Should they add a DPS meter? - [Merged]

[maddoctor.2738]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@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.

Turns out the reason Arc Templates was disallowed was because of an agreement deltaconnected (the developer of arc templates/dps) had with Arenanet.

This. One of the conditions to ANet allowing my templates extension was that I let it die when an official solution comes around, and that condition hasn't changedhttps://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/cz1rrb/build_templates_only_available_with_legendary/eywxzz9/

In other words Arc Templates always had a time limit.

That said however, if Anet was concerned in any way about Arc Templates, it was well within their power to stop the addon from working and banning those using it, they've done it in the past multiple times. But they did not do that until they implemented their own solution, their heavily monetized solution. If they were concerned about control of their game and IP primarily, they'd release their own version with the same price tag as Arc Templates (free), but I guess greed superseded any other concerns they might've had over Arc Templates.

[Obtena.7952]

@maddoctor.2738 said:If they were concerned about control of their game and IP primarily, they'd release their own version with the same price tag as Arc Templates (free), but I guess greed superseded any other concerns they might've had over Arc Templates.

Clearly you think so ... but I see no connection between what they charge for something ingame and maintaining their game integrity/control. Believe what you want but the point is that there are LOTS of factors that go into considering business decisions, just like the ones concerning templates and DPS meter would be no different. The fact remains that as a business decision, introducing a DPS meter is a big shoulder shrug. There really isn't a reason to debate templates and what they did there ... it's done. It's not DPS meter, or relevant to it.

[Fueki.4753]

@"Obtena.7952" said:I would say control of their game and IP is the PRIMARY reason for disallowing ANY third party things, even above making money.

If that was the case, why would Arenanet continue to allow ArcDPS?If "disallowing third party things" was their "primary reason", they would just have banned ArcDPS and Arc Templates in one swoop.

The fact that Arenanet entered an agreement with the Arc creator, rather than banning his works, directly contradicts your "primary reason".

[Obtena.7952]

@Fueki.4753 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:I would say control of their game and IP is the PRIMARY reason for disallowing ANY third party things, even above making money.

If that was the case, why would Arenanet continue to allow ArcDPS?

I don't know and TBH, that isn't the point being made here anyways so it's not really worth speculating it. I think Anet does themselves a big disservice allowing these things but there could be lots of reasons they are still around ... maybe they find it to impractical to deal with trying to remove ARCDPS? Maybe it's not worth it to them? Maybe they ARE working on it? Who knows ... not me, not you, not any player ... The existence of ARCDPS doesn't mean Anet doesn't care about their sovereignty over the game though.

The point is that there are MANY factors that go into making business decisions, so even if you prove or disprove any single one of them, it's irrelevant because you are ignoring all the others. It's likely NOT just one factor that influences these decisions. If you want the answer to why YES to ARCDPS and why NO to ARC Templates ... it's in there ...

[Atomos.7593]

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@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.

Sorry, I can't be bothered to post massive amounts of words that mean nothing like you do. If you for some reason don't like it well... I guess too bad for you? Using paragraphs has always worked perfectly well to get meaning across to me.

Yet they have had plenty of time to announce it if they wanted to monetize it. So announcing it wouldn't have been a problem by now if they wanted to only monetize features that were already available in plugins.

Again, the rest is just plain nonsense to try to support your agenda, without addressing my points.

Who even said that I didn't like the answers. Please don't put words in my mouth, because you can't agree with what I am saying. That is pretty low. I appreciate the thoughts, and I responded with my own answer explaining why it was invalid, which for some reason you can't accept and therefore choose to ignore...

I never said that an "in-built" dps meter was a standard feature. Again don't put words in my mouth. What I was saying there is that dps meters through, at least through plugins, are widely available in many MMOs. If you have actually tried a few other MMOs this would not be hard to see, especially if you raided in them.

Also, again you might want to look up the meaning of the word "assumption" before using it. An assumption is not something that is claimed to may be true, it is something that is said to be true. And how would that even mean that I had no argument at all, since that clearly has not been the point I was making in this discussion? On the other hand, you failing to address my enquiries that completely contradict your suggestions that templates were introduced only for monetization provides pretty clear evidence that you have no remotely sensible argument against this at all.

@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 don't exactly know what their reason was nor do I care. I also don't want to speculate where there is no need to because these speculations may be factually correct or incorrect, so are pretty meaningless. My whole point in the discussion was that it is perfectly possible that monetization was not the only reason for Anet adding their own template system and the arc templates plugin to be disallowed. Personally, I think it would have been great if they could have also allowed the plugin to work, but maybe they had an actual reason (besides monetization only) to disallow it.

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Fueki.4753 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:I would say control of their game and IP is the PRIMARY reason for disallowing ANY third party things, even above making money.

If that was the case, why would Arenanet continue to allow ArcDPS?

I don't know and TBH, that isn't the point being made here anyways so it's not really worth speculating it. I think Anet does themselves a big disservice allowing these things but there could be lots of reasons they are still around ... maybe they find it to impractical to deal with trying to remove ARCDPS? Maybe it's not worth it to them? Maybe they ARE working on it? Who knows ... not me, not you, not any player ... The existence of ARCDPS doesn't mean Anet doesn't care about their sovereignty over the game though.

The point is that there are MANY factors that go into making business decisions, so even if you prove or disprove any single one of them, it's irrelevant because you are ignoring all the others. It's likely NOT just one factor that influences these decisions. If you want the answer to why YES to ARCDPS and why NO to ARC Templates ... it's in there ...

