Should they add a DPS meter? - [Merged]

[Rex.3602]

@yann.1946 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@mindcircus.1506 said:

@Atomos.7593 said: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.There is nothing narrow-minded about the belief that the monetization of build templates was done as a cash-grab.It was packaged and sold in a way that purposefully kept additional character slots better value than the system they rolled out.

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?

[lezbefriends.7516]

Yes, they should. Content that dps meters are good for already have elitism.

[Astralporing.1957]

@"Atomos.7593" said:And what if Delta refused to or wasn't able to change the way their plugin works?He specifically asked them whether he could work on it in the first place. And he integrated any changes they suggested into it. All they had to do to stop him from developing it was to tell him the plugin is a problem. He would have stopped immediately - just like he did when they ultimately told him to stop when they released their own version, even though everyone, him included, knew it meant most Arc Template users would be left without a working solution anymore.

I find it hard to believe that Anet would go out and develop a feature that a plugin already covers without a good reasonThe "good reason" was that it was a feature a lot of veterans thought should have been included in the game since the very beginning, and one Anet was planning to include for years - it was just of low priority and high difficulty one. Since the very first year of the game we've heard few times that they were trying to make it work. They aparently had a working base for skill/traits template long ago - it was what has been used for build switching when changing modes between PvE, WvW and SPvP, or to change skills when going underwater). The elements that kept stopping them before was (according to earlier dev statements) developing a good ui, and gear templates.It was something they already tried to do before, and were bound to do eventually. Quite possibly it was also something that was prepared as a feature of the third expac (not the future Canthan one, but the one that was supposed to get released after LS season 4, but got cancelled).

No one is playing make believe problems. You're simply refusing to believe that problems could have existed.No, it's the opposite. You refuse to believe in the simplest, most obvious reason and try to find some nebulous, imaginary ones (having absolutely no basis for that) in order to justify not believing in that simple reason, only because you don't like it.Have you ever heard about Ockham's Razor? I don't need to try to cook up conspiracy theories and mystical, secret reasons Anet is hiding from us to explain their behaviour.

I find it funny that people feel the need to defend a plugin so vehemently.That's because you are not one of the people that truly needed it (and for whom the current system is not a working replacement).

[Astralporing.1957]

@Atomos.7593 said:Updates to plugins create changes over time, so past behaviour is not necessarily indicative of their future behaviour.Delta was sending his versions to Anet to be vetted. It's not a case of something changing suddenly (and which couldn't be reverted simply by asking Delta to revert it).

Also Anet can change their stance on plugins at any moment if they feel it creates undesirable behaviour.Indeed, but believing that they accidentally had a change of mind at exatly this point when Arc Templates became a competing product, and that it had nothing to do with it becoming a competing product is naive at best.

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.They did share such information in many other cases, though, so, again, why this one would be an exception?

I find the whole out for money only thing to be very unlikely.And due to that disbelief of yours you create a whole string of events that works on unlikely accidents and exceptions in order to try to justify your disbelief. The fact that the justification you need is based on such a fragile construction should tell you something.

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?If they were to develop their own dps meter, then yeah, that's likely exactly what would happen.

[Rex.3602]

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:And what if Delta refused to or wasn't able to change the way their plugin works?He specifically

asked

them whether he could work on it in the first place. And he integrated any changes they suggested into it. All they had to do to stop him from developing it was to tell him the plugin is a problem. He would have stopped immediately - just like he did when they ultimately told him to stop when they released their own version, even though everyone, him included, knew it meant most Arc Template users would be left without a working solution anymore.

I find it hard to believe that Anet would go out and develop a feature that a plugin already covers without a good reasonThe "good reason" was that it was a feature a lot of veterans thought should have been included in the game since the very beginning, and one Anet was planning to include for years - it was just of low priority and high difficulty one. Since the very first year of the game we've heard few times that they were trying to make it work. They aparently had a working base for skill/traits template long ago - it was what has been used for build switching when changing modes between PvE, WvW and SPvP, or to change skills when going underwater). The elements that kept stopping them before was (according to earlier dev statements) developing a good ui, and gear templates.It was something they already tried to do before, and were bound to do eventually. Quite possibly it was also something that was prepared as a feature of the third expac (not the future Canthan one, but the one that was supposed to get released after LS season 4, but got cancelled).

No one is playing make believe problems. You're simply refusing to believe that problems could have existed.No, it's the opposite. You refuse to believe in the simplest, most obvious reason and try to find some nebulous, imaginary ones (having absolutely no basis for that) in order to justify not believing in that simple reason, only because you don't like it.Have you ever heard about Ockham's Razor? I don't need to try to cook up conspiracy theories and mystical, secret reasons Anet is hiding from us to explain their behaviour.

I find it funny that people feel the need to defend a plugin so vehemently.That's because you are not one of the people that truly needed it (and for whom the current system is

not

a working replacement).

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.

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:Updates to plugins create changes over time, so past behaviour is not necessarily indicative of their future behaviour.Delta was sending his versions to Anet to be vetted. It's not a case of something changing suddenly (and which couldn't be reverted simply by asking Delta to revert it).

Also Anet can change their stance on plugins at any moment if they feel it creates undesirable behaviour.Indeed, but believing that they accidentally had a change of mind at exatly this point when Arc Templates became a competing product, and that it had nothing to do with it becoming a competing product is naive at best.

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.They did share such information in many other cases, though, so, again, why this one would be an exception?

I find the whole out for money only thing to be very unlikely.And due to that disbelief of yours you create a whole string of events that works on unlikely accidents and exceptions in order to try to justify your disbelief. The fact that the justification you need is based on such a fragile construction should tell you something.

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?If they were to develop their own dps meter, then yeah, that's likely exactly what would happen.

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.

[Astralporing.1957]

@Atomos.7593 said:As I said in my last post, plugins change over time and past behaviour is not indicative of their future behaviour.And as i said, they controlled said future behaviour by telling delta what he can and cannot do.

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....but that's exactly what happened. They informed developer and told him to stop developing the plugin.And it does not answer the question: if you are right and there was some problem with the plugin they found to be undesirable, why didn't stop its development earlier? Why did they let it be developed until they had their own version? I mean, if there was something bad enough about the plugin that warranted disallowing it, it would have warranted disallowing it even before. Unless, of course, that reason was exactly that it was an alternative to their own product.

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.You being fine with half-baked and deeply flawed system does not make it any less half-baked and flawed. It just means you never truly needed that system. You find it useful now, sure, but it's clear you had no real need of it before it got implemented either (if you did, you would have been using Arc Templates).

I have no idea what you are talking about with your nonsense about conspiracy theories.If in order to explain something you need to imagine an existence of some secret, hidden reasons, things happening by pure accident exactly at the certain moment, and things being an exception to how it usually worked before, then it is a very definition of a conspiracy theory.

I think your theory is more of a conspiracy in that Anet must only be out to get money with every little change lol.Every little change? Not necessarily. But the facts are that they did monetize template system (and heavily so), that they killed the competing, free and superior product, and that they, on the surface, had no problem with said product until it became a competition. And that there's absolutely no basis to believe that their change of stance on the plugin had some other, hidden reason, not connected to the above.

Again you claim that I do not need this feature, which is clearly wrong since I use it all the time.Did you use Arc Templates? If you didn't, then you only find the feature convenient now, when it's implemented, but you didn't actually need 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.If it had a serious impact on the game, why did they not act when they found out about it, but waited till they released their own version (hint: it took them over a year to develop it)?

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.Again, in order for your theory to be true, you need to imagine existence of some hidden serious issue with the plugin. You need to imagine that it was something that couldn't have been solved by Delta. You need to imagine that this issue became critical at exactly the point they developed their own version. You need to imagine that it was something they absolutely had to keep hidden (and exception to their usual way of dealing with such issues), even when announcing it (or even just announcing that there was an issue) would have been to their advantage. And all that without a single basis for any of those points.

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.

[Rex.3602]

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@"Atomos.7593" said:As I said in my last post, plugins change over time and past behaviour is not indicative of their future behaviour.And as i said, they controlled said future behaviour by telling delta what he can and cannot do.

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....but that's exactly what happened. They informed developer and told him to stop developing the plugin.And it does not answer the question: if you are right and there was some problem with the plugin they found to be undesirable, why didn't stop its development earlier? Why did they let it be developed until they had their own version? I mean, if there was something bad enough about the plugin that warranted disallowing it, it would have warranted disallowing it even before. Unless, of course, that reason was exactly that it was an alternative to their own product.

