DPS meter policy needs to be revised

[Faux Play.6104]

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@Faux Play.6104 said:In GW1 they had golems that were DPS meters. It was not uncommon for PUG groups to go to the golem and practice their spikes before going to their PVP/PVE content and troubleshoot any problems before they got to the content. To me it is just lazy that there isn't one built in.

As far as the privacy issue, remember that wall of text you blew past when you agreed to play the game. Pretty sure you signed off on that. The comment about it being illegal to see other people's data in the game...how would you actually be able to do group content without being able to see the people you are playing with, or if they put any buffs on you, condis on the enemy because of privacy reasons? You have already agree to this, you are just getting upset about the granularity of the data that is shared.

The game itself doesn't provide visible dps meter for players. And I never agreed to existance of ArcDPS and its function of active monitoring of my account (even when I'm not using it!) and ArenaNet refuses to take responsibility for this tool. Game documents have no application for this tool and Anet should force the change how this tool behaves.

They only have to keep personally identifiable information private. You have agreed to have information you generate broadcasted to other players in the game---character movements, skills you are using, what you have targeted, etc.. This is critical information for the other people interacting with you in your instance/squad to know. Think about that for a minute. Would you really want to do an instance when you can't see the people you are playing with, what character they are, what skills they are using, what conditions they put on the boss?

The program is only taking information you have already agreed to be broadcast to others and display it in a different format.

[Coulter.2315]

@Paladine.6082 said:

@Coulter.2315 said:

@Paladine.6082 said:

@Coulter.2315 said:

@Paladine.6082 said:

I work in privacy for a living at a very high level (I helped draft the upcoming ePrivacy Regulation in the EU and am actually in Brussels next week for more discussions at the European Parliament) and have been advocating stronger digital privacy for a very long time - so I found your post interesting. I think the arguments you raised are completely valid (and as a condi warrior in full ascended I am not concerned about my DPS being "poor") and that this type of activity is an infringement of a player's privacy.

I can also tell you as a fact that gamer privacy is a focus with legislators in Europe and that technically under Article 5(3) of 2002/58/EC this type of activity would already fall foul of European law as this makes it unlawful to gain access to any information on an end user's terminal equipment without consent - given the data for DPS meters is generated on the end user's terminal equipment it is pretty clear cut.

Also Article 10 of the upcoming ePrivacy Regulation in Europe has a requirement for software to have privacy built in (by design) and for it to be the default setting - so arguably the developer of ArcDPS would be required to ensure that a: users of the software are not able to see other users' DPS without consent; and b: privacy settings are enabled by default.

Every day the EU proves to me it needs to go. What exactly gives you the right to tell DPS meter devs how they must design their programs? Which political party ran on a campaign to ban DPS meters and was voted into office? Does Junker play GW2 and do terrible DPS? If none of these can be answered could you explain how you could be so bad at writing legislation that DPS meters would be caught up in a digital privacy bill?

Well done EU.. Coming down on the side of stiffling creativity and endeavour once more (colour me shocked

cough

)..

Are you trolling here or are you really that ignorant?

1. MEPs are voted into office and are one of the three legislative bodies in the EU (the European Commission and the Council of the EU are the other 2).
2. The law does not target DPS meters or make DPS meters illegal - it regulates the processing of personal data and provides 6 legal basis for processing personal data in order to a: safeguard your fundamental rights which were again created by elected officials; and b: enable companies to conduct business in a legal fashion.
3. Every single law the EU creates goes through a significantly long period of public consultation. You and EVERY OTHER person in Europe has full access rights to that process and can lobby to have the law shaped to their ideology. In the case of GDPR the first draft was leaked in December 2011 and it was not finalised until spring 2016 - that means you had almost 5 years to engage in the process and help shape the law - if you didn't that is not anyone else's fault but you own (I did).
4. I am not paid by the EU to write laws - I write laws by engaging in the democratic process, attending consultations, roundtables, submitting amendments, lobbying - all at my own expense as a responsible citizen engaging in my democratic rights.

So in future before blowing smoke out of your kitten - perhaps it would be wise to do a little research instead of making yourself look like a complete buffoon making unqualified and completely false public statements. I bet you voted for Brexit too...

