Should they add a DPS meter? - [Merged]

[Laila Lightness.8742]

@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 :)

[TeeDavido.8729]

@Laila Lightness.8742 said:If we nerf raids we wont need a meter ever :)

I'm starting training this week and I can't wait, but from what I've heard raids are not that difficult compared to other MMOs so I'm not sure if that would be a good idea.

[Laila Lightness.8742]

@TeeDavido.8729 said:

@Laila Lightness.8742 said:If we nerf raids we wont need a meter ever :)

I'm starting training this week and I can't wait, but from what I've heard raids are not that difficult compared to other MMOs so I'm not sure if that would be a good idea.

I do raid and use gfn aswell i dont need a addon but arc is more than dps it also show who failed mechs, who healed boon uptime if support provides enough boons and such info

[TeeDavido.8729]

@Laila Lightness.8742 said:I do raid and use gfn aswell i dont need a addon but arc is more than dps it also show who failed mechs, who healed boon uptime if support provides enough boons and such info

So it technically would lead to more toxicity than a simple built in DPS meter huh. Well I should do fine without a dps meter as well, but as a new raider I feel like it would definitely help me improve faster.

[Atomos.7593]

@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 :/

Wow that sounds terrible. I don't think that kind of response was warranted. It's indeed an interesting feature that you are requesting, never thought it may be needed.

@maddoctor.2738 said:Welcome to the forums. As you noticed there are a lot of posters that only read the topic title and don't bother to read the actual topic.

Haha yeah. This topic is definitely different, and presents an interesting situation and dilemma.

[Carcharoth Lucian.1378]

@Atomos.7593 said:

@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 i.e. (and with chatcodes players can completely bypass it, so anet ones slots are meaningless). They could also made the unlocks account-wise (even with a higher price), so it could be reroll friendly like the rest of the game... (that's just few examples)

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

Yes I agree they are a business and will act as such. Which is why it doesn't make much financial sense to spend development time in disallowing a plugin, unless it affects gameplay detrimentally or causes some other issue that the devs may think worthwhile addressing.

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).

It hasn't proven anything wrong, because there are many reasons other than simply making money to disallow a plugin. I don't know anything about this arcdps developer and their relation with anet. I don't think the arcdps developer is perfect though, and there may be accidental mistakes made by the plugin developer or changes in opinion from anet.

Well i gave some examples.. Sure it can be always be the case hypothetically, but they would have stated it explicitly if that was the case. And that's not just my random opinion on the matter, we have precedents like the BGDM case.

I am using templates for all of my characters. I'm not saying the system couldn't be improved, but the way it is right now I have found it to be perfectly functional for all of my needs.Because it is okay... with a casual approach to it. If you need anything more, though, it fails due to being way too limited in scope. 6 loadout slots per character and 18 template slots accountwide are nowhere close to being enough for anyone in serious need of a template system. And to even get that much you need to pay a ton of money first.Same with gear loadout - the system doesn't allow for using gear from inventory, you can use only gear from loadout slots. As such, 6 slots (4 of them paid) are, again, nowhere close to being enough. I mean, they are nice if you treat them as an inventory expansion, but it's an extremely limiting design choice if you consider their usefulness for a

template

system. And it even makes legendaries, with their stat-switching capability, to be a

worse

choice for that system than ascended gear. And a bit more annoying to use than they were before the system, even if you weren't using Arc Templates.If you

do

compare it with Arc Templates, that, coupled with legendary gear allowed you an easy access to practically unrestricted freedom of build choices, instead of just 2 (or up to 6 at best, if you decided to pay)...(... i could go on and non about the whole template system debacle, but let's just stop there, It's not a template system thread after all)

Of course it's okay with a casual approach, which is what I am getting at. Just because it's not useful for you doesn't mean it's not useful. I find it very useful, especially since I don't have to use a plugin to have this feature now. Again, you are complaining about how it's currently implemented, which is not what the topic of this thread is about. I agree, let's not talk about how to improve templates because it's not the purpose of the original post.

We also don't say it's not usefull for some people , we said it's ok/nice for those who don't really need a template system (like adding some inventory slots). Anet just seems to miss the target audience for this feature.

Who said I don't really need a template system? Your so called target audience seems to be dictated by you and not the actual devs at anet.

Sure, and like i said i'm happy for you that you like it. But thing is you don't seem to have many build in the first place. It is weird for me to have these kind of limitations (numbers).

@Carcharoth Lucian.1378 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Carcharoth Lucian.1378 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:Just going to add that I personally would rather see a feature that was heavily monetized added to the game, rather than not see any such feature added to the game at all. Of course, it would be better if it was not monetized though. The devs got to eat too.Personally, i'd rather not have seen the current template system added. It is mostly useless for me, costs way too much, and i can no longer use Arc templates (which were vastly superior). The whole system implementation, from my point of view, was a net loss. It wasn't positive, or even neutral at all.Considering that experience, i'd rather they stay well away from dps meters. I don't have any belief left that they'd make anything good out of it.

That sounds like a problem that you have had with the implementation, which is a separate issue.It's not a separate issue. It's very much a core of the problem. A badly implemented system that costs us an already well-working solution (even if that solution was a third-party implementation, not an ingame system) is a straight out loss - something

worse

than not having that system implemented at all. And having that loss be heavily overmonetized is just adding insult to the injury.

Personally I haven't encountered any problems yet with the way the templates currently work.Then you probably didn't have a need for a template system in the first place. It's not that this system has problems (it does have them, but let's leave it for another discussion). It's that it is way too limited to be of serious use for someone that truly needs it. Yes, even fully unlocked.And those limitations are a direct consequence of this system being designed primarily for monetization, not for QoL.