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.You being fine with half-baked and deeply flawed system does not make it any less half-baked and flawed. It just means you never truly needed that system. You find it useful now, sure, but it's clear you had no real need of it before it got implemented either (if you did, you would have been using Arc Templates).

I have no idea what you are talking about with your nonsense about conspiracy theories.If in order to explain something you need to imagine an existence of some secret, hidden reasons, things happening by pure accident exactly at the certain moment, and things being an exception to how it usually worked before, then it is a very definition of a conspiracy theory.

I think your theory is more of a conspiracy in that Anet must only be out to get money with every little change lol.Every little change? Not necessarily. But the facts are that they did monetize template system (and heavily so), that they killed the competing, free and superior product, and that they, on the surface, had no problem with said product until it became a competition. And that there's absolutely no basis to believe that their change of stance on the plugin had some other, hidden reason, not connected to the above.

Again you claim that I do not need this feature, which is clearly wrong since I use it all the time.Did you use Arc Templates? If you didn't, then you only find the feature convenient now, when it's implemented, but you didn't actually

need

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.If it had a serious impact on the game, why did they not act when they found out about it, but waited till they released their own version (hint: it took them over a year to develop it)?

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.Again, in order for your theory to be true, you need to imagine existence of some hidden serious issue with the plugin. You need to imagine that it was something that couldn't have been solved by Delta. You need to imagine that this issue became critical at exactly the point they developed their own version. You need to imagine that it was something they absolutely had to keep hidden (and exception to their usual way of dealing with such issues), even when announcing it (or even just announcing that there

was

an issue) would have been to their advantage. And all that without a single basis for any of those points.

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?

@Mortifera.6138 said:Yes, they should. Content that dps meters are good for already have elitism.

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

[Fueki.4753]

@Mortifera.6138 said:Yes, they should. Content that dps meters are good for already have elitism.

There already exist DPS meters for elitists that care about DPS and meters. Just use one of those.There is no need to shove one down the throats of players who do not want one.

[yann.1946]

@Atomos.7593 said:

@yann.1946 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@mindcircus.1506 said:

@Atomos.7593 said: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.There is nothing narrow-minded about the belief that the monetization of build templates was done as a cash-grab.It was packaged and sold in a way that purposefully kept additional character slots better value than the system they rolled out.

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.

[yann.1946]

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:As I said in my last post, plugins change over time and past behaviour is not indicative of their future behaviour.And as i said, they controlled said future behaviour by telling delta what he can and cannot do.

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....but that's exactly what happened. They informed developer and told him to stop developing the plugin.And it does not answer the question: if you are right and there was some problem with the plugin they found to be undesirable, why didn't stop its development earlier? Why did they let it be developed until they had their own version? I mean, if there was something bad enough about the plugin that warranted disallowing it, it would have warranted disallowing it even before. Unless, of course, that reason was exactly that it was an alternative to their own product.

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.You being fine with half-baked and deeply flawed system does not make it any less half-baked and flawed. It just means you never truly needed that system. You find it useful now, sure, but it's clear you had no real need of it before it got implemented either (if you did, you would have been using Arc Templates).

I have no idea what you are talking about with your nonsense about conspiracy theories.If in order to explain something you need to imagine an existence of some secret, hidden reasons, things happening by pure accident exactly at the certain moment, and things being an exception to how it usually worked before, then it is a very definition of a conspiracy theory.

I think your theory is more of a conspiracy in that Anet must only be out to get money with every little change lol.Every little change? Not necessarily. But the facts are that they did monetize template system (and heavily so), that they killed the competing, free and superior product, and that they, on the surface, had no problem with said product until it became a competition. And that there's absolutely no basis to believe that their change of stance on the plugin had some other, hidden reason, not connected to the above.

Again you claim that I do not need this feature, which is clearly wrong since I use it all the time.Did you use Arc Templates? If you didn't, then you only find the feature convenient now, when it's implemented, but you didn't actually

need

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.If it had a serious impact on the game, why did they not act when they found out about it, but waited till they released their own version (hint: it took them over a year to develop it)?

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.Again, in order for your theory to be true, you need to imagine existence of some hidden serious issue with the plugin. You need to imagine that it was something that couldn't have been solved by Delta. You need to imagine that this issue became critical at exactly the point they developed their own version. You need to imagine that it was something they absolutely had to keep hidden (and exception to their usual way of dealing with such issues), even when announcing it (or even just announcing that there

was

an issue) would have been to their advantage. And all that without a single basis for any of those points.

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?

@Mortifera.6138 said:Yes, they should. Content that dps meters are good for already have elitism.

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.

[Astralporing.1957]

@"Atomos.7593" said:Just a thought but maybe they told delta something they cannot do and delta didn't follow it?Then they would have shut down ArcDps as a whole and banned Delta. The same they did when situation you mentioned happened with Bhagawan, developer of BGDM, due to him not being willing to disable gear inspect. Anet allowing development of Arc and its complementary plugins was always conditional on Deltaconnected listening to and following dev feedback. The plugin already incorporated a lot of changes resulting from said feedback, btw.

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.It's not my belief in Delta here. It's my belief in Anet - if Delta were to step out of the line, Anet would have shut down his work immediately. And yet Delta is not banned, and ArcDPS is still allowed, which tells me he didn't cross that line.

As for the rest, again it's the same nonsense. I really couldn't care less about how arc templates worked in the past.Yes, i can notice that. I can also notice how you not caring about it leaves you with a ton of completely false assumptions about it.

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 alreadyBecause they don't have a dps meter. Yet, anyway. You can't monetize what you don't have.if they were making these changes only for monetization purposes.Only? No. They introduced template system because they wanted to make a template system (like i said, they wanted to do it even before GW2 launched). They decided to monetize it, because, apparently, it was too good of an opportunity to pass, and its design was heavily affected by that, but it does not mean they decided to create it only for monetization purposes. Notice, though, that them wanting to create templates for a long time didn't stop them from heavily monetizing them, and it didn't stop them from that desire to monetize it crippling the system's core functionality to the point where only semi-casual users of it like you are satisfied.And, of course, once they did monetize their template system, killing Arc templates was a given. It wouldn't have sense from business point of view to allow the existence of a competing product that is both better feature-wise, and is free. Not if you can do something about it - and Anet could do something about it.

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 so
• Any 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.

[Urphen.2857]

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Urphen.2857 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:As I said in my last post, plugins change over time and past behaviour is not indicative of their future behaviour.And as i said, they controlled said future behaviour by telling delta what he can and cannot do.

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....but that's exactly what happened. They informed developer and told him to stop developing the plugin.And it does not answer the question: if you are right and there was some problem with the plugin they found to be undesirable, why didn't stop its development earlier? Why did they let it be developed until they had their own version? I mean, if there was something bad enough about the plugin that warranted disallowing it, it would have warranted disallowing it even before. Unless, of course, that reason was exactly that it was an alternative to their own product.

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.You being fine with half-baked and deeply flawed system does not make it any less half-baked and flawed. It just means you never truly needed that system. You find it useful now, sure, but it's clear you had no real need of it before it got implemented either (if you did, you would have been using Arc Templates).

I have no idea what you are talking about with your nonsense about conspiracy theories.If in order to explain something you need to imagine an existence of some secret, hidden reasons, things happening by pure accident exactly at the certain moment, and things being an exception to how it usually worked before, then it is a very definition of a conspiracy theory.

I think your theory is more of a conspiracy in that Anet must only be out to get money with every little change lol.Every little change? Not necessarily. But the facts are that they did monetize template system (and heavily so), that they killed the competing, free and superior product, and that they, on the surface, had no problem with said product until it became a competition. And that there's absolutely no basis to believe that their change of stance on the plugin had some other, hidden reason, not connected to the above.

Again you claim that I do not need this feature, which is clearly wrong since I use it all the time.Did you use Arc Templates? If you didn't, then you only find the feature convenient now, when it's implemented, but you didn't actually

need

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.If it had a serious impact on the game, why did they not act when they found out about it, but waited till they released their own version (hint: it took them over a year to develop it)?

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.Again, in order for your theory to be true, you need to imagine existence of some hidden serious issue with the plugin. You need to imagine that it was something that couldn't have been solved by Delta. You need to imagine that this issue became critical at exactly the point they developed their own version. You need to imagine that it was something they absolutely had to keep hidden (and exception to their usual way of dealing with such issues), even when announcing it (or even just announcing that there

was

an issue) would have been to their advantage. And all that without a single basis for any of those points.

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.

[Rex.3602]

@yann.1946 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@yann.1946 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@mindcircus.1506 said:

@Atomos.7593 said: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.There is nothing narrow-minded about the belief that the monetization of build templates was done as a cash-grab.It was packaged and sold in a way that purposefully kept additional character slots better value than the system they rolled out.