1. Name the MEP who proposed this legislation (you can't).
2. So the law does things it wasn't intended to do, nice competency.
3. The EU's ideology hasn't shifted by the UK voting to leave, do you think a GW2 player will have a greater effect?
4. How many people voted for you? Who do you represent through their consent? Or have you taken it upon yourself to shape the destiny of a continent without asking if this is what they want?

Continent wide government by a bunch of busy bodies and bureaucrats who have no mandate surrounded by a bunch of MEPs who have an average voter turnout of ~43% to give an illusion of democracy. MEPs cannot propose legislation and any regulation becomes instant law in all member states regardless if that member state's MEPs all vote against it - nice "democracy."

1. Pretty much every MEP voted on this legislation but if you want to find out exactly which ones you can because it is public record - go have a look.
2. The law does exactly what it was intended to do - it does not outlaw DPS meters, it just requires that they have a legal basis for processing the data
3. Your question makes no sense
4. I am a citizen and have democratic rights just as you do to effect change.

MEPs -can- propose legislation (indirectly) as a result of the Lisbon Treaty - they can instruct the Commission to introduce a propsosal - they may also reject a proposed legislation. The Council of the EU is also made up of elected officials and has equal weight with the Parliament on voting on and adopting legislation. Democracy doesn't allow you to ignore the voice of the many - when a law is introduced you don't get to ignore it just because you didn't vote for it or don't like it. Laws in Europe are introduced as a result of a majority vote from 2 elected bodies.

So yeah, next time don't go to wikipedia and try to make it look like you understand - you clearly don't.

1. Still waiting on that elected name for who proposed this legislation (there isn't one), which political parties' MEPs got elected to put this policy onto the books? Mine didn't.
2. Exactly what I said, the EU stiffling creativity by putting regulation on a small group of independent devs who are now vulnerable to legal action. It may not be possible to create a DPS meter which blocks one person, in a group of 10 if 9 people have a DPS meter and the 10th doesn't an is blocking them the other players still know the other's DPS by taking (Boss HP change - their collective damage)/time.
3. You made a point about me changing the EU's ideology, I countered with an entire country being dissatisfied yet no change.
4. Get rid of Junker then, my Prime Minister tried to stop him becoming the EU President (one of them anyway, yet I notice he wants there to be a supreme one soon) and failed. If the Prime Minister of the UK cannot stop someone being President of a legislative body with supremacy over the UK what the hell are you doing?

Voting "yes/no" and being able to be outvoted by people who do not live in your country and so will not need to suffer any country specific consequences is tyranny. An Empire giving its protectorates votes but no power to stop it.

[maddoctor.2738]

@Paladine.6082 said:

2. The law does exactly what it was intended to do - it does not outlaw DPS meters, it just requires that they have a legal basis for processing the data

Since no dps meter in any video game in history has that "legal basis" can you please show us a single case where dps meters specifically were brought to a court?

[Rhanoa.3960]

@Coconut.7082 said:

@Rhanoa.3960 said:

@Coconut.7082 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@BlaqueFyre.5678 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@BlaqueFyre.5678 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@TexZero.7910 said:

@Vova.2640 said:A DPS meter should show YOUR PERSONAL DPS.Or at most show the DPS of other users who AGREE TO HAVE THEIR DPS SHARED.There is no reason why the DPS of those around you who aren't using this tool should be shown as well.

Hello, basic game knowledge here.

A mob must report its current HP/Status to everyone in the zone or else .... Guess what happens ? No combat can occur.

Is AI scripted creature a player? Also the HP valuse and damage are reported to the server and game client not to player itself.

Damage is transmitted to other players through the use of the Health bar.......... pesky facts.

But not numbers and those numbers are not directly associated to my account. Only if player puts effort and tries to count which of my hits does damage he can guess with no certain what I actually did.

Actually there are numbers associated with it through the Percentage numbers and since all Mobs have their Health pools available it is very reasonable to figure it out, again it isn’t hidden data that is being displayed all of the data is already on display through Visual means of Buff bars/ Debuff Bars Ai Health Bars, Skill Animations, let’s not forget Combat Logs which makes it even easier to figure out how much damage each player contributed.