If the devs can make a functional dps meter with basic features I would be satisfied. I wouldn't need any advanced or special features.Remember, that them implementing an ingame dps meter would mean an end to ArcDPS development. As such, implementing a solution that would offer us less than Arc would be a loss. Especially if we'd need to pay for it.You might not need anything more than that basic functionality, but for many players that are actively using Arc, that basic functionality is one of its

least

important functions.

At this point i do not believe they could implement something that would even equal Arc, and i do not have faith in that system not getting monetized. As such, i'd rather they left things as they are.

I would rather not use any plugins, and I don't use them at the moment since I don't raid. I don't see any reason why they couldn't allow the plugin to also be used instead if some people find it better.

I am using templates for all of my characters. I'm not saying the system couldn't be improved, but the way it is right now I have found it to be perfectly functional for all of my needs.

As @Astralporing.1957 said, the "template" system (loadout is the right word) is ok for people that barely need it like if you don't use many builds (1 or 2 per character), don't have many characters, don't use legendary gears outside loadouts (i.e. not swapping with inventory or others char), don't really use revenant (build loadout still bugged as hell after one year)...That's a bit restrictive imo.And if you didn't know/use Arc templates before Anet release the current version, i totally understand that you like it (that's nice for you :) ). But for those who did, anet version is litteraly WORSE than nothing (i.e. leg and revenant issues).Thing is it was quite obvious at release that the loadout system was crippled on purpose to promote monetization (triple layers of it) first and quality of life after (Anet usually don't do that but here it is).

I don't know who exactly these raiders consider to be "casual" or don't need the template system. I use the template system a lot when switching builds between PvE and WvW (for example between CC and healing), so it's definitely useful for me and the purposes I require.

Well maybe not casual, but how many builds (traits +gears) do you use with yours characters ?

I use different gear, weapons and traits for builds in all 5 of my level 80 characters.

See, you don't even have all the 9 class.I will take my case as example (and i'm not even the more annoyed by this). I played actively endgame pve content (raid+cms fract) and wvw, and as a multi-class players i have (and i need) more than 6 gears by class, for the builds (traits + skills) side some class have more than 20 builds... and that's not huge, i know ppl that have many more...So yes, for me (and for some others), this system is a loss compared to arctemplates.

So the solution for us is to make others characters with the same class (i have 23 char in total right now), as we can't fully use anet system.

As side note (on monetization), if you wish to unlock all "anet templates" available just for 9 characters (1 by class), it will just cost you more than 200 euros worth of gems.. I guess it fine right?

Nobody said that the current implementation was better than the plugin ;) . I highly doubt that it was crippled on purpose for monetization because it would require extra effort to actually do so. I have seen in other games, for instance,

where plugins were disabled because they contained aspects that the devs considered detrimental

to gameplay.

And it is not the case here, Anet was totally fine with arctemplates for

years

(as i said the dev are in contact with anet) before releasing their own poor version (imo) and demand deltaconnected to stop it.

So why couldn't Anet change their policy or stance at any point in time on plugins? Past behaviour is not necessarily indicative of future behaviour.

It would probably help a little if

you could think outside the box

, instead of coming to the conclusion that they must only be out for money.

And i could tell you exactly the same :)

Why would they ask arc templates to be disabled otherwise?

I just gave you a reason in the previous sentence in the post that you quoted. Not my problem if you for some reason refuse to accept it as a possibility.

Well you don't really give a reason, you just said maybe there is another explanation but you don't really point it (we can do a lot with some maybe).But you are right, this is not my problem if for some reason you refuse to accept monetization as a possibility :p (don't take it too seriously^^)

[kharmin.7683]

@Carcharoth Lucian.1378 said:

See, you don't even have all the 9 class.I will take my case as example (and i'm not even the more annoyed by this). I played actively endgame pve content (raid+cms fract) and wvw, and as a multi-class players i have (and i need) more than 6 gears by class, for the builds (traits + skills) side some class have more than 20 builds... and that's not huge, i know ppl that have many more...So yes, for me (and for some others), this system is a loss compared to arctemplates.

When compared, sure it can be considered a loss but the system can still be used by someone like yourself with many builds. You can always copy/paste templates from a text file and store hundreds of builds. IIRC, that was how GW1 handled it? No, it's not as easy as with ARC, but it is possible and not too terrible of a burden.

[Atomos.7593]

@Carcharoth Lucian.1378 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@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 i.e. (and with chatcodes players can completely bypass it, so anet ones slots are meaningless). They could also made the unlocks account-wise (even with a higher price), so it could be reroll friendly like the rest of the game... (that's just few examples)

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

Yes I agree they are a business and will act as such. Which is why it doesn't make much financial sense to spend development time in disallowing a plugin, unless it affects gameplay detrimentally or causes some other issue that the devs may think worthwhile addressing.

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).

It hasn't proven anything wrong, because there are many reasons other than simply making money to disallow a plugin. I don't know anything about this arcdps developer and their relation with anet. I don't think the arcdps developer is perfect though, and there may be accidental mistakes made by the plugin developer or changes in opinion from anet.

Well i gave some examples.. Sure it can be always be the case hypothetically, but they would have stated it explicitly if that was the case. And that's not just my random opinion on the matter, we have precedents like the BGDM case.

Why would they have any need to state it explicitly? You realize that this is a game that they own and can control, right?