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?"

@yann.1946 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:As I said in my last post, plugins change over time and past behaviour is not indicative of their future behaviour.And as i said, they controlled said future behaviour by telling delta what he can and cannot do.

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....but that's exactly what happened. They informed developer and told him to stop developing the plugin.And it does not answer the question: if you are right and there was some problem with the plugin they found to be undesirable, why didn't stop its development earlier? Why did they let it be developed until they had their own version? I mean, if there was something bad enough about the plugin that warranted disallowing it, it would have warranted disallowing it even before. Unless, of course, that reason was exactly that it was an alternative to their own product.

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.You being fine with half-baked and deeply flawed system does not make it any less half-baked and flawed. It just means you never truly needed that system. You find it useful now, sure, but it's clear you had no real need of it before it got implemented either (if you did, you would have been using Arc Templates).

I have no idea what you are talking about with your nonsense about conspiracy theories.If in order to explain something you need to imagine an existence of some secret, hidden reasons, things happening by pure accident exactly at the certain moment, and things being an exception to how it usually worked before, then it is a very definition of a conspiracy theory.

I think your theory is more of a conspiracy in that Anet must only be out to get money with every little change lol.Every little change? Not necessarily. But the facts are that they did monetize template system (and heavily so), that they killed the competing, free and superior product, and that they, on the surface, had no problem with said product until it became a competition. And that there's absolutely no basis to believe that their change of stance on the plugin had some other, hidden reason, not connected to the above.

Again you claim that I do not need this feature, which is clearly wrong since I use it all the time.Did you use Arc Templates? If you didn't, then you only find the feature convenient now, when it's implemented, but you didn't actually

need

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.If it had a serious impact on the game, why did they not act when they found out about it, but waited till they released their own version (hint: it took them over a year to develop it)?

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.Again, in order for your theory to be true, you need to imagine existence of some hidden serious issue with the plugin. You need to imagine that it was something that couldn't have been solved by Delta. You need to imagine that this issue became critical at exactly the point they developed their own version. You need to imagine that it was something they absolutely had to keep hidden (and exception to their usual way of dealing with such issues), even when announcing it (or even just announcing that there

was

an issue) would have been to their advantage. And all that without a single basis for any of those points.

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?

@Mortifera.6138 said:Yes, they should. Content that dps meters are good for already have elitism.

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...

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:Just a thought but maybe they told delta something they cannot do and delta didn't follow it?Then they would have shut down ArcDps as a whole and banned Delta. The same they did when situation you mentioned happened with Bhagawan, developer of BGDM, due to him not being willing to disable gear inspect. Anet allowing development of Arc and its complementary plugins was always conditional on Deltaconnected listening to and following dev feedback. The plugin already incorporated a lot of changes resulting from said feedback, btw.

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.It's not my belief in Delta here. It's my belief in Anet - if Delta were to step out of the line, Anet would have shut down his work immediately. And yet Delta is not banned, and ArcDPS is still allowed, which tells me he

didn't

cross that line.

As for the rest, again it's the same nonsense. I really couldn't care less about how arc templates worked in the past.Yes, i can notice that. I can also notice how you not caring about it leaves you with a ton of completely false assumptions about it.

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 alreadyBecause they don't

have

a dps meter. Yet, anyway. You can't monetize what you don't have.if they were making these changes only for monetization purposes.Only? No. They introduced template system because they wanted to make a template system (like i said, they wanted to do it even before GW2 launched). They decided to monetize it, because, apparently, it was too good of an opportunity to pass, and its design was heavily affected by that, but it does not mean they decided to create it

only

for monetization purposes. Notice, though, that them wanting to create templates for a long time didn't stop them from heavily monetizing them, and it didn't stop them from that desire to monetize it crippling the system's core functionality to the point where only semi-casual users of it like you are satisfied.And, of course, once they did monetize their template system, killing Arc templates was a given. It wouldn't have sense from business point of view to allow the existence of a competing product that is both better feature-wise, and is free. Not if you can do something about it - and Anet

could

do something about it.

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 so
• Any 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.

@Urphen.2857 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Urphen.2857 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:As I said in my last post, plugins change over time and past behaviour is not indicative of their future behaviour.And as i said, they controlled said future behaviour by telling delta what he can and cannot do.

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....but that's exactly what happened. They informed developer and told him to stop developing the plugin.And it does not answer the question: if you are right and there was some problem with the plugin they found to be undesirable, why didn't stop its development earlier? Why did they let it be developed until they had their own version? I mean, if there was something bad enough about the plugin that warranted disallowing it, it would have warranted disallowing it even before. Unless, of course, that reason was exactly that it was an alternative to their own product.

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.You being fine with half-baked and deeply flawed system does not make it any less half-baked and flawed. It just means you never truly needed that system. You find it useful now, sure, but it's clear you had no real need of it before it got implemented either (if you did, you would have been using Arc Templates).

I have no idea what you are talking about with your nonsense about conspiracy theories.If in order to explain something you need to imagine an existence of some secret, hidden reasons, things happening by pure accident exactly at the certain moment, and things being an exception to how it usually worked before, then it is a very definition of a conspiracy theory.

I think your theory is more of a conspiracy in that Anet must only be out to get money with every little change lol.Every little change? Not necessarily. But the facts are that they did monetize template system (and heavily so), that they killed the competing, free and superior product, and that they, on the surface, had no problem with said product until it became a competition. And that there's absolutely no basis to believe that their change of stance on the plugin had some other, hidden reason, not connected to the above.

Again you claim that I do not need this feature, which is clearly wrong since I use it all the time.Did you use Arc Templates? If you didn't, then you only find the feature convenient now, when it's implemented, but you didn't actually

need

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.If it had a serious impact on the game, why did they not act when they found out about it, but waited till they released their own version (hint: it took them over a year to develop it)?

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.Again, in order for your theory to be true, you need to imagine existence of some hidden serious issue with the plugin. You need to imagine that it was something that couldn't have been solved by Delta. You need to imagine that this issue became critical at exactly the point they developed their own version. You need to imagine that it was something they absolutely had to keep hidden (and exception to their usual way of dealing with such issues), even when announcing it (or even just announcing that there

was

an issue) would have been to their advantage. And all that without a single basis for any of those points.

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.

[Urphen.2857]

@Urphen.2857 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Urphen.2857 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:As I said in my last post, plugins change over time and past behaviour is not indicative of their future behaviour.And as i said, they controlled said future behaviour by telling delta what he can and cannot do.

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....but that's exactly what happened. They informed developer and told him to stop developing the plugin.And it does not answer the question: if you are right and there was some problem with the plugin they found to be undesirable, why didn't stop its development earlier? Why did they let it be developed until they had their own version? I mean, if there was something bad enough about the plugin that warranted disallowing it, it would have warranted disallowing it even before. Unless, of course, that reason was exactly that it was an alternative to their own product.

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.You being fine with half-baked and deeply flawed system does not make it any less half-baked and flawed. It just means you never truly needed that system. You find it useful now, sure, but it's clear you had no real need of it before it got implemented either (if you did, you would have been using Arc Templates).

I have no idea what you are talking about with your nonsense about conspiracy theories.If in order to explain something you need to imagine an existence of some secret, hidden reasons, things happening by pure accident exactly at the certain moment, and things being an exception to how it usually worked before, then it is a very definition of a conspiracy theory.

I think your theory is more of a conspiracy in that Anet must only be out to get money with every little change lol.Every little change? Not necessarily. But the facts are that they did monetize template system (and heavily so), that they killed the competing, free and superior product, and that they, on the surface, had no problem with said product until it became a competition. And that there's absolutely no basis to believe that their change of stance on the plugin had some other, hidden reason, not connected to the above.

Again you claim that I do not need this feature, which is clearly wrong since I use it all the time.Did you use Arc Templates? If you didn't, then you only find the feature convenient now, when it's implemented, but you didn't actually

need

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.If it had a serious impact on the game, why did they not act when they found out about it, but waited till they released their own version (hint: it took them over a year to develop it)?

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.Again, in order for your theory to be true, you need to imagine existence of some hidden serious issue with the plugin. You need to imagine that it was something that couldn't have been solved by Delta. You need to imagine that this issue became critical at exactly the point they developed their own version. You need to imagine that it was something they absolutely had to keep hidden (and exception to their usual way of dealing with such issues), even when announcing it (or even just announcing that there

was

an issue) would have been to their advantage. And all that without a single basis for any of those points.

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.