Pesky facts I know, it’s not like they aregathering hidden data like what gear you are wearing or anything like that.

You do not know mob's HP value and you also don't know how hard I hit the mob just by watching me in game. It is only possible for you to see in numbers if using ArcDPS.

You do, I went around all the mobs in Tyria, killed them alone and added up all the numbers I saw in my in-game chat log to know their HP, which I stored in a huge database (Alternately I could calculate percentages, or use Wiki for some).All the data is presented to you, if you know how to read it. ^^

@Rhanoa.3960 said:Being unaware and having poor perception can be challenging. In the case when you log into the game every day since Beta it's pretty obvious that GW2 was not designed the same way as most traditional MMORPGs. Maybe you should actually try it out.

Very challenging indeed.You dare question my way of playing the game? I thought this game was designed to "play however you want"!

I didn't question the way you play the game.I questioned whether or not you actually know the difference between GW2 vs Traditional MMORPGs.

Enlighten me, what makes GW2 so different from the others, that players shouldn't try to become familiar with the class/game mechanics, try to get decent gear or improve?

This comment alone clearly shows you do not know the difference. You're on your own on this.

[maddoctor.2738]

@Kheldorn.5123 said:But not numbers and those numbers are not directly associated to my account. Only if player puts effort and tries to count which of my hits does damage he can guess with no certain what I actually did.

Let's suppose for a change that this policy change you are speaking of passes and dps meters do indeed require consent from the players to show their dps.How do you propose the dps meter that runs on your own personal computer, with no access to the outside world, knows which player gave their consent and which do not. I'm curious here.

[BlaqueFyre.5678]

I’m waiting on the claims of Combat Data is Personal Data, since every definition provided shows it’s not,

Combat Data and Display Names don’t personally identify anyone, since those two things don’t show any information like Name, e-mail, address, CC info, birthdate, etc., and none of the Combat data is pulled from anyone’s machine besides the player using the meter, and all the data is currently visible by other means, all it shows is X Character did Y during Z encounter while grouped with A.

I know why this question I asked has yet to be answered, quite obvious really.

[Hornet.6357]

Okay, Let's be honest here. Someone made an LFG post for a DPS somewhere and was out dps'd by a full healing magi druid. Yes, I've seen that example happen multiple times in T4 fractals and in Raids recently. I'm unsure what to say, other than simply "git gud" or "get better". If you guys spent less time writing out your works of "legal Shakespeare" and more time on a DPS golem (you know, playing the game), you wouldn't have run into this issue.

[GrubySzymek.1362]

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:But not numbers and those numbers are not directly associated to my account. Only if player puts effort and tries to count which of my hits does damage he can guess with no certain what I actually did.

Let's suppose for a change that this policy change you are speaking of passes and dps meters do indeed require consent from the players to show their dps.How do you propose the dps meter that runs on your own personal computer, with no access to the outside world, knows which player gave their consent and which do not. I'm curious here.

This is on deltaconnected to find solution for this, not on me. BGDM managed to work like this.

[Hornet.6357]

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:But not numbers and those numbers are not directly associated to my account. Only if player puts effort and tries to count which of my hits does damage he can guess with no certain what I actually did.

Let's suppose for a change that this policy change you are speaking of passes and dps meters do indeed require consent from the players to show their dps.How do you propose the dps meter that runs on your own personal computer, with no access to the outside world, knows which player gave their consent and which do not. I'm curious here.

This is on deltaconnected to find solution for this, not on me. BGDM managed to work like this.

Btw. According to Brazil (of Youtube infamy), the original program that was started as "BGDM" was actually supposed to be a botnet by its' creator. How does this jive with your more secure DPS meter argument?

[BlaqueFyre.5678]

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:But not numbers and those numbers are not directly associated to my account. Only if player puts effort and tries to count which of my hits does damage he can guess with no certain what I actually did.

Let's suppose for a change that this policy change you are speaking of passes and dps meters do indeed require consent from the players to show their dps.How do you propose the dps meter that runs on your own personal computer, with no access to the outside world, knows which player gave their consent and which do not. I'm curious here.