I'm glad that someone at least gets it. People claim that monetization is the only reason, and then when another possibility is given they refuse to accept it as even remotely possible despite them having no idea about exactly how the plugin worked, how it interacted with the game and the ever-changing stance that Anet may have on plugins. Then when I ask them to give a real reason that can adequately explain why the templates were supposedly only introduced for "monetization" purposes, but a dps meter which many people use (but would still not somehow be an appropriate candidate for "monetization") they resort to claiming that somehow I did not acknowledge their illogical explanations and ignore my points that show the explanations are invalid.

It honestly seems like some people believe that a plugin must always have been flawless and perfect. This gets close to the realm of fanboy-ism.

Also, just to clarify my thoughts on the actual topic discussed in the opening post: I don't think there is any need to waste dev resources on creating an in-built dps meter when there is already a perfectly functional dps meter available through a plugin that people can use if they would like to see their dps.

[Astralporing.1957]

@"Atomos.7593" said:Yet they have had plenty of time to announce it if they wanted to monetize it. So announcing it wouldn't have been a problem by now if they wanted to only monetize features that were already available in plugins.They had plenty of time to announce template system that they did want to monetize. They worked over a year on that one, after all. And yet they announced it mere weeks before it got released. So, again, why this time would you expect them to act differently?Or, (again), they never announced anything because they never planned to make their own DPS meter in the first place.

Again, the rest is just plain nonsense to try to support your agenda, without addressing my points.You not believing in it doesn't make it nonsense. It's plain facts:

• Anet did monetize the template system
• Delta's plugin was better and cheaper (free)
• it's hard to sell a product if it has to compete with better and cheaper alternative
• since they did monetize the template system, they wanted to sell it
• from a business perspective, removing dangerous competition, if you can do it, is an extremely reasonable behaviour
• nothing about the plugin itself did change around the time Anet introduced their template system
• if there was some other reason that made Anet decide to disallow the plugin, that reason would have existed well before Anet released their version.
• before they released their version, Anet devs didn't show any signs of having anything against the plugin.
• in other cases where they were in direct contact with a plugin developer, and they decided that plugin, or some feature of it were a problem, they informed the author about it and allowed them to act on that feedback (adjust or remove the problematic elements).
• if said author didn't act on that feedback, this resulted in a ban and disallowing of the whole project (even if only part of it was problematic)
• nothing like that happened with Delta.
• the only information Delta received was to discontinue template plugin as soon as Anet releases their own version.All those things are facts. Facts that allow us to make a lot of reasonable conclusions. You may ignore them, but it doesn't make them nonsence. It just makes you someone that ignores facts.

Who even said that I didn't like the answers. Please don't put words in my mouth, because you can't agree with what I am saying. That is pretty low. I appreciate the thoughts, and I responded with my own answer explaining why it was invalid, which for some reason you can't accept and therefore choose to ignore...Yes, and your response about how they are "invalid" can be shortened to "i don't believe in it". You didn't base that disbelief on any facts - actually, you actively ignored some facts, because they didn't fit your preconceptions.

In short, like i said: you got the answers you wanted asked for. You just didn't like them.

I never said that an "in-built" dps meter was a standard feature. Again don't put words in my mouth. What I was saying there is that dps meters through, at least through plugins, are widely available in many MMOs. If you have actually tried a few other MMOs this would not be hard to see, especially if you raided in them.Yes, dps meters are an MMORPG staple, but those are always third-party ones. There are next to no big MMORPGs with inbuild meters, though. So, basically, the MMORPG standard is exactly the situation GW2 is currently in.

On the other hand, you failing to address my enquiries that completely contradict your suggestions that templates were introduced only for monetization provides pretty clear evidence that you have no remotely sensible argument against this at all.Maybe you'd have a point, if that was what i said - which i never did. Which i pointed out to you several times already. I don't know why you still keep insisting on misrepresenting my argument. The arguments i did make however (that template design was heavily and negatively affected by Anet's desire to monetize the system, and that they killed Arc templates to get rid of competition) you never managed to counter.

[Atomos.7593]

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:Yet they have had plenty of time to announce it if they wanted to monetize it. So announcing it wouldn't have been a problem by now if they wanted to only monetize features that were already available in plugins.They had plenty of time to announce template system that they did want to monetize. They worked over a year on that one, after all. And yet they announced it mere weeks before it got released. So, again, why this time would you expect them to act differently?Or, (again), they never announced anything because they never planned to make their own DPS meter in the first place.

Again, the rest is just plain nonsense to try to support your agenda, without addressing my points.You not believing in it doesn't make it nonsense. It's plain facts:

• Anet did monetize the template system
• Delta's plugin was better and cheaper (free)
• it's hard to sell a product if it has to compete with better and cheaper alternative
• since they did monetize the template system, they wanted to sell it
• from a business perspective, removing dangerous competition, if you can do it, is an extremely reasonable behaviour
• nothing about the plugin itself did change around the time Anet introduced their template system
• if there was some other reason that made Anet decide to disallow the plugin, that reason would have existed well before Anet released their version.
• before they released their version, Anet devs didn't show any signs of having anything against the plugin.
• in other cases where they were in direct contact with a plugin developer, and they decided that plugin, or some feature of it were a problem, they informed the author about it and allowed them to act on that feedback (adjust or remove the problematic elements).
• if said author didn't act on that feedback, this resulted in a ban and disallowing of the whole project (even if only part of it was problematic)
• nothing like that happened with Delta.
• the only information Delta received was to discontinue template plugin as soon as Anet releases their own version.All those things are facts. Facts that allow us to make a lot of reasonable conclusions. You may ignore them, but it doesn't make them nonsence. It just makes you someone that ignores facts.

Who even said that I didn't like the answers. Please don't put words in my mouth, because you can't agree with what I am saying. That is pretty low. I appreciate the thoughts, and I responded with my own answer explaining why it was invalid, which for some reason you can't accept and therefore choose to ignore...Yes, and your response about how they are "invalid" can be shortened to "i don't believe in it". You didn't base that disbelief on any facts - actually, you actively

ignored

some facts, because they didn't fit your preconceptions.