[Carcharoth Lucian.1378]

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:Just a thought but maybe they told delta something they cannot do and delta didn't follow it?Then they would have shut down ArcDps as a whole and banned Delta. The same they did when situation you mentioned happened with Bhagawan, developer of BGDM, due to him not being willing to disable gear inspect. Anet allowing development of Arc and its complementary plugins was always conditional on Deltaconnected listening to and following dev feedback. The plugin already incorporated a lot of changes resulting from said feedback, btw.

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.It's not my belief in Delta here. It's my belief in Anet - if Delta were to step out of the line, Anet would have shut down his work immediately. And yet Delta is not banned, and ArcDPS is still allowed, which tells me he

didn't

cross that line.

As for the rest, again it's the same nonsense. I really couldn't care less about how arc templates worked in the past.Yes, i can notice that. I can also notice how you not caring about it leaves you with a ton of completely false assumptions about it.

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 alreadyBecause they don't

have

a dps meter. Yet, anyway. You can't monetize what you don't have.if they were making these changes only for monetization purposes.Only? No. They introduced template system because they wanted to make a template system (like i said, they wanted to do it even before GW2 launched). They decided to monetize it, because, apparently, it was too good of an opportunity to pass, and its design was heavily affected by that, but it does not mean they decided to create it

only

for monetization purposes. Notice, though, that them wanting to create templates for a long time didn't stop them from heavily monetizing them, and it didn't stop them from that desire to monetize it crippling the system's core functionality to the point where only semi-casual users of it like you are satisfied.And, of course, once they did monetize their template system, killing Arc templates was a given. It wouldn't have sense from business point of view to allow the existence of a competing product that is both better feature-wise, and is free. Not if you can do something about it - and Anet

could

do something about it.

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 so
• Any 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?

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.

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?

@Urphen.2857 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Urphen.2857 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:As I said in my last post, plugins change over time and past behaviour is not indicative of their future behaviour.And as i said, they controlled said future behaviour by telling delta what he can and cannot do.

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....but that's exactly what happened. They informed developer and told him to stop developing the plugin.And it does not answer the question: if you are right and there was some problem with the plugin they found to be undesirable, why didn't stop its development earlier? Why did they let it be developed until they had their own version? I mean, if there was something bad enough about the plugin that warranted disallowing it, it would have warranted disallowing it even before. Unless, of course, that reason was exactly that it was an alternative to their own product.

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.You being fine with half-baked and deeply flawed system does not make it any less half-baked and flawed. It just means you never truly needed that system. You find it useful now, sure, but it's clear you had no real need of it before it got implemented either (if you did, you would have been using Arc Templates).

I have no idea what you are talking about with your nonsense about conspiracy theories.If in order to explain something you need to imagine an existence of some secret, hidden reasons, things happening by pure accident exactly at the certain moment, and things being an exception to how it usually worked before, then it is a very definition of a conspiracy theory.

I think your theory is more of a conspiracy in that Anet must only be out to get money with every little change lol.Every little change? Not necessarily. But the facts are that they did monetize template system (and heavily so), that they killed the competing, free and superior product, and that they, on the surface, had no problem with said product until it became a competition. And that there's absolutely no basis to believe that their change of stance on the plugin had some other, hidden reason, not connected to the above.

Again you claim that I do not need this feature, which is clearly wrong since I use it all the time.Did you use Arc Templates? If you didn't, then you only find the feature convenient now, when it's implemented, but you didn't actually

need

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.If it had a serious impact on the game, why did they not act when they found out about it, but waited till they released their own version (hint: it took them over a year to develop it)?

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.Again, in order for your theory to be true, you need to imagine existence of some hidden serious issue with the plugin. You need to imagine that it was something that couldn't have been solved by Delta. You need to imagine that this issue became critical at exactly the point they developed their own version. You need to imagine that it was something they absolutely had to keep hidden (and exception to their usual way of dealing with such issues), even when announcing it (or even just announcing that there

was

an issue) would have been to their advantage. And all that without a single basis for any of those points.

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.

[yann.1946]

@Atomos.7593 said:

@yann.1946 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@yann.1946 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@mindcircus.1506 said:

@Atomos.7593 said: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.There is nothing narrow-minded about the belief that the monetization of build templates was done as a cash-grab.It was packaged and sold in a way that purposefully kept additional character slots better value than the system they rolled out.

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.

Btw i understand what the poster about elitism said. The point he made just didn't have any logical basis in how it was constructed. It didn't adress a lot of the reasons people are against it for example and the reason he gave doesn't hold water.

[Astralporing.1957]

@"Atomos.7593" said:Seems quite silly to claim someone makes false assumptions because they don't want you want...Indeed. It's not silly however to claim someone makes false assumptions when they have, in fact, made several false assumptions. For example, you made several assumptions about Arc Templates development process and Deltaconnected relation with devs which simply do not match reality. Probably because you didn;t care enough about it to even know what the reality was before you started assuming things. Me and several other posters kept pointing that out to you, but you aparently didn't care about that either (maybe because it didn't fit your theories).

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.No, they could add one if they had desire to add it and enough developer resources to add it. And they could monetize it if they wanted to monetize it, which, as you might notice, is a separate issue.

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.

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.If you haven't noticed, most of those threads are threads to ban dps meters. Not to implement them. And this is the first time someone asks for them since template system went in, by the way (hint: most of the people that were asking for Anet to introduce template system ended up being very disappointed when Anet finally did that).

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.

[Rex.3602]

@Urphen.2857 said:

@Urphen.2857 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Urphen.2857 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:As I said in my last post, plugins change over time and past behaviour is not indicative of their future behaviour.And as i said, they controlled said future behaviour by telling delta what he can and cannot do.

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....but that's exactly what happened. They informed developer and told him to stop developing the plugin.And it does not answer the question: if you are right and there was some problem with the plugin they found to be undesirable, why didn't stop its development earlier? Why did they let it be developed until they had their own version? I mean, if there was something bad enough about the plugin that warranted disallowing it, it would have warranted disallowing it even before. Unless, of course, that reason was exactly that it was an alternative to their own product.

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.You being fine with half-baked and deeply flawed system does not make it any less half-baked and flawed. It just means you never truly needed that system. You find it useful now, sure, but it's clear you had no real need of it before it got implemented either (if you did, you would have been using Arc Templates).

I have no idea what you are talking about with your nonsense about conspiracy theories.If in order to explain something you need to imagine an existence of some secret, hidden reasons, things happening by pure accident exactly at the certain moment, and things being an exception to how it usually worked before, then it is a very definition of a conspiracy theory.

I think your theory is more of a conspiracy in that Anet must only be out to get money with every little change lol.Every little change? Not necessarily. But the facts are that they did monetize template system (and heavily so), that they killed the competing, free and superior product, and that they, on the surface, had no problem with said product until it became a competition. And that there's absolutely no basis to believe that their change of stance on the plugin had some other, hidden reason, not connected to the above.

Again you claim that I do not need this feature, which is clearly wrong since I use it all the time.Did you use Arc Templates? If you didn't, then you only find the feature convenient now, when it's implemented, but you didn't actually

need

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.If it had a serious impact on the game, why did they not act when they found out about it, but waited till they released their own version (hint: it took them over a year to develop it)?

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.Again, in order for your theory to be true, you need to imagine existence of some hidden serious issue with the plugin. You need to imagine that it was something that couldn't have been solved by Delta. You need to imagine that this issue became critical at exactly the point they developed their own version. You need to imagine that it was something they absolutely had to keep hidden (and exception to their usual way of dealing with such issues), even when announcing it (or even just announcing that there

was

an issue) would have been to their advantage. And all that without a single basis for any of those points.

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.

@Carcharoth Lucian.1378 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:Just a thought but maybe they told delta something they cannot do and delta didn't follow it?Then they would have shut down ArcDps as a whole and banned Delta. The same they did when situation you mentioned happened with Bhagawan, developer of BGDM, due to him not being willing to disable gear inspect. Anet allowing development of Arc and its complementary plugins was always conditional on Deltaconnected listening to and following dev feedback. The plugin already incorporated a lot of changes resulting from said feedback, btw.

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.It's not my belief in Delta here. It's my belief in Anet - if Delta were to step out of the line, Anet would have shut down his work immediately. And yet Delta is not banned, and ArcDPS is still allowed, which tells me he

didn't

cross that line.

As for the rest, again it's the same nonsense. I really couldn't care less about how arc templates worked in the past.Yes, i can notice that. I can also notice how you not caring about it leaves you with a ton of completely false assumptions about it.