This is on deltaconnected to find solution for this, not on me. BGDM managed to work like this.

Keep bringing up the Meter that was never in compliance, actually allowed players to read data from other players machines ie Gear equipped and other Non available data, and gets players banned for use lol.

And Arcdps doesn’t read data from your computer if you don’t have it installed #funfact.

[Rawrfish.3845]

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@Rawrfish.3845 said:So everyone is posting paragraphs about how dps meters shouldn't be allowed because "they might get bullied" and gear checks aren't in the game for the same reason and I realized anet is shaping this game for kids or something. We're all adults and I think we can handle "you have awful dps" every now and then. Do you get offended when someone honks at you while your driving? You forget about it and move on with your life.

I've been doing end game content in WoW for a long time now and DPS meters are extremely important for late game stuff. I can't think of a single time someone got harassed for not pulling their weight. Just a quick kick and maybe a "sorry your DPS was too low". Not allowing a DPS meter only allows poor performance. I don't even look at mine outside of raids because who cares? Not having a gear check feature makes the game feel like I'm playing some outdated MMO missing basic features. Sometimes there's a mage doing more DPS then me and I want to see what gear he has to compare to mine. Maybe sometimes I want to see what gear they have transmogged because it looks cool. Not having add-ons in this game just limits my ability to customize things in a way to make it more familiar and comfortable. I can't move UI elements around why? Engine changes I understand, but come on.

The game we play is limited by the fact someone can't hit report and move on. They're scared they might have to use that button. I've never once used it in WoW in maybe 10 years. Maybe I got lucky, who knows. We have to be honest with ourselves, people are mean and what can't avoid mean people forever and you're going to run into a meanie eventually. At least in guild wars you can block them and move on.

This is not what this thread is about.

Maybe not your point but it seems to be the reason we can't have them built in. There is zero reason a DPS meter and gear checks should not be built in. It helps performance and helps people progress, it also stops people from being carried. The whole invasion of privacy seems like a stretch to ban them to hide poor performance. anet said they're fine, people are searching for a new way to try and ban them for no reason. You're damage is not private, your name and address are private. Your damage is broadcast to everyone unlike your personal information.

[maddoctor.2738]

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:But not numbers and those numbers are not directly associated to my account. Only if player puts effort and tries to count which of my hits does damage he can guess with no certain what I actually did.

Let's suppose for a change that this policy change you are speaking of passes and dps meters do indeed require consent from the players to show their dps.How do you propose the dps meter that runs on your own personal computer, with no access to the outside world, knows which player gave their consent and which do not. I'm curious here.

This is on deltaconnected to find solution for this, not on me. BGDM managed to work like this.

No it didn't.I think I already explained this but BGDM used a server, an external website, to store the data. BGDM was connecting with a server in the US to store and retrieve data. That's not a good solution at all. Also BGDM required to be installed on all client machines in order to track the dps, you couldn't track the dps of the entire group with only the leader running it. I'm not gonna consent to sacrifice my own performance and my latency so that you can have your so called "privacy"

[GrubySzymek.1362]

@Hornet.6357 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:But not numbers and those numbers are not directly associated to my account. Only if player puts effort and tries to count which of my hits does damage he can guess with no certain what I actually did.

Let's suppose for a change that this policy change you are speaking of passes and dps meters do indeed require consent from the players to show their dps.How do you propose the dps meter that runs on your own personal computer, with no access to the outside world, knows which player gave their consent and which do not. I'm curious here.

This is on deltaconnected to find solution for this, not on me. BGDM managed to work like this.

Btw. According to Brazil (of Youtube infamy), the original program that was started as "BGDM" was actually supposed to be a botnet by its' creator. How does this jive with your more secure DPS meter argument?

Because BGDM wasn't compliant to the rules. However the part which I'm bringing on, where you had to make a choice that you want to share your numbers was compliant, and the tool itself was allowed by Anet until the developer introduced "bad" functions to it.

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:But not numbers and those numbers are not directly associated to my account. Only if player puts effort and tries to count which of my hits does damage he can guess with no certain what I actually did.