In short, like i said: you got the answers you

wanted

asked for. You just didn't like them.

I never said that an "in-built" dps meter was a standard feature. Again don't put words in my mouth. What I was saying there is that dps meters through, at least through plugins, are widely available in many MMOs. If you have actually tried a few other MMOs this would not be hard to see, especially if you raided in them.Yes, dps meters are an MMORPG staple, but those are always third-party ones. There are next to no big MMORPGs with inbuild meters, though. So, basically, the MMORPG standard is exactly the situation GW2 is currently in.

On the other hand, you failing to address my enquiries that completely contradict your suggestions that templates were introduced only for monetization provides pretty clear evidence that you have no remotely sensible argument against this at all.Maybe you'd have a point, if that was what i said - which i never did. Which i pointed out to you several times already. I don't know why you still keep insisting on misrepresenting my argument. The arguments i did make however (that template design was heavily and negatively affected by Anet's desire to monetize the system, and that they killed Arc templates to get rid of competition) you never managed to counter.

If you had actually read my reasoning I said it was invalid because it's complete speculation that there are not many players interested in using a built-in dps meter (which I find extremely unlikely since lots of people already use the plugin). Speculation does not equal facts despite how much you may believe in it. If you want a credible argument present one that has facts in it and not only personal beliefs. What is actually a fact is that there is a so called "monetized" built-in templates system that replaced the plugin, but a dps meter plugin is still available free to use and has not been monetized yet.

You still haven't made any decent points. They have had since the beginning of the game to announce a monetized dps meter if they wanted to monetize such a feature and disallow arc dps. That's the same time as for templates, and a very long time. Anyway, I'll be waiting another 100 years for this so called monetized dps meter to come out and somehow prove you right...

As for you and other people here not claiming it was somehow done primarily for monetization, let's use some actual facts from posts posted earlier in the thread, shall we? Here's some quotes where you claimed this:

@Carcharoth Lucian.1378 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:I would rather not use any plugins, and I don't use them at the moment since I don't raid. I don't see any reason why they couldn't allow the plugin to also be used instead if some people find it better.They disallowed Arc Templates the moment ingame solution was implemented. I'm quite sure the same would happen with dps meter if it ever were to be implemented. Especially if it got monetized (which i'm sure it would).

No idea exactly why they disallowed it, but I'm pretty sure they would have had a good reason other than supposedly trying to increase their revenue. It would actually take extra effort to go out and disallow plugins, and probably is not worth it financially unless there is some other reason to also disallow it. They are not some evil company that is out to make money in every possible way that they can, despite what the haters think. They are no better or worse than any other business.

We don't say they are evil, but like @Obtena.7952 like to repeat it (:p <3), they are still a business.

If the monetization was secondary they wouldn't implement it this way.

For example they could have made real build templates without cutting it in 2 (the account version are templates but only 24 max), it doesn't take space cause it is just text file (and with chatcodes players can completely bypass it, so anet ones slots are meaningless). They could also made the unlocks account-wise (even with a higher price), so it could be reroll friendly like the rest of the game... (that's just few examples)

And we don't know who tells them to do it that way (it could be a demand from ncsoft)...

If they wanted to disallow a dps meter, they could easily have done that for the plugin by now. I find it extremely unlikely that they would go out and do it once it is monetized, since it would require extra effort and be blatantly hurting their reputation.

Well template implementation prove you wrong on this (and it is easy for them because arcdps developper is in contact with anet to be sure it is always tos compliant).

&

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@uberkingkong.8041 said:

@Carcharoth Lucian.1378 said:You should think the other way around : If Anet can't monetize dps meter, why would they care to develop it?

I think half full, I think people have good intentions.And i think that they are running a business, not a charity, so,

of course they are doing it with the primary goal of getting our money

. You'd be naive if you thought otherwise.

And the template system shows how far they are willing to go to get it. Just look at the design of it. It's clear that it was not designed to be useful (and then monetized as a consequence of some server constraints or whatever), but was designed around monetization first, with the hope that it would end up being useful (hint: that last part didn't really work all that well). Why would you think that with dps meter they would change their tune and do the exact opposite?

It does not require mass memory which costs money like build template does.Yes, the current system does require some memory, but only because it was designed with monetization in mind. It didn't have to look that way though. Just look at how it worked in GW1, where they had a much simpler system, not requiring any server resources, and yet still vastly superior to the current one.

They didn't have to monetize the template system. They didn't have to cripple it in order to be able to monetize it better. Yet, they did. And in the end template system is as much a QoL as a DPS meter. There's no reason to think they would treat one any different than the other. Sure, they don't

have

to treat them the same way, but at this point, from your side it's just a matter of faith that they would not go as far as doing

something they have shown to be capable of doing already

. In this matter i happen to not be as optimistic as you are. Years of observing how this game keeps changing left me very much a sceptic.

Convenient to back pedal when you have no sensible arguments, eh?

From these, it's evident that you thought monetization was the primary reason, and won't even entertain that there could have been other primary reasons instead. I'm glad that you can see now how silly that was to claim as certainly true and disregard my points suggesting it may not have been.

[Carnifex.3275]

To a simple question "Should they add DPS meter" i would answer this:

An example. Yesterday we ran T4. Group looked decent nothing stood out that something might be wrong. Yet we failed mai trin and i was like "wth? really? mai trin?". Group started trying to figure out whats wrong.. almost started blaming our healer started changing their builds somewhat etc.. I said nothing i didn't want to as you say "be toxic". But i knew.. i looked through our DPS info.. and there it is. 1st place dmg 6.6mil. 2nd place dmg 3.2mil. 3rd - 300k. 4th (alac rene) 200k. 5th - well it's healer so doesnt matter. We basically ran 3-4 man run. Even without DPS meter it was obvious the fight is lasting for way too long. Of course i try not comment on it and i just carry on doing my job. Eventually we got through. No one got kicked no harsh comments whatsoever..just patience and time.