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 alreadyBecause they don't

have

a dps meter. Yet, anyway. You can't monetize what you don't have.if they were making these changes only for monetization purposes.Only? No. They introduced template system because they wanted to make a template system (like i said, they wanted to do it even before GW2 launched). They decided to monetize it, because, apparently, it was too good of an opportunity to pass, and its design was heavily affected by that, but it does not mean they decided to create it

only

for monetization purposes. Notice, though, that them wanting to create templates for a long time didn't stop them from heavily monetizing them, and it didn't stop them from that desire to monetize it crippling the system's core functionality to the point where only semi-casual users of it like you are satisfied.And, of course, once they did monetize their template system, killing Arc templates was a given. It wouldn't have sense from business point of view to allow the existence of a competing product that is both better feature-wise, and is free. Not if you can do something about it - and Anet

could

do something about it.

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 so
• Any 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?

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.

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?

@Urphen.2857 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Urphen.2857 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:As I said in my last post, plugins change over time and past behaviour is not indicative of their future behaviour.And as i said, they controlled said future behaviour by telling delta what he can and cannot do.

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....but that's exactly what happened. They informed developer and told him to stop developing the plugin.And it does not answer the question: if you are right and there was some problem with the plugin they found to be undesirable, why didn't stop its development earlier? Why did they let it be developed until they had their own version? I mean, if there was something bad enough about the plugin that warranted disallowing it, it would have warranted disallowing it even before. Unless, of course, that reason was exactly that it was an alternative to their own product.

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.You being fine with half-baked and deeply flawed system does not make it any less half-baked and flawed. It just means you never truly needed that system. You find it useful now, sure, but it's clear you had no real need of it before it got implemented either (if you did, you would have been using Arc Templates).

I have no idea what you are talking about with your nonsense about conspiracy theories.If in order to explain something you need to imagine an existence of some secret, hidden reasons, things happening by pure accident exactly at the certain moment, and things being an exception to how it usually worked before, then it is a very definition of a conspiracy theory.

I think your theory is more of a conspiracy in that Anet must only be out to get money with every little change lol.Every little change? Not necessarily. But the facts are that they did monetize template system (and heavily so), that they killed the competing, free and superior product, and that they, on the surface, had no problem with said product until it became a competition. And that there's absolutely no basis to believe that their change of stance on the plugin had some other, hidden reason, not connected to the above.

Again you claim that I do not need this feature, which is clearly wrong since I use it all the time.Did you use Arc Templates? If you didn't, then you only find the feature convenient now, when it's implemented, but you didn't actually

need

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.If it had a serious impact on the game, why did they not act when they found out about it, but waited till they released their own version (hint: it took them over a year to develop it)?

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.Again, in order for your theory to be true, you need to imagine existence of some hidden serious issue with the plugin. You need to imagine that it was something that couldn't have been solved by Delta. You need to imagine that this issue became critical at exactly the point they developed their own version. You need to imagine that it was something they absolutely had to keep hidden (and exception to their usual way of dealing with such issues), even when announcing it (or even just announcing that there

was

an issue) would have been to their advantage. And all that without a single basis for any of those points.

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.

@yann.1946 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@yann.1946 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@yann.1946 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@mindcircus.1506 said:

@Atomos.7593 said: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.There is nothing narrow-minded about the belief that the monetization of build templates was done as a cash-grab.It was packaged and sold in a way that purposefully kept additional character slots better value than the system they rolled out.

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.

Btw i understand what the poster about elitism said. The point he made just didn't have any logical basis in how it was constructed. It didn't adress a lot of the reasons people are against it for example and the reason he gave doesn't hold water.

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.

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:Seems quite silly to claim someone makes false assumptions because they don't want you want...Indeed. It's not silly however to claim someone makes false assumptions when they

have

, in fact, made several false assumptions. For example, you made several assumptions about Arc Templates development process and Deltaconnected relation with devs which simply do not match reality. Probably because you didn;t care enough about it to even know what the reality was before you started assuming things. Me and several other posters kept pointing that out to you, but you aparently didn't care about that either (maybe because it didn't fit your theories).

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.

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.No, they could add one if they had desire to add it and enough developer resources to add it. And they could monetize it if they wanted to monetize it, which, as you might notice, is a separate issue.

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.

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.If you haven't noticed, most of those threads are threads to

ban

dps meters. Not to implement them. And this is the first time someone asks for them since template system went in, by the way (hint: most of the people that were asking for Anet to introduce template system ended up being

very

disappointed when Anet finally did that).

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.

[yann.1946]

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Urphen.2857 said:

@Urphen.2857 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Urphen.2857 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:As I said in my last post, plugins change over time and past behaviour is not indicative of their future behaviour.And as i said, they controlled said future behaviour by telling delta what he can and cannot do.

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....but that's exactly what happened. They informed developer and told him to stop developing the plugin.And it does not answer the question: if you are right and there was some problem with the plugin they found to be undesirable, why didn't stop its development earlier? Why did they let it be developed until they had their own version? I mean, if there was something bad enough about the plugin that warranted disallowing it, it would have warranted disallowing it even before. Unless, of course, that reason was exactly that it was an alternative to their own product.

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.You being fine with half-baked and deeply flawed system does not make it any less half-baked and flawed. It just means you never truly needed that system. You find it useful now, sure, but it's clear you had no real need of it before it got implemented either (if you did, you would have been using Arc Templates).

I have no idea what you are talking about with your nonsense about conspiracy theories.If in order to explain something you need to imagine an existence of some secret, hidden reasons, things happening by pure accident exactly at the certain moment, and things being an exception to how it usually worked before, then it is a very definition of a conspiracy theory.

I think your theory is more of a conspiracy in that Anet must only be out to get money with every little change lol.Every little change? Not necessarily. But the facts are that they did monetize template system (and heavily so), that they killed the competing, free and superior product, and that they, on the surface, had no problem with said product until it became a competition. And that there's absolutely no basis to believe that their change of stance on the plugin had some other, hidden reason, not connected to the above.

Again you claim that I do not need this feature, which is clearly wrong since I use it all the time.Did you use Arc Templates? If you didn't, then you only find the feature convenient now, when it's implemented, but you didn't actually

need

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.If it had a serious impact on the game, why did they not act when they found out about it, but waited till they released their own version (hint: it took them over a year to develop it)?

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.Again, in order for your theory to be true, you need to imagine existence of some hidden serious issue with the plugin. You need to imagine that it was something that couldn't have been solved by Delta. You need to imagine that this issue became critical at exactly the point they developed their own version. You need to imagine that it was something they absolutely had to keep hidden (and exception to their usual way of dealing with such issues), even when announcing it (or even just announcing that there

was

an issue) would have been to their advantage. And all that without a single basis for any of those points.

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.

@Carcharoth Lucian.1378 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:Just a thought but maybe they told delta something they cannot do and delta didn't follow it?Then they would have shut down ArcDps as a whole and banned Delta. The same they did when situation you mentioned happened with Bhagawan, developer of BGDM, due to him not being willing to disable gear inspect. Anet allowing development of Arc and its complementary plugins was always conditional on Deltaconnected listening to and following dev feedback. The plugin already incorporated a lot of changes resulting from said feedback, btw.

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.It's not my belief in Delta here. It's my belief in Anet - if Delta were to step out of the line, Anet would have shut down his work immediately. And yet Delta is not banned, and ArcDPS is still allowed, which tells me he

didn't

cross that line.

As for the rest, again it's the same nonsense. I really couldn't care less about how arc templates worked in the past.Yes, i can notice that. I can also notice how you not caring about it leaves you with a ton of completely false assumptions about it.

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 alreadyBecause they don't

have

a dps meter. Yet, anyway. You can't monetize what you don't have.if they were making these changes only for monetization purposes.Only? No. They introduced template system because they wanted to make a template system (like i said, they wanted to do it even before GW2 launched). They decided to monetize it, because, apparently, it was too good of an opportunity to pass, and its design was heavily affected by that, but it does not mean they decided to create it

only

for monetization purposes. Notice, though, that them wanting to create templates for a long time didn't stop them from heavily monetizing them, and it didn't stop them from that desire to monetize it crippling the system's core functionality to the point where only semi-casual users of it like you are satisfied.And, of course, once they did monetize their template system, killing Arc templates was a given. It wouldn't have sense from business point of view to allow the existence of a competing product that is both better feature-wise, and is free. Not if you can do something about it - and Anet

could

do something about it.

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 so
• Any 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?

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.

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?

@Urphen.2857 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Urphen.2857 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:As I said in my last post, plugins change over time and past behaviour is not indicative of their future behaviour.And as i said, they controlled said future behaviour by telling delta what he can and cannot do.

