admitting to selling bots and pay to win features on their Gemstore, since they are now selling those same features they would have marked as such in the free Third Party Application. 

 

This is a futile argument.