So now moral of the simple story. If people had access to DPS they would know how bad/good they are. It's a simple method of how to know what you're doing wrong and a huge benefit for you to improve. No one really cares if 1st place let's say is 6mil dmg and 2nd place 5mil dmg. No one will kick you or be toxic to you in that case (even in our case no1 was kicked). But the main problem is that some people aren't even aware of what was the problem and they will carry on playing like that. It would be really helpful if someone whose really lacking (let's say 500kdmg vs 6mil dmg) would see their DPS charts and they would start to think "what can i do to improve myself cuz i'm clearly doing something wrong". A win-win situation where everyone has some benefits to gain. Players in general would become more skilled. Atleast for me it was a huge benefit. I started practicing rotations and tuning up things to push my build/class to the max.

[Astralporing.1957]

@Atomos.7593 said:Convenient to back pedal when you have no sensible arguments, eh?

From these, it's evident that you thought monetization was the primary reason, and won't even entertain that there could have been other primary reasons instead. I'm glad that you can see now how silly that was to claim as certainly true and disregard my points suggesting it may not have been.Reading with comprehension would help. If you did, you;d have noticed i was talking about design, not purpose of implementation. Yes, templates were designed with monetization being placed above QoL. This can be seen from the fact that it includes design elements that negatively impact QoL, but can be explained if they were implemented with monetization in mind.This however does not automatically mean that the monetization was the only or even main purpose why they decided to introduce the system in the first place. Those two things are not the same.

But to make things simpler for you to understand, i will present the TL/DR version:They decided to implement build templates, because they felt the need to have build templates in the game. But, once they decided that, their desire to monetize that feature twisted its design away from its original purpose.

Is that easier to understand? Can we now get back to arguing about things people actually said, not things you think they said?

[Carcharoth Lucian.1378]

@Atomos.7593 said:

Convenient to back pedal when you have no sensible arguments, eh?

From these, it's evident that you thought monetization was the primary reason to disallow arc template addons

I corrected that for you. i would be nice if you stop attack us on that strawman (the one that tells template implementation are for monetization only)

, and won't even entertain that there could have been other primary reasons instead. I'm glad that you can see now how silly that was to claim as certainly true and disregard my points suggesting it may not have been.

Well, we have facts that make our point reasonable, you don't like this, i get it.We never say yours couldn't be true but it still just some "maybe" without any facts to back for it, making it less reasonable, that's all.

[Atomos.7593]

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@"Atomos.7593" said:Convenient to back pedal when you have no sensible arguments, eh?

From these, it's evident that you thought monetization was the primary reason, and won't even entertain that there could have been other primary reasons instead. I'm glad that you can see now how silly that was to claim as certainly true and disregard my points suggesting it may not have been.Reading with comprehension would help. If you did, you;d have noticed i was talking about design, not purpose of implementation. Yes, templates were designed with monetization being placed above QoL. This can be seen from the fact that it includes design elements that negatively impact QoL, but can be explained if they were implemented with monetization in mind.This however does not automatically mean that the monetization was the only or even main purpose why they decided to introduce the system in the first place. Those two things are not the same.

But to make things simpler for you to understand, i will present the TL/DR version:They decided to implement build templates, because they felt the need to have build templates in the game. But,

once they decided that

, their desire to monetize that feature twisted its design away from its original purpose.

Is that easier to understand? Can we now get back to arguing about things people actually said, not things you

think

they said?

First of all, you do realize that design and implementation both go hand in hand. The concept design comes first and then the exact implementation based on this design. So if they had a primary goal to take your money this would have been there at some point in the design concept as an idea, and then later this design would have been transferred to the way it is actually implemented in the game exactly.

What nonsense are you even talking about here relating to a difference of purpose in design and implementation, lol? If you had any clue whatsoever about game design you would know how this works and that this is never even possible, since implementation is based on design. I guess you are trying hard to distract from the claims you made in that highlighted sentence.

Secondly, no where in that sentence that I highlighted did you even mention the word "design" or "implementation". Some reading comprehension would help here... but I see you are still trying hard to back pedal and claim that you never said the primary reason was monetization, even though I just highlighted it.

@Carcharoth Lucian.1378 said:@Atomos.7593 said:

Convenient to back pedal when you have no sensible arguments, eh?

From these, it's evident that you thought monetization was the primary reason

to disallow arc template addons

I corrected that for you. i would be nice if you stop attack us on that strawman (the one that tells template implementation are for monetization

only

)

, and won't even entertain that there could have been other primary reasons instead. I'm glad that you can see now how silly that was to claim as certainly true and disregard my points suggesting it may not have been.

Well, we have facts that make our point reasonable, you don't like this, i get it.We never say yours couldn't be true but it still just some "maybe" without any facts to back for it, making it less reasonable, that's all.

Hahaha, nice correction to try and push your own agenda. I just stated in my previous post why what you seem to call "facts" are not at all facts, but are instead completely misguided speculation. If you can't accept my explanation for some reason, and want to believe that speculation and personal beliefs are somehow "facts", then that's totally your problem.

There was no "maybe" in those sentences at all. Don't try to pretend now that you said "maybe" when it's clear this word wasn't even in those sentences I quoted and the particular sentence I highlighted. Because of this there is no strawman at all in what I am saying, because I just gave you the evidence for where you yourself claimed the primary reason was monetization. But it's fine to realize your mistake in there now.