I am using templates for all of my characters. I'm not saying the system couldn't be improved, but the way it is right now I have found it to be perfectly functional for all of my needs.Because it is okay... with a casual approach to it. If you need anything more, though, it fails due to being way too limited in scope. 6 loadout slots per character and 18 template slots accountwide are nowhere close to being enough for anyone in serious need of a template system. And to even get that much you need to pay a ton of money first.Same with gear loadout - the system doesn't allow for using gear from inventory, you can use only gear from loadout slots. As such, 6 slots (4 of them paid) are, again, nowhere close to being enough. I mean, they are nice if you treat them as an inventory expansion, but it's an extremely limiting design choice if you consider their usefulness for a

template

system. And it even makes legendaries, with their stat-switching capability, to be a

worse

choice for that system than ascended gear. And a bit more annoying to use than they were before the system, even if you weren't using Arc Templates.If you

do

compare it with Arc Templates, that, coupled with legendary gear allowed you an easy access to practically unrestricted freedom of build choices, instead of just 2 (or up to 6 at best, if you decided to pay)...(... i could go on and non about the whole template system debacle, but let's just stop there, It's not a template system thread after all)

Of course it's okay with a casual approach, which is what I am getting at. Just because it's not useful for you doesn't mean it's not useful. I find it very useful, especially since I don't have to use a plugin to have this feature now. Again, you are complaining about how it's currently implemented, which is not what the topic of this thread is about. I agree, let's not talk about how to improve templates because it's not the purpose of the original post.

We also don't say it's not usefull for some people , we said it's ok/nice for those who don't really need a template system (like adding some inventory slots). Anet just seems to miss the target audience for this feature.

Who said I don't really need a template system? Your so called target audience seems to be dictated by you and not the actual devs at anet.

Sure, and like i said i'm happy for you that you like it. But thing is you don't seems to have many builds in the first place. It is weird for me to have these kind of limitations (numbers).

Thanks, that means a lot. I have no idea how many builds you must need for this to be a problem. I find that I have more than enough builds to cover all situations.

@Carcharoth Lucian.1378 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Carcharoth Lucian.1378 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:Just going to add that I personally would rather see a feature that was heavily monetized added to the game, rather than not see any such feature added to the game at all. Of course, it would be better if it was not monetized though. The devs got to eat too.Personally, i'd rather not have seen the current template system added. It is mostly useless for me, costs way too much, and i can no longer use Arc templates (which were vastly superior). The whole system implementation, from my point of view, was a net loss. It wasn't positive, or even neutral at all.Considering that experience, i'd rather they stay well away from dps meters. I don't have any belief left that they'd make anything good out of it.

That sounds like a problem that you have had with the implementation, which is a separate issue.It's not a separate issue. It's very much a core of the problem. A badly implemented system that costs us an already well-working solution (even if that solution was a third-party implementation, not an ingame system) is a straight out loss - something

worse

than not having that system implemented at all. And having that loss be heavily overmonetized is just adding insult to the injury.

Personally I haven't encountered any problems yet with the way the templates currently work.Then you probably didn't have a need for a template system in the first place. It's not that this system has problems (it does have them, but let's leave it for another discussion). It's that it is way too limited to be of serious use for someone that truly needs it. Yes, even fully unlocked.And those limitations are a direct consequence of this system being designed primarily for monetization, not for QoL.

If the devs can make a functional dps meter with basic features I would be satisfied. I wouldn't need any advanced or special features.Remember, that them implementing an ingame dps meter would mean an end to ArcDPS development. As such, implementing a solution that would offer us less than Arc would be a loss. Especially if we'd need to pay for it.You might not need anything more than that basic functionality, but for many players that are actively using Arc, that basic functionality is one of its

least

important functions.

At this point i do not believe they could implement something that would even equal Arc, and i do not have faith in that system not getting monetized. As such, i'd rather they left things as they are.

I would rather not use any plugins, and I don't use them at the moment since I don't raid. I don't see any reason why they couldn't allow the plugin to also be used instead if some people find it better.

I am using templates for all of my characters. I'm not saying the system couldn't be improved, but the way it is right now I have found it to be perfectly functional for all of my needs.

As @Astralporing.1957 said, the "template" system (loadout is the right word) is ok for people that barely need it like if you don't use many builds (1 or 2 per character), don't have many characters, don't use legendary gears outside loadouts (i.e. not swapping with inventory or others char), don't really use revenant (build loadout still bugged as hell after one year)...That's a bit restrictive imo.And if you didn't know/use Arc templates before Anet release the current version, i totally understand that you like it (that's nice for you :) ). But for those who did, anet version is litteraly WORSE than nothing (i.e. leg and revenant issues).Thing is it was quite obvious at release that the loadout system was crippled on purpose to promote monetization (triple layers of it) first and quality of life after (Anet usually don't do that but here it is).

I don't know who exactly these raiders consider to be "casual" or don't need the template system. I use the template system a lot when switching builds between PvE and WvW (for example between CC and healing), so it's definitely useful for me and the purposes I require.

Well maybe not casual, but how many builds (traits +gears) do you use with yours characters ?

I use different gear, weapons and traits for builds in all 5 of my level 80 characters.

See, you don't even have all the 9 class.I will take my case as example (and i'm not even the more annoyed by this). I played actively endgame pve content (raid+cms fract) and wvw, and as a multi-class players i have (and i need) more than 6 gears by class, for the builds (traits + skills) side some class have more than 20 builds... and that's not huge, i know ppl that have many more...So yes, for me (and for some others), this system is a loss compared to arctemplates.

So the solution for us is to make others characters with the same class (i have 23 char in total right now), as we can't fully use anet system.

As side note (on monetization), if you wish to unlock all "anet templates" available just for 9 characters (1 by class), it will just cost you more than 200 euros worth of gems.. I guess it fine right?

How does not having 9 classes mean I don't use many builds? I highly doubt that you can play all your 9 classes and hundreds of builds at a high level frequently so I have no idea what you even use them for lol.