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....but that's exactly what happened. They informed developer and told him to stop developing the plugin.And it does not answer the question: if you are right and there was some problem with the plugin they found to be undesirable, why didn't stop its development earlier? Why did they let it be developed until they had their own version? I mean, if there was something bad enough about the plugin that warranted disallowing it, it would have warranted disallowing it even before. Unless, of course, that reason was exactly that it was an alternative to their own product.

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.You being fine with half-baked and deeply flawed system does not make it any less half-baked and flawed. It just means you never truly needed that system. You find it useful now, sure, but it's clear you had no real need of it before it got implemented either (if you did, you would have been using Arc Templates).

I have no idea what you are talking about with your nonsense about conspiracy theories.If in order to explain something you need to imagine an existence of some secret, hidden reasons, things happening by pure accident exactly at the certain moment, and things being an exception to how it usually worked before, then it is a very definition of a conspiracy theory.

I think your theory is more of a conspiracy in that Anet must only be out to get money with every little change lol.Every little change? Not necessarily. But the facts are that they did monetize template system (and heavily so), that they killed the competing, free and superior product, and that they, on the surface, had no problem with said product until it became a competition. And that there's absolutely no basis to believe that their change of stance on the plugin had some other, hidden reason, not connected to the above.

Again you claim that I do not need this feature, which is clearly wrong since I use it all the time.Did you use Arc Templates? If you didn't, then you only find the feature convenient now, when it's implemented, but you didn't actually

need

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.If it had a serious impact on the game, why did they not act when they found out about it, but waited till they released their own version (hint: it took them over a year to develop it)?

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.Again, in order for your theory to be true, you need to imagine existence of some hidden serious issue with the plugin. You need to imagine that it was something that couldn't have been solved by Delta. You need to imagine that this issue became critical at exactly the point they developed their own version. You need to imagine that it was something they absolutely had to keep hidden (and exception to their usual way of dealing with such issues), even when announcing it (or even just announcing that there

was

an issue) would have been to their advantage. And all that without a single basis for any of those points.

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.

@yann.1946 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@yann.1946 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@yann.1946 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@mindcircus.1506 said:

@Atomos.7593 said: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.There is nothing narrow-minded about the belief that the monetization of build templates was done as a cash-grab.It was packaged and sold in a way that purposefully kept additional character slots better value than the system they rolled out.

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.

Btw i understand what the poster about elitism said. The point he made just didn't have any logical basis in how it was constructed. It didn't adress a lot of the reasons people are against it for example and the reason he gave doesn't hold water.

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.

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:Seems quite silly to claim someone makes false assumptions because they don't want you want...Indeed. It's not silly however to claim someone makes false assumptions when they

have

, in fact, made several false assumptions. For example, you made several assumptions about Arc Templates development process and Deltaconnected relation with devs which simply do not match reality. Probably because you didn;t care enough about it to even know what the reality was before you started assuming things. Me and several other posters kept pointing that out to you, but you aparently didn't care about that either (maybe because it didn't fit your theories).

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.

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.No, they could add one if they had desire to add it and enough developer resources to add it. And they could monetize it if they wanted to monetize it, which, as you might notice, is a separate issue.

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.

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.If you haven't noticed, most of those threads are threads to

ban

dps meters. Not to implement them. And this is the first time someone asks for them since template system went in, by the way (hint: most of the people that were asking for Anet to introduce template system ended up being

very

disappointed when Anet finally did that).

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.

[Carcharoth Lucian.1378]

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Carcharoth Lucian.1378 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:Just a thought but maybe they told delta something they cannot do and delta didn't follow it?Then they would have shut down ArcDps as a whole and banned Delta. The same they did when situation you mentioned happened with Bhagawan, developer of BGDM, due to him not being willing to disable gear inspect. Anet allowing development of Arc and its complementary plugins was always conditional on Deltaconnected listening to and following dev feedback. The plugin already incorporated a lot of changes resulting from said feedback, btw.

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.It's not my belief in Delta here. It's my belief in Anet - if Delta were to step out of the line, Anet would have shut down his work immediately. And yet Delta is not banned, and ArcDPS is still allowed, which tells me he

didn't

cross that line.

As for the rest, again it's the same nonsense. I really couldn't care less about how arc templates worked in the past.Yes, i can notice that. I can also notice how you not caring about it leaves you with a ton of completely false assumptions about it.

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 alreadyBecause they don't

have

a dps meter. Yet, anyway. You can't monetize what you don't have.if they were making these changes only for monetization purposes.Only? No. They introduced template system because they wanted to make a template system (like i said, they wanted to do it even before GW2 launched). They decided to monetize it, because, apparently, it was too good of an opportunity to pass, and its design was heavily affected by that, but it does not mean they decided to create it

only

for monetization purposes. Notice, though, that them wanting to create templates for a long time didn't stop them from heavily monetizing them, and it didn't stop them from that desire to monetize it crippling the system's core functionality to the point where only semi-casual users of it like you are satisfied.And, of course, once they did monetize their template system, killing Arc templates was a given. It wouldn't have sense from business point of view to allow the existence of a competing product that is both better feature-wise, and is free. Not if you can do something about it - and Anet

could

do something about it.

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 so
• Any 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?

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.

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?

@Urphen.2857 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Urphen.2857 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:As I said in my last post, plugins change over time and past behaviour is not indicative of their future behaviour.And as i said, they controlled said future behaviour by telling delta what he can and cannot do.

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....but that's exactly what happened. They informed developer and told him to stop developing the plugin.And it does not answer the question: if you are right and there was some problem with the plugin they found to be undesirable, why didn't stop its development earlier? Why did they let it be developed until they had their own version? I mean, if there was something bad enough about the plugin that warranted disallowing it, it would have warranted disallowing it even before. Unless, of course, that reason was exactly that it was an alternative to their own product.

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.You being fine with half-baked and deeply flawed system does not make it any less half-baked and flawed. It just means you never truly needed that system. You find it useful now, sure, but it's clear you had no real need of it before it got implemented either (if you did, you would have been using Arc Templates).

I have no idea what you are talking about with your nonsense about conspiracy theories.If in order to explain something you need to imagine an existence of some secret, hidden reasons, things happening by pure accident exactly at the certain moment, and things being an exception to how it usually worked before, then it is a very definition of a conspiracy theory.

I think your theory is more of a conspiracy in that Anet must only be out to get money with every little change lol.Every little change? Not necessarily. But the facts are that they did monetize template system (and heavily so), that they killed the competing, free and superior product, and that they, on the surface, had no problem with said product until it became a competition. And that there's absolutely no basis to believe that their change of stance on the plugin had some other, hidden reason, not connected to the above.

Again you claim that I do not need this feature, which is clearly wrong since I use it all the time.Did you use Arc Templates? If you didn't, then you only find the feature convenient now, when it's implemented, but you didn't actually

need

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.If it had a serious impact on the game, why did they not act when they found out about it, but waited till they released their own version (hint: it took them over a year to develop it)?

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.Again, in order for your theory to be true, you need to imagine existence of some hidden serious issue with the plugin. You need to imagine that it was something that couldn't have been solved by Delta. You need to imagine that this issue became critical at exactly the point they developed their own version. You need to imagine that it was something they absolutely had to keep hidden (and exception to their usual way of dealing with such issues), even when announcing it (or even just announcing that there

was

an issue) would have been to their advantage. And all that without a single basis for any of those points.

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.

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:Seems quite silly to claim someone makes false assumptions because they don't want you want...Indeed. It's not silly however to claim someone makes false assumptions when they

have

, in fact, made several false assumptions. For example, you made several assumptions about Arc Templates development process and Deltaconnected relation with devs which simply do not match reality. Probably because you didn;t care enough about it to even know what the reality was before you started assuming things. Me and several other posters kept pointing that out to you, but you aparently didn't care about that either (maybe because it didn't fit your theories).

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?

I simply stated it as a thought or a possibility. I don't like to delve into pointless speculations that you seem to enjoy.

And yet, you made severals clueless speculations here.

The question that actually matters and I have repeatedly asked has not been answered with even a remotely logical explanation.

Just because you don't like our answers doesn't mean we didn't answer it.

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.No, they could add one if they had desire to add it and enough developer resources to add it. And they could monetize it if they wanted to monetize it, which, as you might notice, is a separate issue.

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 :

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..

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.If you haven't noticed, most of those threads are threads to

ban

dps meters. Not to implement them. And this is the first time someone asks for them since template system went in, by the way (hint: most of the people that were asking for Anet to introduce template system ended up being

very

disappointed when Anet finally did that).

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.

Also DPS meters are a standard feature in many MMOs that I have played.