[Astralporing.1957]

@"Atomos.7593" said:First of all, you do realize that design and implementation both go hand in hand.Design and actual implementation, yes. Desire to implement something and design goal? Not necessarily. Between decision to implement something, concept design stage, actual design process and final implementation lot of things can change.

The concept design comes first and then the exact implementation based on this design. So if they had a primary goal to take your money this would have been there at some point in the design concept as an idea, and then later this design would have been transferred to the way it is actually implemented in the game exactly.Yes. But at the same time, design priorities tend to switch between decision to implement and finalizing design process. It happens a lot. Especially for something that takes a lot of time. In case of a project that takes over a year to complete, i'd actually be surprised if the end result was exactly as it was envisioned initially.

For example, when they initially planned GW2, their stated intention for the gemstore was for it to only contain vanity items. Things like QoL functionality, and actual content, were supposed to remain free (apart from buying the game itself, and possibly expansions - i say possibly because they haven't decided yet at that time whether there were to be any expansions at all). As you have noticed, a lot of those original design principles have changed since then.

I suspect something like that happened to templates. They definitely didn't intend any monetization for them when they first spoke about them wanting to do that feature in the future, but as you can see, the end result ended up different than that. Most likely, because at some point, someone (not necessarily a dev, might have been someone from marketing, or management) saw a potential to earn additional money from this, and they forced their vision on the design process. By that point, their original intentions didn't matter anymore.

(i'm quite sure, that if they ever decide to implement dps meter feature, a question about whether/how can they monetize this will come up at some point)

And this has shown that if they'll see a potential to monetize a feature, they are definitely not above pushing that monetization to a point where it would be severely negatively affecting that feature's core functionality.

Secondly, no where in that sentence that I highlighted did you even mention the word "design" or "implementation". Some reading comprehension would help here... but I see you are still trying hard to back pedal and claim that you never said the primary reason was monetization, even though I just highlighted it.My sentence that you highlighted was general, and was about Anet being a business. Businesses do things in order to earn money. Anything else is always secondary.Are you trying to tell me that Anet is not thinking about getting paid for their work? That, when they plan to do things, they don't calculate first how much they are going to earn (or lose) on it? And that those calculations do not impact their actions?As i said then, they are not a charity. They won't be implementing things if they decide it would result in monetary loss for them. It doesn't mean everything will be done with specifically monetization as a primary purpose, but yes, first thing they will consider will be always "can we earn money from this, or will it be a loss".In case of templates, the method they chose was monetization, and it turned out to be something that was more important for them than supplying actual, working QoL system. I mean, if two principles (monetization and functionality) conflict when designing a feature of a certain QoL system, and monetization wins, it is clear that when comparing those two monetization was a greater consideration than functionality.

All that was my position from the very beginning, and it didn't change. And you're yet to say anything that would counter any of that.

[Luthan.5236]

I don't think it is needed. You can play the entire game without such a feature. Just could mean slower killing some enemies - if you don't optimize dps. But that is an "elitist" thing and could lead to hate towards players that want to play for fun instead.

And the elitists can already have their small own groups and use 3rd-party addons.

[Atomos.7593]

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@"Atomos.7593" said:First of all, you do realize that design and implementation both go hand in hand.Design and actual implementation, yes. Desire to implement something and design goal? Not necessarily. Between decision to implement something, concept design stage, actual design process and final implementation lot of things can change.

The concept design comes first and then the exact implementation based on this design. So if they had a primary goal to take your money this would have been there at some point in the design concept as an idea, and then later this design would have been transferred to the way it is actually implemented in the game exactly.Yes. But at the same time, design priorities tend to switch between decision to implement and finalizing design process. It happens a lot. Especially for something that takes a lot of time. In case of a project that takes over a year to complete, i'd actually be surprised if the end result was exactly as it was envisioned initially.

For example, when they initially planned GW2, their stated intention for the gemstore was for it to only contain vanity items. Things like QoL functionality, and actual content, were supposed to remain free (apart from buying the game itself, and possibly expansions - i say possibly because they haven't decided yet at that time whether there were to be any expansions at all). As you have noticed, a lot of those original design principles have changed since then.

I suspect something like that happened to templates. They definitely didn't intend any monetization for them when they first spoke about them wanting to do that feature in the future, but as you can see, the end result ended up different than that. Most likely, because at some point, someone (not necessarily a dev, might have been someone from marketing, or management) saw a potential to earn additional money from this, and they forced their vision on the design process. By that point, their original intentions didn't matter anymore.

And this has shown that

if

they'll see a potential to monetize a feature, they are definitely not above pushing that monetization to a point where it would be severely negatively affecting that feature's core functionality.

Secondly, no where in that sentence that I highlighted did you even mention the word "design" or "implementation". Some reading comprehension would help here... but I see you are still trying hard to back pedal and claim that you never said the primary reason was monetization, even though I just highlighted it.My sentence that you highlighted was general, and was about Anet being a business. Businesses do things in order to earn money. Anything else is always secondary.Are you trying to tell me that Anet is

not

thinking about getting paid for their work? That, when they plan to do things, they don't calculate first how much they are going to earn (or lose) on it? And that those calculations do not impact their actions?As i said then, they are

not

a charity. They won't be implementing things if they decide it would result in monetary loss for them. It doesn't mean everything will be done with specifically

monetization

as a primary purpose, but yes, first thing they will consider will be always "can we earn money from this, or will it be a loss".In case of templates, the method they chose was monetization, and it turned out to be something that was more important for them than supplying actual, working QoL system. I mean, if two principles (monetization and functionality) conflict when designing a feature of a certain QoL system, and monetization wins, it is clear that when comparing those two monetization was a greater consideration than functionality.