Let's suppose for a change that this policy change you are speaking of passes and dps meters do indeed require consent from the players to show their dps.How do you propose the dps meter that runs on your own personal computer, with no access to the outside world, knows which player gave their consent and which do not. I'm curious here.

This is on deltaconnected to find solution for this, not on me. BGDM managed to work like this.

No it didn't.I think I already explained this but BGDM used a server, an external website, to store the data. BGDM was connecting with a server in the US to store and retrieve data. That's not a good solution at all. Also BGDM required to be installed on all client machines in order to track the dps, you couldn't track the dps of the entire group with only the leader running it. I'm not gonna consent to sacrifice my own performance and my latency so that you can have your so called "privacy"

I never questioned how BGDM worked. But the premise I am bringing up is that you were allowed to make a choice, you were allowed to decide whether you want ot share you dps or not. ArcDPS doesn't allow me to decide and monitors my account without my consent or knowledge even if I do not use this tool. This is the only comparison I'm bringing when talking about BGDM, I don't clame this tool was a holy grail of dps meters. Stop putting into my mouth words I never said.

[Feanor.2358]

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@Hornet.6357 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:But not numbers and those numbers are not directly associated to my account. Only if player puts effort and tries to count which of my hits does damage he can guess with no certain what I actually did.

Let's suppose for a change that this policy change you are speaking of passes and dps meters do indeed require consent from the players to show their dps.How do you propose the dps meter that runs on your own personal computer, with no access to the outside world, knows which player gave their consent and which do not. I'm curious here.

This is on deltaconnected to find solution for this, not on me. BGDM managed to work like this.

Btw. According to Brazil (of Youtube infamy), the original program that was started as "BGDM" was actually supposed to be a botnet by its' creator. How does this jive with your more secure DPS meter argument?

Because BGDM wasn't compliant to the rules. However the part which I'm bringing on, where you had to make a choice that you want to share your numbers was compliant, and the tool itself was allowed by Anet until the developer introduced "bad" functions to it.

Strange how you're willing to accept ANet's authority when it suits your case and you are unwilling to when it doesn't.

[GrubySzymek.1362]

@Feanor.2358 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@Hornet.6357 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:But not numbers and those numbers are not directly associated to my account. Only if player puts effort and tries to count which of my hits does damage he can guess with no certain what I actually did.

Let's suppose for a change that this policy change you are speaking of passes and dps meters do indeed require consent from the players to show their dps.How do you propose the dps meter that runs on your own personal computer, with no access to the outside world, knows which player gave their consent and which do not. I'm curious here.

This is on deltaconnected to find solution for this, not on me. BGDM managed to work like this.

Btw. According to Brazil (of Youtube infamy), the original program that was started as "BGDM" was actually supposed to be a botnet by its' creator. How does this jive with your more secure DPS meter argument?

Because BGDM wasn't compliant to the rules. However the part which I'm bringing on, where you had to make a choice that you want to share your numbers was compliant, and the tool itself was allowed by Anet until the developer introduced "bad" functions to it.

Strange how you're willing to accept ANet's authority when it suits your case and you are unwilling to when it doesn't.

where you had to make a choice that you want to share your numbers

this is not something ArcDPS allows me to do

[TexZero.7910]

@Kheldorn.5123 said:where you had to make a choice that you want to share your numbers

this is not something ArcDPS allows me to do

Arc doesn't allow it because the game doesn't allow it. It's literally that simple.

It's not your "numbers", you do not have ownership of combat data. It is quite literally public and broadcast to all clients in range. There's no physical way to change this, the literal only difference between what Arc does and what BDGM did is datatype parsing/filtering based on users connected to the background server.

[BlaqueFyre.5678]

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@Hornet.6357 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:But not numbers and those numbers are not directly associated to my account. Only if player puts effort and tries to count which of my hits does damage he can guess with no certain what I actually did.

Let's suppose for a change that this policy change you are speaking of passes and dps meters do indeed require consent from the players to show their dps.How do you propose the dps meter that runs on your own personal computer, with no access to the outside world, knows which player gave their consent and which do not. I'm curious here.

This is on deltaconnected to find solution for this, not on me. BGDM managed to work like this.