Nobody said that the current implementation was better than the plugin ;) . I highly doubt that it was crippled on purpose for monetization because it would require extra effort to actually do so. I have seen in other games, for instance,

where plugins were disabled because they contained aspects that the devs considered detrimental

to gameplay.

And it is not the case here, Anet was totally fine with arctemplates for

years

(as i said the dev are in contact with anet) before releasing their own poor version (imo) and demand deltaconnected to stop it.

So why couldn't Anet change their policy or stance at any point in time on plugins? Past behaviour is not necessarily indicative of future behaviour.

It would probably help a little if

you could think outside the box

, instead of coming to the conclusion that they must only be out for money.

And i could tell you exactly the same :)

Why would they ask arc templates to be disabled otherwise?

I just gave you a reason in the previous sentence in the post that you quoted. Not my problem if you for some reason refuse to accept it as a possibility.

Well you don't really give a reason, you just said maybe there is another explanation but you don't really point it (we can do a lot with some maybe).But you are right, this is not my problem if for some reason you refuse to accept monetization as a possibility :p (don't take it too seriously^^)

My point was that there are other possible explanations. I don't think it was too hard to understand. Monetization could be a possibility, just like the other things could too...

[Carcharoth Lucian.1378]

@kharmin.7683 said:

@Carcharoth Lucian.1378 said:

See, you don't even have all the 9 class.I will take my case as example (and i'm not even the more annoyed by this). I played actively endgame pve content (raid+cms fract) and wvw, and as a multi-class players i have (and i need) more than 6 gears by class, for the builds (traits + skills) side some class have more than 20 builds... and that's not huge, i know ppl that have many more...So yes, for me (and for some others), this system is a loss compared to arctemplates.

When compared, sure it can be considered a loss but the system can still be used by someone like yourself with many builds. You can always copy/paste templates from a text file and store hundreds of builds. IIRC, that was how GW1 handled it? No, it's not as easy as with ARC, but it is possible and not too terrible of a burden.

Don't worry, like many others i bypass it with chatcodes (only works for builds though). I use the BuildPad which is really nice (and ok by anet standard as it just use the copy/paste fonction), but that's still a shame we need to bypass Anet version. Equipment loadouts are more an issue here, but well i just duplicate class with new character... And no, it is not exactly the same as gw1 in which templates was integrated into the game/UI but stored client-side.

@Atomos.7593 said:How does not having 9 classes mean I don't use many builds? I highly doubt that you can play all your 9 classes and hundreds of builds at a high level frequently so I have no idea what you even use them for lol.

And still, i actively played most of my characters, i will just take the example of the guardian class to illustrate :

• [Raid/Fotm] Heal FireBrand
• [Raid/Fotm] Power QuickBrand (Condi QuickBrand is also a thing)
• [Raid/Fotm] Power DH (2 gears depending if signet share is needed or not)
• [Raid/Fotm] Condi FireBrand
• [WvW_zerg] Heal FireBrand (minestrel)
• [WvW_zerg] Power DH/core guard
• [WvW_zerg] Condi (Burn) DH/core guard
• [WvW_roaming] Power Medit DHAnd you can add severals variants of traits/skills depending on situation..

[Astralporing.1957]

@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.Of course they had a good reason. They wanted to eliminate a competing product. I mean, it's not so easy to offer a heavily monetized product, when you need to compete with something that is both free, and of a much higher quality.

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.How is it not worth financially to eliminate competition?

If they wanted to disallow a dps meter, they could easily have done that for the plugin by now.Oh, i never said that they want to eliminate Arc. I said, that if they were to develop their own version, they would most likely again act to remove competition. Especially if they were to monetize it (which is extremely likely).

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.Yet that's exactly what they did with Arc Templates.

Of course it's okay with a casual approach, which is what I am getting at. Just because it's not useful for you doesn't mean it's not useful.The main problem is that the main target group for build templates is

not

the casual players. It;s the hardcore crowd - those players that utilize a lot of builds and would very much like to have an easy way to manage those. And yet, Anet's "template" system is good for everyone

except

that group.Yes, it gives nice utility to casual players. A majority of whose don't have more than one build anyway, so they would not be using the system anyway.

Again, you are complaining about how it's currently implemented, which is not what the topic of this thread is about.If we're talking about the potential implementation of a feature, then things like how likely that feature is to be implemented well (not very), and whether implementing it might cause us to lose some other (very good) method of accessing said feature we already have (even if it's third-party) is very much relevant to the discussion.

[sewenewes.4176]

The real problem isn't the lack or addition of a DPS meter. Never has been. People who are interested in and capable of improving their performance have been doing it since day one of the game even before unoffical addons existed. If Arenanet adds an official meter the players making use of it will be the same ones that make use of the current unofficial means. What it will not do is raise the performance level of the rest of the playerbase which is what many seem to hope for.

The reality of it is that there are many players, the majority even, who either do not care about how well they perform or are unable to improve their performance due to limitations outside of their control. Arenanet implementing an official tool that shows them how badly they perform will not make them play better. It will make them quit the game because no one wants to spend their leisure time getting repeatedly told they are bad. The company already tried to stongarm their playerbase into collectively improving with Heart of the Thorns which famously led to a huge player exodus.

So what is the real problem? The massive disparity between the highest and lowest performers. That is something that can only be solved by the developers. People are desperate for meters and inspection and instanced world bosses because those on the higher end of the curve are understandably frustrated by having to play together with those on the lower end of the curve and getting punished for it through increased failure rates and less rewards while those on the lower end are frustrated by the constant rejection and the seemingly impossible to pass difficulty hurdle.