GW2 is not like others MMO (in many aspects).

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.

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.

[Rex.3602]

@yann.1946 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Urphen.2857 said:

@Urphen.2857 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Urphen.2857 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:As I said in my last post, plugins change over time and past behaviour is not indicative of their future behaviour.And as i said, they controlled said future behaviour by telling delta what he can and cannot do.

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....but that's exactly what happened. They informed developer and told him to stop developing the plugin.And it does not answer the question: if you are right and there was some problem with the plugin they found to be undesirable, why didn't stop its development earlier? Why did they let it be developed until they had their own version? I mean, if there was something bad enough about the plugin that warranted disallowing it, it would have warranted disallowing it even before. Unless, of course, that reason was exactly that it was an alternative to their own product.

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.You being fine with half-baked and deeply flawed system does not make it any less half-baked and flawed. It just means you never truly needed that system. You find it useful now, sure, but it's clear you had no real need of it before it got implemented either (if you did, you would have been using Arc Templates).

I have no idea what you are talking about with your nonsense about conspiracy theories.If in order to explain something you need to imagine an existence of some secret, hidden reasons, things happening by pure accident exactly at the certain moment, and things being an exception to how it usually worked before, then it is a very definition of a conspiracy theory.

I think your theory is more of a conspiracy in that Anet must only be out to get money with every little change lol.Every little change? Not necessarily. But the facts are that they did monetize template system (and heavily so), that they killed the competing, free and superior product, and that they, on the surface, had no problem with said product until it became a competition. And that there's absolutely no basis to believe that their change of stance on the plugin had some other, hidden reason, not connected to the above.

Again you claim that I do not need this feature, which is clearly wrong since I use it all the time.Did you use Arc Templates? If you didn't, then you only find the feature convenient now, when it's implemented, but you didn't actually

need

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.If it had a serious impact on the game, why did they not act when they found out about it, but waited till they released their own version (hint: it took them over a year to develop it)?

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.Again, in order for your theory to be true, you need to imagine existence of some hidden serious issue with the plugin. You need to imagine that it was something that couldn't have been solved by Delta. You need to imagine that this issue became critical at exactly the point they developed their own version. You need to imagine that it was something they absolutely had to keep hidden (and exception to their usual way of dealing with such issues), even when announcing it (or even just announcing that there

was

an issue) would have been to their advantage. And all that without a single basis for any of those points.

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.

@Carcharoth Lucian.1378 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:Just a thought but maybe they told delta something they cannot do and delta didn't follow it?Then they would have shut down ArcDps as a whole and banned Delta. The same they did when situation you mentioned happened with Bhagawan, developer of BGDM, due to him not being willing to disable gear inspect. Anet allowing development of Arc and its complementary plugins was always conditional on Deltaconnected listening to and following dev feedback. The plugin already incorporated a lot of changes resulting from said feedback, btw.

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.It's not my belief in Delta here. It's my belief in Anet - if Delta were to step out of the line, Anet would have shut down his work immediately. And yet Delta is not banned, and ArcDPS is still allowed, which tells me he

didn't

cross that line.

As for the rest, again it's the same nonsense. I really couldn't care less about how arc templates worked in the past.Yes, i can notice that. I can also notice how you not caring about it leaves you with a ton of completely false assumptions about it.

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 alreadyBecause they don't

have

a dps meter. Yet, anyway. You can't monetize what you don't have.if they were making these changes only for monetization purposes.Only? No. They introduced template system because they wanted to make a template system (like i said, they wanted to do it even before GW2 launched). They decided to monetize it, because, apparently, it was too good of an opportunity to pass, and its design was heavily affected by that, but it does not mean they decided to create it

only

for monetization purposes. Notice, though, that them wanting to create templates for a long time didn't stop them from heavily monetizing them, and it didn't stop them from that desire to monetize it crippling the system's core functionality to the point where only semi-casual users of it like you are satisfied.And, of course, once they did monetize their template system, killing Arc templates was a given. It wouldn't have sense from business point of view to allow the existence of a competing product that is both better feature-wise, and is free. Not if you can do something about it - and Anet

could

do something about it.

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 so
• Any 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?

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.

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?

@Urphen.2857 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Urphen.2857 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:As I said in my last post, plugins change over time and past behaviour is not indicative of their future behaviour.And as i said, they controlled said future behaviour by telling delta what he can and cannot do.

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....but that's exactly what happened. They informed developer and told him to stop developing the plugin.And it does not answer the question: if you are right and there was some problem with the plugin they found to be undesirable, why didn't stop its development earlier? Why did they let it be developed until they had their own version? I mean, if there was something bad enough about the plugin that warranted disallowing it, it would have warranted disallowing it even before. Unless, of course, that reason was exactly that it was an alternative to their own product.

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.You being fine with half-baked and deeply flawed system does not make it any less half-baked and flawed. It just means you never truly needed that system. You find it useful now, sure, but it's clear you had no real need of it before it got implemented either (if you did, you would have been using Arc Templates).

I have no idea what you are talking about with your nonsense about conspiracy theories.If in order to explain something you need to imagine an existence of some secret, hidden reasons, things happening by pure accident exactly at the certain moment, and things being an exception to how it usually worked before, then it is a very definition of a conspiracy theory.

I think your theory is more of a conspiracy in that Anet must only be out to get money with every little change lol.Every little change? Not necessarily. But the facts are that they did monetize template system (and heavily so), that they killed the competing, free and superior product, and that they, on the surface, had no problem with said product until it became a competition. And that there's absolutely no basis to believe that their change of stance on the plugin had some other, hidden reason, not connected to the above.

Again you claim that I do not need this feature, which is clearly wrong since I use it all the time.Did you use Arc Templates? If you didn't, then you only find the feature convenient now, when it's implemented, but you didn't actually

need

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.If it had a serious impact on the game, why did they not act when they found out about it, but waited till they released their own version (hint: it took them over a year to develop it)?

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.Again, in order for your theory to be true, you need to imagine existence of some hidden serious issue with the plugin. You need to imagine that it was something that couldn't have been solved by Delta. You need to imagine that this issue became critical at exactly the point they developed their own version. You need to imagine that it was something they absolutely had to keep hidden (and exception to their usual way of dealing with such issues), even when announcing it (or even just announcing that there

was

an issue) would have been to their advantage. And all that without a single basis for any of those points.

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.

@yann.1946 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@yann.1946 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@yann.1946 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@mindcircus.1506 said:

@Atomos.7593 said: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.There is nothing narrow-minded about the belief that the monetization of build templates was done as a cash-grab.It was packaged and sold in a way that purposefully kept additional character slots better value than the system they rolled out.

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.

Btw i understand what the poster about elitism said. The point he made just didn't have any logical basis in how it was constructed. It didn't adress a lot of the reasons people are against it for example and the reason he gave doesn't hold water.

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.

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:Seems quite silly to claim someone makes false assumptions because they don't want you want...Indeed. It's not silly however to claim someone makes false assumptions when they

have

, in fact, made several false assumptions. For example, you made several assumptions about Arc Templates development process and Deltaconnected relation with devs which simply do not match reality. Probably because you didn;t care enough about it to even know what the reality was before you started assuming things. Me and several other posters kept pointing that out to you, but you aparently didn't care about that either (maybe because it didn't fit your theories).

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.

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.No, they could add one if they had desire to add it and enough developer resources to add it. And they could monetize it if they wanted to monetize it, which, as you might notice, is a separate issue.

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.

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.If you haven't noticed, most of those threads are threads to

ban

dps meters. Not to implement them. And this is the first time someone asks for them since template system went in, by the way (hint: most of the people that were asking for Anet to introduce template system ended up being

very

disappointed when Anet finally did that).

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.

@Carcharoth Lucian.1378 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Carcharoth Lucian.1378 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:Just a thought but maybe they told delta something they cannot do and delta didn't follow it?Then they would have shut down ArcDps as a whole and banned Delta. The same they did when situation you mentioned happened with Bhagawan, developer of BGDM, due to him not being willing to disable gear inspect. Anet allowing development of Arc and its complementary plugins was always conditional on Deltaconnected listening to and following dev feedback. The plugin already incorporated a lot of changes resulting from said feedback, btw.

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.It's not my belief in Delta here. It's my belief in Anet - if Delta were to step out of the line, Anet would have shut down his work immediately. And yet Delta is not banned, and ArcDPS is still allowed, which tells me he

didn't

cross that line.

As for the rest, again it's the same nonsense. I really couldn't care less about how arc templates worked in the past.Yes, i can notice that. I can also notice how you not caring about it leaves you with a ton of completely false assumptions about it.