All that was my position from the very beginning, and it didn't change. And you're yet to say anything that would counter any of that.

When you are implementing something you are doing it in accordance with design. The design can change, which may change the implementation. The majority of both aspects occur together because it is an iterative process. So when the purpose of one is changed, the purpose of the other is also respectively changed because the eventual implementation only serves to fulfil the purpose of the final design.

I realize and agree that sentence was a general statement, and not specifically related to design or implementation. I'm not disputing that the current template system could be considered to be monetized. That's reasonable. My point all along was only that this may not necessarily have been the primary purpose, but could be a secondary one (although it could have been a big secondary consideration).

[Sigmoid.7082]

@"Luthan.5236" said:I don't think it is needed. You can play the entire game without such a feature. Just could mean slower killing some enemies - if you don't optimize dps. But that is an "elitist" thing and could lead to hate towards players that want to play for fun instead.

And the elitists can already have their small own groups and use 3rd-party addons.

Why do people always insinuate that because a group is doing things differently or may use a dps meter that they are not playing for fun?

And the "elitists" already do play in their small groups. But there is a reason you see more complaints about " I got kicked from a group due to my performance, why can people spy on me" compared to "I got kicked from a group because I mentioned their DPS wasn't good enough".

[Carcharoth Lucian.1378]

@"Atomos.7593" said:I realize and agree that sentence was a general statement, and not specifically related to design or implementation. I'm not disputing that the current template system could be considered to be monetized. That's reasonable. My point all along was only that this may not necessarily have been the primary purpose, but could be a secondary one (although it could have been a big secondary consideration).

We never said it wasn't reasonable to monetize this system. Most of us would be happy to support anet by buying it with real money if the implementation was good and at a reasonable price.As for communication, when they announce it will come IG some months before the actual release, they tell us that we will got build templates for free (source

at 1h4min).But even with this statement, it is fine to monetize templates.

Issue n° 1 is that the feature they delivered is not actual template because you can't save it.So Anet's "Equipment and Build Templates" are in fact gear and build loadout. The only real template in the system is what they call "Build Storage" and is basicly slot to save build chatcodes.

Issue n° 2 is the heavily monetization that come with them (i.e. not reasonable prices).Let's start with what we got for free (basic version) comparing from before the implementation : 1 Equipment loadout per character + 3 Build Storages (6 if you were in-game the first month of the release) and.. that's all.

Let's see then the expansions Anet want to sell us :

• Equipment Template Expansions are character-bound and cost 500 gems each
• Build Template Expansions are character-bound and cost 300 gems each
• Build Storage Expansions are acount-bound and cost 500 gems for a 3-pack

Let's do some Maths next :Disclamer : i will take a low gold to gem conversion rate here with 32 gold = 100 gems (it's higher at the moment)

• For one character it will cost you 500x4 (Equipment Template)+300x3 (Build Template) = 2900 gems = 928 golds = 36.25 euros
• For 9 characters (one by class available) : 9x2900 = 26100 gems = 326.25 euros
• For your account : 8 Build Storage Expansions : 500x8 = 4000 gems = 1280 gold = 50 euros
• So in total 30100 gems = 9632 golds = 376.25 euros

So this is what Anet expect us to buy to fully unlock this feature.

I could also add the issues with legendary and revenant loadout bugs but specific threads are already details them well.

So you can still say the "QoL" is cheap/fine even if it cost more than twelve the price of the entire game (30 euros), but whatever, i won't bother to answer on this matter anymore.

[IndigoSundown.5419]

This is an attempt to steer the conversation away from build templates and back to meters.

There is an axiom in industrial psychology that goes, "The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior." However, this approach is the best predictor when the past and future situations are identical. Accuracy tends to fall off as the situations differ.

So, how are the "templates" and a potential ANet meter similar and how are they different.

Different

• A meter is not a loadout. One is a compiler of information and the other is a database.
• A meter is less likely to be able to be part and parceled into components. (notice, though, I said "less likely))

Similar

• Acceptable-to-ANet versions of both features were produced by the same third party.
• Neither was deemed essential nor was either a core feature of the game. This means that both are optional features that players can do without.
• Both could be monetized.
• As monetized features, both would target the same player demographic.

The above is a simplification for illustration. So, what this means is that with regard to the monetization of a hypothetical ANet meter, while we cannot say with certainty that such a feature would come with a price tag, we certainly can't rule it out. This means that both sides of the discussion, which are appealing to reasoned arguments to support their position, are in fact basing their position on belief. That's all well and good, but stating that a position is based on logic and reason, when in fact it is not, is not ... accurate.

[Atomos.7593]

@Carcharoth Lucian.1378 said:

@"Atomos.7593" said:I realize and agree that sentence was a general statement, and not specifically related to design or implementation. I'm not disputing that the current template system could be considered to be monetized. That's reasonable. My point all along was only that this may not necessarily have been the primary purpose, but could be a secondary one (although it could have been a big secondary consideration).

We never said it wasn't reasonable to monetize this system. Most of us would be happy to support anet by buying it with real money if the implementation was good and at a reasonable price.As for communication, when they announce it will come IG some months before the actual release, they tell us that we will got build templates for free (source

at 1h4min).But even with this statement, it is fine to monetize templates.

Issue n° 1

is that the feature they delivered is not actual template because you can't save it.So Anet's "Equipment and Build Templates" are in fact gear and build loadout. The only real template in the system is what they call "Build Storage" and is basicly slot to save build chatcodes.

Issue n° 2

is the heavily monetization that come with them (i.e. not reasonable prices).Let's start with what we got for free (basic version) comparing from before the implementation : 1 Equipment loadout per character + 3 Build Storages (6 if you were in-game the first month of the release) and.. that's all.