Both sides are justified in their displeasure but the only way this can be solved is by rehauling, to a certain degree even gutting, the gearing and talent system so that all options will result in similar performance. The very skilled will still be rewarded by better performance but instead of performing 150% better, they will perform lets say only 20% better. The unskilled will stop being such a massive drag (numerically) in group content. The average won't see much change in their day to day gaming but will notice and appreciate group content getting tackled succesfully more often. There wouldn't be a constant outcry for official meters because joining group activities wouldn't be such a massive gamble with a high chance of seeing no return for your time investment.

The other thing Arenanet can do (and has done before) is to continously decrease the difficulty across the board so that even those of low skill can succeed but it's driving away the highly skilled and even some of the average players.

[Atomos.7593]

@Carcharoth Lucian.1378 said:

@kharmin.7683 said:

@Carcharoth Lucian.1378 said:

See, you don't even have all the 9 class.I will take my case as example (and i'm not even the more annoyed by this). I played actively endgame pve content (raid+cms fract) and wvw, and as a multi-class players i have (and i need) more than 6 gears by class, for the builds (traits + skills) side some class have more than 20 builds... and that's not huge, i know ppl that have many more...So yes, for me (and for some others), this system is a loss compared to arctemplates.

When compared, sure it can be considered a loss but the system can still be used by someone like yourself with many builds. You can always copy/paste templates from a text file and store hundreds of builds. IIRC, that was how GW1 handled it? No, it's not as easy as with ARC, but it is possible and not too terrible of a burden.

Don't worry, like many others i bypass it with chatcodes (only works for builds though). I use the BuildPad which is really nice (and ok by anet standard as it just use the copy/paste fonction), but that's still a shame we need to bypass Anet version. Equipment loadouts are more an issue here, but well i just duplicate class with new character... And no, it is not exactly the same as gw1 in which templates was integrated into the game/UI but stored client-side.

So it's fine, there's no need for Anet to build special functionality for you. I don't think built-in templates or a dps meter are needed in the game, but not for the reasons you seem to think. Why should they bother making complex systems when plugins or other workarounds already fulfil your niche needs?

@Atomos.7593 said:How does not having 9 classes mean I don't use many builds? I highly doubt that you can play all your 9 classes and hundreds of builds at a high level frequently so I have no idea what you even use them for lol.

And still, i actively played most of my characters, i will just take the example of the guardian class to illustrate :

• [Raid/Fotm] Heal FireBrand
• [Raid/Fotm] Power QuickBrand (Condi QuickBrand is also a thing)
• [Raid/Fotm] Power DH (2 gears depending if signet share is needed or not)
• [Raid/Fotm] Condi FireBrand
• [WvW_zerg] Heal FireBrand (minestrel)
• [WvW_zerg] Power DH/core guard
• [WvW_zerg] Condi (Burn) DH/core guard
• [WvW_roaming] Power Medit DHAnd you can add severals variants of traits/skills depending on situation..

Actively playing does not mean you are good at playing the class. Like I said I'm sure you can trim your build requirements down to much, much less if you put some thought into them. You don't need to min/max every tiny bit of a build on every character you have to be successful in any content in this game. Player skill is much more important than builds here.

@Astralporing.1957 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.Of course they had a good reason. They wanted to eliminate a competing product. I mean, it's not so easy to offer a heavily monetized product, when you need to compete with something that is both free, and of a much higher quality.

Like I said before, think outside the box. There are other good reasons to besides eliminating a so called competing product. Plugins can be disallowed for many reasons by devs in games, especially if they find them detrimental to gameplay or the game for some reason.

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.How is it not worth financially to eliminate competition?

Please share your business insights on how many people would be willing to go out and buy templates from Anet for a minute niche need that will only affect some players. I don't claim to falsely think that it would be worth spending dev resources to eliminate competition in order to possibly gain some small amount of extra revenue.

If they wanted to disallow a dps meter, they could easily have done that for the plugin by now.Oh, i never said that they want to eliminate Arc. I said, that if they were to develop their own version, they would most likely again act to remove competition. Especially if they were to monetize it (which is extremely likely).

I'm not suggesting they would eliminate Arc or not. I'm saying they may not do it for purely monetary reasons.

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.Yet that's exactly what they did with Arc Templates.

Again think outside the box, and read what I said above. There are reasons to remove plugins besides monetization only.

Of course it's okay with a casual approach, which is what I am getting at. Just because it's not useful for you doesn't mean it's not useful.The main problem is that the main target group for build templates is

not

the casual players. It;s the hardcore crowd - those players that utilize a lot of builds and would very much like to have an easy way to manage those. And yet, Anet's "template" system is good for everyone

except

that group.Yes, it gives nice utility to casual players. A majority of whose don't have more than one build anyway, so they would not be using the system anyway.

Who has said that the main target group for this system was the hardcore crowd? I have many trait, gear and weapon set ups that I use. I still find the system functional, although it could be improved. Maybe a reason for Anet not improving it is that it may not be worthwhile financially to develop it extensively for a niche crowd's needs.

Again, you are complaining about how it's currently implemented, which is not what the topic of this thread is about.If we're talking about the potential implementation of a feature, then things like how likely that feature is to be implemented well (not very), and whether implementing it might cause us to lose some other (very good) method of accessing said feature we already have (even if it's third-party) is very much relevant to the discussion.

Again, there are reasons to remove a plugin besides purely monetization based ones. Your speculations that they only did it for monetization and will do it again for monetization are not well justified and seem resentful.