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 alreadyBecause they don't

have

a dps meter. Yet, anyway. You can't monetize what you don't have.if they were making these changes only for monetization purposes.Only? No. They introduced template system because they wanted to make a template system (like i said, they wanted to do it even before GW2 launched). They decided to monetize it, because, apparently, it was too good of an opportunity to pass, and its design was heavily affected by that, but it does not mean they decided to create it

only

for monetization purposes. Notice, though, that them wanting to create templates for a long time didn't stop them from heavily monetizing them, and it didn't stop them from that desire to monetize it crippling the system's core functionality to the point where only semi-casual users of it like you are satisfied.And, of course, once they did monetize their template system, killing Arc templates was a given. It wouldn't have sense from business point of view to allow the existence of a competing product that is both better feature-wise, and is free. Not if you can do something about it - and Anet

could

do something about it.

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 so
• Any 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?

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.

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?

@Urphen.2857 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Urphen.2857 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:As I said in my last post, plugins change over time and past behaviour is not indicative of their future behaviour.And as i said, they controlled said future behaviour by telling delta what he can and cannot do.

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....but that's exactly what happened. They informed developer and told him to stop developing the plugin.And it does not answer the question: if you are right and there was some problem with the plugin they found to be undesirable, why didn't stop its development earlier? Why did they let it be developed until they had their own version? I mean, if there was something bad enough about the plugin that warranted disallowing it, it would have warranted disallowing it even before. Unless, of course, that reason was exactly that it was an alternative to their own product.

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.You being fine with half-baked and deeply flawed system does not make it any less half-baked and flawed. It just means you never truly needed that system. You find it useful now, sure, but it's clear you had no real need of it before it got implemented either (if you did, you would have been using Arc Templates).

I have no idea what you are talking about with your nonsense about conspiracy theories.If in order to explain something you need to imagine an existence of some secret, hidden reasons, things happening by pure accident exactly at the certain moment, and things being an exception to how it usually worked before, then it is a very definition of a conspiracy theory.

I think your theory is more of a conspiracy in that Anet must only be out to get money with every little change lol.Every little change? Not necessarily. But the facts are that they did monetize template system (and heavily so), that they killed the competing, free and superior product, and that they, on the surface, had no problem with said product until it became a competition. And that there's absolutely no basis to believe that their change of stance on the plugin had some other, hidden reason, not connected to the above.

Again you claim that I do not need this feature, which is clearly wrong since I use it all the time.Did you use Arc Templates? If you didn't, then you only find the feature convenient now, when it's implemented, but you didn't actually

need

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.If it had a serious impact on the game, why did they not act when they found out about it, but waited till they released their own version (hint: it took them over a year to develop it)?

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.Again, in order for your theory to be true, you need to imagine existence of some hidden serious issue with the plugin. You need to imagine that it was something that couldn't have been solved by Delta. You need to imagine that this issue became critical at exactly the point they developed their own version. You need to imagine that it was something they absolutely had to keep hidden (and exception to their usual way of dealing with such issues), even when announcing it (or even just announcing that there

was

an issue) would have been to their advantage. And all that without a single basis for any of those points.

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.

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:Seems quite silly to claim someone makes false assumptions because they don't want you want...Indeed. It's not silly however to claim someone makes false assumptions when they

have

, in fact, made several false assumptions. For example, you made several assumptions about Arc Templates development process and Deltaconnected relation with devs which simply do not match reality. Probably because you didn;t care enough about it to even know what the reality was before you started assuming things. Me and several other posters kept pointing that out to you, but you aparently didn't care about that either (maybe because it didn't fit your theories).

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?

I simply stated it as a thought or a possibility.

I don't like to delve into pointless speculations

that you seem to enjoy.

And yet, you made severals clueless speculations here.

The question that actually matters and I have repeatedly asked has not been answered with even a remotely logical explanation.

Just because you don't like our answers doesn't mean we didn't answer it.

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.No, they could add one if they had desire to add it and enough developer resources to add it. And they could monetize it if they wanted to monetize it, which, as you might notice, is a separate issue.

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 :

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..

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.If you haven't noticed, most of those threads are threads to

ban

dps meters. Not to implement them. And this is the first time someone asks for them since template system went in, by the way (hint: most of the people that were asking for Anet to introduce template system ended up being

very

disappointed when Anet finally did that).

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.

Also DPS meters are a standard feature in many MMOs that I have played.

GW2 is not like others MMO (in many aspects).

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.

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...

[Astralporing.1957]

@"Atomos.7593" said: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)?They were doing template system for a long time, and yet announced it a few weeks before implementation. That's their standard practice. Why do you think dps meter should be different? And, of course, there's the possibility that they never planned to introduce dps meter of their own (there's a ton of reasons why they might not want to do that)

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.Considering the whole history of Arc templates (yes, i know you don't know it because you don't care about it) existence of other reason than eliminating competition is extremely unlikely. And, frankly, it is a reason enough, you don't really need another one. Once they decided to monetize their template system, disallowing of template plugin was a foregone conclusion - allowing it to exist would have no sense whatsoever from the business point of view.

And, as i have pointed out, there has never been any basis to even suggest there might have been any other reason.

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.And here you go about "plain facts", while trying to claim i said what i never did. Even after i have already told you several times already that it wasn't what i said.

That was not an assumption because I never claimed it to be true.You claimed things might have been true that were in clear contradiction to facts. Notice also, that without those assumptions you say you never made you had no argument at all.

The question that actually matters and I have repeatedly asked has not been answered with even a remotely logical explanation.It was answered. Several times. You just don't like the answers.

I'm glad you can finally understand that the devs won't spend resources on things unless they think it's necessary.Finally? I have never said otherwise. You were the one misrepresenting my stance. But i have already told you that before.

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.As i said, they wanted the template system long before plugin appeared. Introducing it was kind of a point of pride for them.Also, there were pretty good reasons for introducing in-game template system everyone would have access to, instead of just a relatively small number of players using Arc Templates. The basic one (and most obvious) is that not everyone is willing to use third-party addons. Another one was that a well-done template system might have helped with the general problem of most players using bad builds - a system that would have allowed easy spread of good builds among the player population could have helped a lot.Too bad it didn't really work out all that well. due to the system getting crippled in its infancy.

The only reason that many people would think of requesting a ban for DPS meters is that they are currently widely used.No. They aren't widely used. They are used by a relatively small part of the game population. They are just used in the end-game content, and are highly visible. And a lot of people trying unsuccesfully to get into said content tend to blindly blame the meters for the lack of success, thinking that if they were gone, they;d have better chances of getting into succesful groups (hint: they are wrong, and the issue is way more deeper than that, but a lot of people don't bother to look too deply into issues).

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.Oh, there's a massive difference between Anet allowing existence of a third-party dps meter, that is used by a minority of players, and them actually promoting them by putting them in game and giving them to everyone. Including forcing them on people that hate the very idea of dps parser.

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.

[maddoctor.2738]

@Atomos.7593 said:My whole point all along has been that monetization may not be the only reason for disallowing arc templates.

I'm curious, what could that other reason be?

[Obtena.7952]

@Laila Lightness.8742 said:

@robertthebard.8150 said:

@TeeDavido.8729 said:

@Darrack.4069 said:There's another thread on this one mate, but for me no thanks, it promotes bad game play.

Be Safe

Ah didn't see it. First time being on the forums. Y it probably does. But it also feels bad when I just learned my rotation, did 20k DPS on a boss but when I asked if someone could tell me my DPS I was basically told to stop being an ***hole and download arcdps. At this point I guess I'll have to download Gw2 onto my laptop which is not something I wanted :/

Alternatively, you could just ignore them, it's what I'd do. I'm a staunch believer that 3rd party software doesn't belong in an MMO, and so I don't use it. I don't raise a fuss, since the dev's said it's ok, but I won't be using it, no matter how many expletives they throw my way.

If we nerf raids we wont need a meter ever :)

Or if we add a meter, we can expect less raiding ... either way, these problems tend to fix themselves ... people want to add layers to 'enforce' their ideas of how others should play the game or how the game should work ... they are just reducing the pool of people they are willing to play with or giving themselves reasons to see things they can complain about that aren't problems ... self-extinction. :)

[Obtena.7952]

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:My whole point all along has been that monetization may not be the only reason for disallowing arc templates.

I'm curious, what could that other reason be?

I would say control of their game and IP is the PRIMARY reason for disallowing ANY third party things, even above making money. The point is .. there are more reasons than money for Anet to make business decisions. Arguing what factors impact those decisions and how important they are ... pretty irrelevant.