Btw. According to Brazil (of Youtube infamy), the original program that was started as "BGDM" was actually supposed to be a botnet by its' creator. How does this jive with your more secure DPS meter argument?

Because BGDM wasn't compliant to the rules. However the part which I'm bringing on, where you had to make a choice that you want to share your numbers was compliant, and the tool itself was allowed by Anet until the developer introduced "bad" functions to it.

Strange how you're willing to accept ANet's authority when it suits your case and you are unwilling to when it doesn't.

where you had to make a choice that you want to share your numbers

this is not something ArcDPS allows me to do

As per Policy it does, it’s called don’t Group with others then, or group with others you know don’t use Meters.

And I wouldn’t tote around a meter that never was in compliance with the policy and actually pulled information that isn’t visible as you holy grail of an example

[GrubySzymek.1362]

@BlaqueFyre.5678 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@Hornet.6357 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:But not numbers and those numbers are not directly associated to my account. Only if player puts effort and tries to count which of my hits does damage he can guess with no certain what I actually did.

Let's suppose for a change that this policy change you are speaking of passes and dps meters do indeed require consent from the players to show their dps.How do you propose the dps meter that runs on your own personal computer, with no access to the outside world, knows which player gave their consent and which do not. I'm curious here.

This is on deltaconnected to find solution for this, not on me. BGDM managed to work like this.

Btw. According to Brazil (of Youtube infamy), the original program that was started as "BGDM" was actually supposed to be a botnet by its' creator. How does this jive with your more secure DPS meter argument?

Because BGDM wasn't compliant to the rules. However the part which I'm bringing on, where you had to make a choice that you want to share your numbers was compliant, and the tool itself was allowed by Anet until the developer introduced "bad" functions to it.

Strange how you're willing to accept ANet's authority when it suits your case and you are unwilling to when it doesn't.

where you had to make a choice that you want to share your numbers

this is not something ArcDPS allows me to do

As per Policy it does, it’s called don’t Group with others then, or group with others you know don’t use Meters.

And I wouldn’t tote around a meter that never was in compliance with the policy and actually pulled information that isn’t visible as you holy grail of an example

I know what current policy says, thank you for your input.

[maddoctor.2738]

@Kheldorn.5123 said:I never questioned how BGDM worked. But the premise I am bringing up is that you were allowed to make a choice, you were allowed to decide whether you want ot share you dps or not. ArcDPS doesn't allow me to decide and monitors my account without my consent or knowledge even if I do not use this tool. This is the only comparison I'm bringing when talking about BGDM, I don't clame this tool was a holy grail of dps meters. Stop putting into my mouth words I never said.

And I'm telling you that what BGDM did had its obvious and serious problems.It's one of the two: performance and latency over your fake privacy. You can't have both for technical reasons that I already explained more than enough times in this thread.

I won't consent to sacrifice my performance and latency for your idea of privacy.

[Feanor.2358]

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@Hornet.6357 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:But not numbers and those numbers are not directly associated to my account. Only if player puts effort and tries to count which of my hits does damage he can guess with no certain what I actually did.

Let's suppose for a change that this policy change you are speaking of passes and dps meters do indeed require consent from the players to show their dps.How do you propose the dps meter that runs on your own personal computer, with no access to the outside world, knows which player gave their consent and which do not. I'm curious here.

This is on deltaconnected to find solution for this, not on me. BGDM managed to work like this.

Btw. According to Brazil (of Youtube infamy), the original program that was started as "BGDM" was actually supposed to be a botnet by its' creator. How does this jive with your more secure DPS meter argument?

Because BGDM wasn't compliant to the rules. However the part which I'm bringing on, where you had to make a choice that you want to share your numbers was compliant, and the tool itself was allowed by Anet until the developer introduced "bad" functions to it.

Strange how you're willing to accept ANet's authority when it suits your case and you are unwilling to when it doesn't.

where you had to make a choice that you want to share your numbers

this is not something ArcDPS allows me to do

And ANet said it's fine. For both. You're accepting one, but not the other, that's dual standards. If you're going to use "ANet was okay" as an argument, you must accept it in either case, not just the one that favors your position.