[Carcharoth Lucian.1378]

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Carcharoth Lucian.1378 said:

@kharmin.7683 said:

@Carcharoth Lucian.1378 said:

See, you don't even have all the 9 class.I will take my case as example (and i'm not even the more annoyed by this). I played actively endgame pve content (raid+cms fract) and wvw, and as a multi-class players i have (and i need) more than 6 gears by class, for the builds (traits + skills) side some class have more than 20 builds... and that's not huge, i know ppl that have many more...So yes, for me (and for some others), this system is a loss compared to arctemplates.

When compared, sure it can be considered a loss but the system can still be used by someone like yourself with many builds. You can always copy/paste templates from a text file and store hundreds of builds. IIRC, that was how GW1 handled it? No, it's not as easy as with ARC, but it is possible and not too terrible of a burden.

Don't worry, like many others i bypass it with chatcodes (only works for builds though). I use the BuildPad which is really nice (and ok by anet standard as it just use the copy/paste fonction), but that's still a shame we need to bypass Anet version. Equipment loadouts are more an issue here, but well i just duplicate class with new character... And no, it is not exactly the same as gw1 in which templates was integrated into the game/UI but stored client-side.

So it's fine, there's no need for Anet to build special functionality for you. I don't think built-in templates or a dps meter are needed in the game, but not for the reasons you seem to think. Why should they bother making complex systems when plugins or other workarounds already fulfil your niche needs?

That's still a shame that we need to use EXTERNAL storage for that (and again only work for build, not gear). It would not be an issue if arc template was still a thing. And there are still issues with legendary gear and revenant template after one year. If i had the choice i would came back to the previous version without anet feature (that make game worse for me).

@Atomos.7593 said:How does not having 9 classes mean I don't use many builds? I highly doubt that you can play all your 9 classes and hundreds of builds at a high level frequently so I have no idea what you even use them for lol.

And still, i actively played most of my characters, i will just take the example of the guardian class to illustrate :

• [Raid/Fotm] Heal FireBrand
• [Raid/Fotm] Power QuickBrand (Condi QuickBrand is also a thing)
• [Raid/Fotm] Power DH (2 gears depending if signet share is needed or not)
• [Raid/Fotm] Condi FireBrand
• [WvW_zerg] Heal FireBrand (minestrel)
• [WvW_zerg] Power DH/core guard
• [WvW_zerg] Condi (Burn) DH/core guard
• [WvW_roaming] Power Medit DHAnd you can add severals variants of traits/skills depending on situation..

Actively playing does not mean you are good at playing the class.

I never talk about good or bad, that's totally irrevelant here and that's also condescending to me (i don't if it is on purpose?). I don't know how you play and you don't know about me either...

Like I said I'm sure you can trim your build requirements down to much, much less if you put some thought into them. You don't need to min/max every tiny bit of a build on every character you have to be successful in any content in this game.

Sure, you can afk auto-attack most of the game (ie open world) because it is easy enough to still work but that's your choice to make and not everyone like it. But even that is irrevelant here.I think it is fun to play different builds and class and there is some optimization needed in some part of the game i.e. raid, CM fractals or fighting wvw guild for example. If you don't like it, that's totally fine, but again it doesn't mean it will be for everyone.

Player skill is much more important than builds here.

I agree that skill matters a lot (i never tell otherwise). There is a big skill gap between player in this game. But i fail to see how this is revelant here again. Builds also matters (WITH skills).

[yann.1946]

@"Atomos.7593" they specifically saidones they announced build templates that they would allow arc templates till their own one came out. So it was not that they had a problem with arc templates perse, but with the combo of arc templates and their own.

Money seems like a very reasonable suggestion as to why. Now if you would give a different reason then we can talk about open the mind to better explanations. But uou"ll have to give an example first

[Atomos.7593]

@Carcharoth Lucian.1378 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Carcharoth Lucian.1378 said:

@kharmin.7683 said:

@Carcharoth Lucian.1378 said:

See, you don't even have all the 9 class.I will take my case as example (and i'm not even the more annoyed by this). I played actively endgame pve content (raid+cms fract) and wvw, and as a multi-class players i have (and i need) more than 6 gears by class, for the builds (traits + skills) side some class have more than 20 builds... and that's not huge, i know ppl that have many more...So yes, for me (and for some others), this system is a loss compared to arctemplates.

When compared, sure it can be considered a loss but the system can still be used by someone like yourself with many builds. You can always copy/paste templates from a text file and store hundreds of builds. IIRC, that was how GW1 handled it? No, it's not as easy as with ARC, but it is possible and not too terrible of a burden.

Don't worry, like many others i bypass it with chatcodes (only works for builds though). I use the BuildPad which is really nice (and ok by anet standard as it just use the copy/paste fonction), but that's still a shame we need to bypass Anet version. Equipment loadouts are more an issue here, but well i just duplicate class with new character... And no, it is not exactly the same as gw1 in which templates was integrated into the game/UI but stored client-side.

So it's fine, there's no need for Anet to build special functionality for you. I don't think built-in templates or a dps meter are needed in the game, but not for the reasons you seem to think. Why should they bother making complex systems when plugins or other workarounds already fulfil your niche needs?

That's still a shame that we need to use EXTERNAL storage for that (and again only work for build, not gear). It would not be an issue if arc template was still a thing. And there are still issues with legendary gear and revenant template after one year. If i had the choice i would came back to the previous version without anet feature (that make game

worse

for me).

Yes, it would have been better if they could allow arc templates to also work. But maybe they have a good reason not to allow it.

@Atomos.7593 said:How does not having 9 classes mean I don't use many builds? I highly doubt that you can play all your 9 classes and hundreds of builds at a high level frequently so I have no idea what you even use them for lol.