Let's see then the expansions Anet want to sell us :

• Equipment Template Expansions are character-bound and cost 500 gems each
• Build Template Expansions are character-bound and cost 300 gems each
• Build Storage Expansions are acount-bound and cost 500 gems for a 3-pack

Let's do some Maths next :Disclamer : i will take a low gold to gem conversion rate here with 32 gold = 100 gems (it's higher at the moment)

• For one character it will cost you 500x4 (Equipment Template)+300x3 (Build Template) = 2900 gems = 928 golds = 36.25 euros
• For 9 characters (one by class available) : 9x2900 = 26100 gems = 326.25 euros
• For your account : 8 Build Storage Expansions : 500x8 = 4000 gems = 1280 gold = 50 euros
• So in total 30100 gems = 9632 golds = 376.25 euros

So this is what Anet expect us to buy to fully unlock this feature.

I could also add the issues with legendary and revenant loadout bugs but specific threads are already details them well.

So you can still say the "QoL" is cheap/fine even if it cost more than twelve the price of the entire game (30 euros), but whatever, i won't bother to answer on this matter anymore.

That's my point there. It is reasonable to expect to monetize the system somewhat because presumably the devs had to spend resources in terms of time and money to develop their own template system. The extent to which you may find the monetization to be ok is both subjective and speculative, since we can't know exactly how much work was put into this system internally, from an external point of view. There's no point in discussing this because of this subjectivity and need to speculate.

@"IndigoSundown.5419" said:This is an attempt to steer the conversation away from build templates and back to meters.

There is an axiom in industrial psychology that goes, "The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior." However, this approach is the best predictor when the past and future situations are identical. Accuracy tends to fall off as the situations differ.

So, how are the "templates" and a potential ANet meter similar and how are they different.

Different

• A meter is not a loadout. One is a compiler of information and the other is a database.
• A meter is less likely to be able to be part and parceled into components. (notice, though, I said "less likely))

Similar

• Acceptable-to-ANet versions of both features were produced by the same third party.
• Neither was deemed essential nor was either a core feature of the game. This means that both are optional features that players can do without.
• Both could be monetized.
• As monetized features, both would target the same player demographic.

The above is a simplification for illustration. So, what this means is that with regard to the monetization of a hypothetical ANet meter, while we cannot say with certainty that such a feature would come with a price tag, we certainly can't rule it out. This means that both sides of the discussion, which are appealing to reasoned arguments to support their position, are in fact basing their position on belief. That's all well and good, but stating that a position is based on logic and reason, when in fact it is not, is not ... accurate.

Yes, both can be monetized and there is no question on that. But claiming with certainty that the primary reason for making templates was monetization may be wrong, since we know nothing with certainty of their internal reasoning but can only make judgements from an external position.

I agree that a dps meter could have potentially less monetized features. I struggle to come up with ideas on how to monetize this greatly, but I'm sure there are ways if you think about it hard enough. Personally I don't think it would be monetized to a great extent since this is difficult to do. But I don't think they should waste any dev resources on a feature that a third party plugin already provides effectively, should people require it.

[maddoctor.2738]

@"Atomos.7593" said:That's my point there. It is reasonable to expect to monetize the system somewhat because presumably the devs had to spend resources in terms of time and money to develop their own template system. The extent to which you may find the monetization to be ok is both subjective and speculative, since we can't know exactly how much work was put into this system internally, from an external point of view. There's no point in discussing this because of this subjectivity and need to speculate.

Let me get this straight, it's reasonable to monetize the system "Because they spent time and money on it" all while they give us the living world episodes for free. And even if you don't get them free, they are much cheaper to unlock than the template system.

Templates for one character:

For one character it will cost you 500x4 (Equipment Template)+300x3 (Build Template) = 2900 gems = 928 golds = 36.25 eurosSeason 2 complete unlock: 1280 gemsSeason 3 complete unlock: 960 gemsSeason 4 complete unlock: 960 gemsIt costs 2900 gems to unlock all features on one character. It costs 3200 gems to unlock all season episodes (using the bundles).

I guess developing this template system required way more effort than ALL the living world episodes released so far. What kind of an argument is that?

[Atomos.7593]

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@"Atomos.7593" said:That's my point there. It is reasonable to expect to monetize the system somewhat because presumably the devs had to spend resources in terms of time and money to develop their own template system. The extent to which you may find the monetization to be ok is both subjective and speculative, since we can't know exactly how much work was put into this system internally, from an external point of view. There's no point in discussing this because of this subjectivity and need to speculate.

Let me get this straight, it's reasonable to monetize the system "Because they spent time and money on it" all while they give us the living world episodes for free. And even if you don't get them free, they are much cheaper to unlock than the template system.

Templates for one character:

For one character it will cost you 500x4 (Equipment Template)+300x3 (Build Template) = 2900 gems = 928 golds = 36.25 eurosSeason 2 complete unlock: 1280 gemsSeason 3 complete unlock: 960 gemsSeason 4 complete unlock: 960 gemsIt costs 2900 gems to unlock all features on one character. It costs 3200 gems to unlock all season episodes (using the bundles).

I guess developing this template system required way more effort than ALL the living world episodes released so far. What kind of an argument is that?

First of all you only get each of the living world episodes free when you log in during the free give away period, otherwise you need to buy them with gems. Secondly you can get templates for free in exactly the same way as living world episodes later by converting gold earned in game to gems to spend on templates, so you can still get it for free if you don't want to spend any money at all.

Thirdly I have no idea what you are even talking about here with a supposed argument that I was presenting. There was no argument at all in what I said. I simply stated that "It is reasonable to expect to monetize the system somewhat because presumably the devs had to spend resources in terms of time and money to develop their own template system." This means that the monetization could have been even a tiny amount like a single one-off purchase (much less than what it is now), but I would at least expect something like this since there was definitely at least some dev time and money spent developing the system.