[BlaqueFyre.5678]

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@BlaqueFyre.5678 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@Hornet.6357 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:But not numbers and those numbers are not directly associated to my account. Only if player puts effort and tries to count which of my hits does damage he can guess with no certain what I actually did.

Let's suppose for a change that this policy change you are speaking of passes and dps meters do indeed require consent from the players to show their dps.How do you propose the dps meter that runs on your own personal computer, with no access to the outside world, knows which player gave their consent and which do not. I'm curious here.

This is on deltaconnected to find solution for this, not on me. BGDM managed to work like this.

Btw. According to Brazil (of Youtube infamy), the original program that was started as "BGDM" was actually supposed to be a botnet by its' creator. How does this jive with your more secure DPS meter argument?

Because BGDM wasn't compliant to the rules. However the part which I'm bringing on, where you had to make a choice that you want to share your numbers was compliant, and the tool itself was allowed by Anet until the developer introduced "bad" functions to it.

Strange how you're willing to accept ANet's authority when it suits your case and you are unwilling to when it doesn't.

where you had to make a choice that you want to share your numbers

this is not something ArcDPS allows me to do

As per Policy it does, it’s called don’t Group with others then, or group with others you know don’t use Meters.

And I wouldn’t tote around a meter that never was in compliance with the policy and actually pulled information that isn’t visible as you holy grail of an example

I know what current policy says, thank you for your input.

So you agree that you have a choice and acknowledge that choice . Great /thread

[GrubySzymek.1362]

@Feanor.2358 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@Hornet.6357 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:But not numbers and those numbers are not directly associated to my account. Only if player puts effort and tries to count which of my hits does damage he can guess with no certain what I actually did.

Let's suppose for a change that this policy change you are speaking of passes and dps meters do indeed require consent from the players to show their dps.How do you propose the dps meter that runs on your own personal computer, with no access to the outside world, knows which player gave their consent and which do not. I'm curious here.

This is on deltaconnected to find solution for this, not on me. BGDM managed to work like this.

Btw. According to Brazil (of Youtube infamy), the original program that was started as "BGDM" was actually supposed to be a botnet by its' creator. How does this jive with your more secure DPS meter argument?

Because BGDM wasn't compliant to the rules. However the part which I'm bringing on, where you had to make a choice that you want to share your numbers was compliant, and the tool itself was allowed by Anet until the developer introduced "bad" functions to it.

Strange how you're willing to accept ANet's authority when it suits your case and you are unwilling to when it doesn't.

where you had to make a choice that you want to share your numbers

this is not something ArcDPS allows me to do

And ANet said it's fine. For both. You're accepting one, but not the other, that's dual standards. If you're going to use "ANet was okay" as an argument, you must accept it in either case, not just the one that favors your position.

The policy was introduced after I started playing the game. The game evolves, ArenaNet has every right to enforce whatever they see right but I have every right to challenge their decision, ask questions and propose another solution. My thread has every point of good feedback they expect from players, I respect forum rules and do my best to provide healthy discussion. Can't say the same about you. Thank you for your input.

[GrubySzymek.1362]

@BlaqueFyre.5678 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@BlaqueFyre.5678 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@Hornet.6357 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:But not numbers and those numbers are not directly associated to my account. Only if player puts effort and tries to count which of my hits does damage he can guess with no certain what I actually did.

Let's suppose for a change that this policy change you are speaking of passes and dps meters do indeed require consent from the players to show their dps.How do you propose the dps meter that runs on your own personal computer, with no access to the outside world, knows which player gave their consent and which do not. I'm curious here.

This is on deltaconnected to find solution for this, not on me. BGDM managed to work like this.

Btw. According to Brazil (of Youtube infamy), the original program that was started as "BGDM" was actually supposed to be a botnet by its' creator. How does this jive with your more secure DPS meter argument?

Because BGDM wasn't compliant to the rules. However the part which I'm bringing on, where you had to make a choice that you want to share your numbers was compliant, and the tool itself was allowed by Anet until the developer introduced "bad" functions to it.