And still, i actively played most of my characters, i will just take the example of the guardian class to illustrate :

• [Raid/Fotm] Heal FireBrand
• [Raid/Fotm] Power QuickBrand (Condi QuickBrand is also a thing)
• [Raid/Fotm] Power DH (2 gears depending if signet share is needed or not)
• [Raid/Fotm] Condi FireBrand
• [WvW_zerg] Heal FireBrand (minestrel)
• [WvW_zerg] Power DH/core guard
• [WvW_zerg] Condi (Burn) DH/core guard
• [WvW_roaming] Power Medit DHAnd you can add severals variants of traits/skills depending on situation..

Actively playing does not mean you are good at playing the class.

I never talk about good or bad, that's totally irrevelant here and that's also condescending to me (i don't if it is on purpose?). I don't know how you play and you don't know about me either...

Like I said I'm sure you can trim your build requirements down to much, much less if you put some thought into them. You don't need to min/max every tiny bit of a build on every character you have to be successful in any content in this game.

Sure, you can afk auto-attack most of the game (ie open world) because it is easy enough to still work but that's your choice to make and not everyone like it. But even that is irrevelant here.I think it is fun to play different builds and class and there is some optimization needed in some part of the game i.e. raid, CM fractals or fighting wvw guild for example. If you don't like it, that's totally fine, but again it doesn't mean it will be for everyone.

Player skill is much more important than builds here.

I agree that skill matters a lot (i never tell otherwise). There is a big skill gap between player in this game. But i fail to see how this is revelant here again. Builds also matters (WITH skills).

I'm not trying to be condescending at all. Just sharing my experience in the game. Different builds are fun and useful, but I have never needed to use that many builds for any situation at all.

@yann.1946 said:@Atomos.7593 they specifically saidones they announced build templates that they would allow arc templates till their own one came out. So it was not that they had a problem with arc templates perse, but with the combo of arc templates and their own.

Money seems like a very reasonable suggestion as to why. Now if you would give a different reason then we can talk about open the mind to better explanations. But uou"ll have to give an example first

They may have introduced their own system because they felt like the arc templates may be detrimental to gameplay or causing problems with the game.

I don't see how money is more of a reasonable suggestion than what I suggested. Perhaps you should go back and actually read my posts? I have no idea why I would have to give a specific example since there are virtually an infinite amount of reasons if you put some thought into it. I guess if you don't agree, deflection is a good strategy.

But if you need an example, another game that I play had an issue with very fast swapping of builds with plugins that could lead to exploits in skills and traits, which eventually lead to a long cooldown timer for swapping traits to prevent the issue. Just to be clear, I'm not saying this is the exact issue that caused Anet to disallow arc templates. It is just one example of how plugins could cause undesirable behaviour in the minds of devs.

[Noah Salazar.5430]

You do realise those that play to be the best also play to have fun?

@yann.1946way to be best, and ability to clear harder content with similar determinated ppl make fun for themthat is other way of fun

[Astralporing.1957]

@Atomos.7593 said:Like I said before, think outside the box. There are other good reasons to besides eliminating a so called competing product. Plugins can be disallowed for many reasons by devs in games, especially if they find them detrimental to gameplay or the game for some reason.If they have had a good reason outside of monetization for removing Arc Templates, they would have done so earlier. Remember, they are in constant communication with author of ArcDPS and Arc Templates, and his templates plugin to ArcDPS was something they greenlighted earlier, and considered okay up until the point they introduced their own (inferior) system.

Please share your business insights on how many people would be willing to go out and buy templates from Anet for a minute niche need that will only affect some players. I don't claim to falsely think that it would be worth spending dev resources to eliminate competition in order to possibly gain some small amount of extra revenue.They didn't spend any dev resources to eliminate competition. All it took was one message to Deltaconnected telling him to stop releasing his version. And while you're right that template system is likely not something that sells well, think how worse it would be selling if it were to compete with a better system that would also be free.

I'm not suggesting they would eliminate Arc or not. I'm saying they may not do it for purely monetary reasons.And as i point out, the case of templates shows they are perfectly willing to do so. They were okay with Arc Templates existing for years, and only killed them after they became a competing product.

Again think outside the box, and read what I said above. There are reasons to remove plugins besides monetization only.Indeed, but of there were such reasons for removing Arc Templates, they would have applied to it even before Anet made their version. And yet, they were completely okay with that plugin up until that point. Nothing about the plugin itself has changed. The only change was the appearance of Anet's version.

Who has said that the main target group for this system was the hardcore crowd?Because it is also a group that would have been most willing to actually pay for that system. Besides, designing QoL systems for people that have the least need of it, instead of those that were actually asking for it is generally not a very smart approach.Again, most of the casual crowd does not even have more than one build, so doesn't need the system at all, aven in its simplified version.

I have many trait, gear and weapon set ups that I use. I still find the system functional, although it could be improved. Maybe a reason for Anet not improving it is that it may not be worthwhile financially to develop it extensively for a niche crowd's needs.In a way, you are even more niche case than the group that was in real need of said system. But yes, developing the system for people like you, that are not very likely to actually pay for it, is probably not very worthwhile. It should have been developed for those that really needed it, but unfortunately too blatant attempts to overmonetize it made it unusable for that group.

Again, there are reasons to remove a plugin besides purely monetization based ones. Your speculations that they only did it for monetization and will do it again for monetization are not well justified and seem resentful.They are actually very justified. You just chose not to believe the arguments that speak for it.

I will repeat it again. Up until certain point, the template plugin was considered to be okay (we know it was, because we know Anet devs were in contact with its author and constantly monitored both Templates and ArcDPS). It stopped being okay only after Anet made their own version - nothing else has changed, the existence of their own version was the only factor here. You may choose to believe that it was also a moment when they accidentally suddenly realized something else that made them change their mind about the plugin, but that's just trying to find convoluted reasons to disbelieve what's in front of your face.They didn;t want the plugin to compete with their version. It's as simple as that.