You seem to be wanting an argument where there was none attempted to be made. If you have a problem with the way it is currently monetized, like I mentioned several times before in this thread I don't care and have not been disagreeing with you. Is that clear enough for you now?

[maddoctor.2738]

@"Atomos.7593" said:Thirdly I have no idea what you are even talking about here with a supposed argument that I was presenting. There was no argument at all in what I said. I simply stated that "It is reasonable to expect to monetize the system somewhat because presumably the devs had to spend resources in terms of time and money to develop their own template system."

There, I put your "argument" in bold so you can't miss it. You made a claim that it is reasonable to monetize a system because the developers spent resources on it. I countered your claim on the basis that we get other parts (that presumably have way more resources assigned to them) either cheaper, or even free. So I'm not accepting your argument that because the developers spent time on something, it should be monetized.

Did we pay for the specialization update? No.Did we pay for the wardrobe update? No.Did we pay for the megaserver update? No.Did we pay for world linking in WVW? No.Have we ever paid anything for ANY Fractal? No.Did we pay for the new healing skills added to the game? No.Did we pay for the new grandmaster traits added to the game? No.Did we pay to get gliding in Central Tyria? No.Did we pay to get mounts in Central Tyria? No.Have we ever paid for any festival so far? No.

Do I accept your argument that because the developer spent resources on something it needs to be monetized? No.Is that clear enough for you now?

[Atomos.7593]

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@"Atomos.7593" said:Thirdly I have no idea what you are even talking about here with a supposed argument that I was presenting. There was no argument at all in what I said. I simply stated that "

It is reasonable to expect to monetize the system somewhat because presumably the devs had to spend resources in terms of time and money to develop their own template system.

"

There, I put your "argument" in bold so you can't miss it. You made a claim that it is reasonable to monetize a system because the developers spent resources on it. I countered your claim on the basis that we get other parts (that presumably have way more resources assigned to them) either cheaper, or even free. So I'm not accepting your argument that because the developers spent time on something, it should be monetized.

Did we pay for the specialization update? No.Did we pay for the wardrobe update? No.Did we pay for the megaserver update? No.Did we pay for world linking in WVW? No.Have we ever paid anything for ANY Fractal? No.Did we pay for the new healing skills added to the game? No.Did we pay for the new grandmaster traits added to the game? No.Did we pay to get gliding in Central Tyria? No.Did we pay to get mounts in Central Tyria? No.Have we ever paid for any festival so far? No.

Do I accept your argument that because the developer spent resources on something it needs to be monetized? No.Is that clear enough for you now?

What are you even rambling on about? I only stated that I find it reasonable to expect a cost when a service costs something to be developed. Sure it's nice if they give things away for free, but from my experience in life people don't generally give things that cost time and money to develop away for free all the time...

You seem to be wanting everything for free. Sorry but that's not how life works, and is not something I would expect. Note that I said "I would expect". When I say things, I am only speaking for myself and my expectations based on my experience. You might have some other misguided experience in life. Everyone's expectations may differ based on their own personal experiences.

Is that clear enough for you now?

[maddoctor.2738]

@"Atomos.7593" said:What are you even rambling on about? I only stated that I find it reasonable to expect a cost when a service costs something to be developed.

And I find it unreasonable for all the reasons posted above. It would've been a "reasonable expectation" if they did not give all those other things for free first. The only reason they chose to monetize the template system was greed, pure and simple. This "new direction" of Arenanet to over monetize and be greedy is exactly why we don't want an official DPS meter. If they ever show that they move away from greed and go back to being reasonable, we can talk about adding an official dps meter again.

[Atomos.7593]

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@"Atomos.7593" said:What are you even rambling on about? I only stated that I find it reasonable to expect a cost when a service costs something to be developed.

And I find it unreasonable for all the reasons posted above. It would've been a "reasonable expectation" if they did not give all those other things for free first. The only reason they chose to monetize the template system was greed, pure and simple. This "new direction" of Arenanet to over monetize and be greedy is exactly why we don't want an official DPS meter. If they ever show that they move away from greed and go back to being reasonable, we can talk about adding an official dps meter again.

Good for you if you find it unreasonable. I never even suggested that it is not right to find it unreasonable. The rest of your post is meaningless to me. If you don't want a dps meter because you think it will be monetized, then again good for you.

If you had actually read my posts here, I have stated many times that I don't want a dps meter built-in anyway, because I think that would be a waste of dev resources when there is a perfectly functioning free dps meter plugin already available to people that want to check their dps.

[Joe Schmoe.6981]

Should they add a DPS meter?

A slight lean towards "no". Personally, I like them. It's cool as hell analyzing all the stats, painting a big picture of a run. Problem is, like some others have said, is it often gets abused by short-sighted people who only look at the DPS numbers, and not all the other stats that factor in that explains why the DPS is what it is, or the underlying reason why a wipe occurred.

! I recall a few examples like this back when I played World of Warcraft ~5 years ago. Whenever we wiped to a boss, it was often the one(s) who did the most DPS on the boss that got chewed out/kicked, especially if they were doing way more DPS than everyone else, as they were the ones most likely to not be following mechanics. But examples like that are very few & far between.

! And some other players - myself included - could tell how good another player is by looking at the number of spell interrupts he did throughout the run, because that stat shows you how much awareness he has.

For this reason, I'd gladly go without this feature if it means that it would give players one less reason to be douches.

Side note: 99% of my experiences with DPS meters comes from an addon called Recount, which is what I used back when I played WoW. I tried ArcDPS, but it was crashing my game, so I stopped using it, so I don't know that much about it.