Strange how you're willing to accept ANet's authority when it suits your case and you are unwilling to when it doesn't.

where you had to make a choice that you want to share your numbers

this is not something ArcDPS allows me to do

As per Policy it does, it’s called don’t Group with others then, or group with others you know don’t use Meters.

And I wouldn’t tote around a meter that never was in compliance with the policy and actually pulled information that isn’t visible as you holy grail of an example

I know what current policy says, thank you for your input.

So you agree that you have a choice and acknowledge that choice . Great /thread

I never said this. Please do not manipulate my words. I'm glad you're leaving, goodbye.

[BlaqueFyre.5678]

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@Hornet.6357 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:But not numbers and those numbers are not directly associated to my account. Only if player puts effort and tries to count which of my hits does damage he can guess with no certain what I actually did.

Let's suppose for a change that this policy change you are speaking of passes and dps meters do indeed require consent from the players to show their dps.How do you propose the dps meter that runs on your own personal computer, with no access to the outside world, knows which player gave their consent and which do not. I'm curious here.

This is on deltaconnected to find solution for this, not on me. BGDM managed to work like this.

Btw. According to Brazil (of Youtube infamy), the original program that was started as "BGDM" was actually supposed to be a botnet by its' creator. How does this jive with your more secure DPS meter argument?

Because BGDM wasn't compliant to the rules. However the part which I'm bringing on, where you had to make a choice that you want to share your numbers was compliant, and the tool itself was allowed by Anet until the developer introduced "bad" functions to it.

Strange how you're willing to accept ANet's authority when it suits your case and you are unwilling to when it doesn't.

where you had to make a choice that you want to share your numbers

this is not something ArcDPS allows me to do

And ANet said it's fine. For both. You're accepting one, but not the other, that's dual standards. If you're going to use "ANet was okay" as an argument, you must accept it in either case, not just the one that favors your position.

The policy was introduced after I started playing the game. The game evolves, ArenaNet has every right to enforce whatever they see right but I have every right to challenge their decision, ask questions and propose another solution. My thread has every point of good feedback they expect from players, I respect forum rules and do my best to provide healthy discussion. Can't say the same about you. Thank you for your input.

Accept your entire posts try to say it is infringing on your privacy and personal data when it does no such things by all legal definitions of such posted in this thread, so it isn’t good feedback especially when there is a clear lack of understanding of the TOS and Privacy Policy and current Policy Of Combat meters that were agreed upon, everytime you use the service.

[Feanor.2358]

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@Hornet.6357 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:But not numbers and those numbers are not directly associated to my account. Only if player puts effort and tries to count which of my hits does damage he can guess with no certain what I actually did.

Let's suppose for a change that this policy change you are speaking of passes and dps meters do indeed require consent from the players to show their dps.How do you propose the dps meter that runs on your own personal computer, with no access to the outside world, knows which player gave their consent and which do not. I'm curious here.

This is on deltaconnected to find solution for this, not on me. BGDM managed to work like this.

Btw. According to Brazil (of Youtube infamy), the original program that was started as "BGDM" was actually supposed to be a botnet by its' creator. How does this jive with your more secure DPS meter argument?

Because BGDM wasn't compliant to the rules. However the part which I'm bringing on, where you had to make a choice that you want to share your numbers was compliant, and the tool itself was allowed by Anet until the developer introduced "bad" functions to it.

Strange how you're willing to accept ANet's authority when it suits your case and you are unwilling to when it doesn't.

where you had to make a choice that you want to share your numbers

this is not something ArcDPS allows me to do

And ANet said it's fine. For both. You're accepting one, but not the other, that's dual standards. If you're going to use "ANet was okay" as an argument, you must accept it in either case, not just the one that favors your position.

The policy was introduced after I started playing the game. The game evolves, ArenaNet has every right to enforce whatever they see right but I have every right to challenge their decision, ask questions and propose another solution. My thread has every point of good feedback they expect from players, I respect forum rules and do my best to provide healthy discussion. Can't say the same about you. Thank you for your input.

"X needs to be revised" isn't a challenge, it's a demand. And it's not a base for a healthy discussion. Which this particular discussion isn't and has never been. You're creating conflict where there doesn't need to be one.