@Atomos.7593 said:They may have introduced their own system because they felt like the arc templates may be detrimental to gameplay or causing problems with the game.Then they would have made that known long before. They were never shy about killing plugins they felt were problematic before, or communicating to plugin authors what elements of those plugins they dislike. There were actually some changes made to both ArcDPS and Arc templates as a result of such dev feedback.

Again, the template plugin was something they were completely fine with, until they made their own. You are free to believe there were some other mysterious reasons they wanted that plugin gone, instead of the most obvious ones, but that's, for me, skirting heavily into the conspiracy theories territory. There's absolutely nothing supporting an existence of those mysterious, hidden reasons. The only reason someone might believe in those is if they don't want to accept the obvious answer.

[Atomos.7593]

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:Like I said before, think outside the box. There are other good reasons to besides eliminating a so called competing product. Plugins can be disallowed for many reasons by devs in games, especially if they find them detrimental to gameplay or the game for some reason.If they have had a good reason outside of monetization for removing Arc Templates, they would have done so earlier. Remember, they are in constant communication with author of ArcDPS and Arc Templates, and his templates plugin to ArcDPS was something they greenlighted earlier, and considered okay up until the point they introduced their own (inferior) system.

Please share your business insights on how many people would be willing to go out and buy templates from Anet for a minute niche need that will only affect some players. I don't claim to falsely think that it would be worth spending dev resources to eliminate competition in order to possibly gain some small amount of extra revenue.They didn't spend any dev resources to eliminate competition. All it took was one message to Deltaconnected telling him to stop releasing his version. And while you're right that template system is likely not something that sells well, think how worse it would be selling if it were to compete with a better system that would also be free.

I'm not suggesting they would eliminate Arc or not. I'm saying they may not do it for purely monetary reasons.And as i point out, the case of templates shows they are perfectly willing to do so. They were okay with Arc Templates existing for years, and only killed them after they became a competing product.

Again think outside the box, and read what I said above. There are reasons to remove plugins besides monetization only.Indeed, but of there were such reasons for removing Arc Templates, they would have applied to it even before Anet made their version. And yet, they were completely okay with that plugin up until that point. Nothing about the plugin itself has changed. The only change was the appearance of Anet's version.

Who has said that the main target group for this system was the hardcore crowd?Because it is also a group that would have been most willing to actually pay for that system. Besides, designing QoL systems for people that have the least need of it, instead of those that were actually asking for it is generally not a very smart approach.Again, most of the casual crowd does not even have more than one build, so doesn't need the system at all, aven in its simplified version.

I have many trait, gear and weapon set ups that I use. I still find the system functional, although it could be improved. Maybe a reason for Anet not improving it is that it may not be worthwhile financially to develop it extensively for a niche crowd's needs.In a way, you are even more niche case than the group that was in real need of said system. But yes, developing the system for people like you, that are not very likely to actually pay for it, is probably not very worthwhile. It should have been developed for those that really needed it, but unfortunately too blatant attempts to overmonetize it made it unusable for that group.

Again, there are reasons to remove a plugin besides purely monetization based ones. Your speculations that they only did it for monetization and will do it again for monetization are not well justified and seem resentful.They are actually very justified. You just chose not to believe the arguments that speak for it.

I will repeat it again. Up until certain point, the template plugin was considered to be okay (we know it was, because we know Anet devs were in contact with its author and constantly monitored both Templates and ArcDPS). It stopped being okay only after Anet made their own version - nothing else has changed, the existence of their own version was the

only

factor here. You may choose to believe that it was also a moment when they accidentally suddenly realized something else that made them change their mind about the plugin, but that's just trying to find convoluted reasons to disbelieve what's in front of your face.They didn;t want the plugin to compete with their version. It's as simple as that.

@Atomos.7593 said:They may have introduced their own system because they felt like the arc templates may be detrimental to gameplay or causing problems with the game.Then they would have made that known long before. They were never shy about killing plugins they felt were problematic before, or communicating to plugin authors what elements of those plugins they dislike. There were actually some changes made to both ArcDPS and Arc templates as a result of such dev feedback.

Again, the template plugin was something they were completely fine with, until they made their own. You are free to believe there were some other mysterious reasons they wanted that plugin gone, instead of the most obvious ones, but that's, for me, skirting heavily into the conspiracy theories territory. There's absolutely nothing supporting an existence of those mysterious, hidden reasons. The only reason someone might believe in those is if they don't want to accept the obvious answer.

Actually I think that the whole reason they decided to spend resources to implement their own system so that people don't have to use arc templates may be to stop any potential problems the plugin itself was causing. Just because you or others decide to think it's all about monetization when there is even a hint of monetization in a system doesn't mean it's necessarily the only reason. You can believe your narrow minded theories all you want, but it doesn't mean it's correct.

[mindcircus.1506]

@"ewenness.6482" said:Both sides are justified in their displeasure but the only way this can be solved is by rehauling, to a certain degree even gutting, the gearing and talent system so that all options will result in similar performance. The very skilled will still be rewarded by better performance but instead of performing 150% better, they will perform lets say only 20% better. The unskilled will stop being such a massive drag (numerically) in group content.10/10 armchair game dev talk there.But...People who do not wish to team with low performers do not care if that difference is 20% or 80%.They simply do not want to team with low-effort players.Buffing low performers to give them some form of artificial viability will not make them more accepted by high performers. It will simply change the numerical bar by which a player is considered "dead weight".Some people want to clear content as fast as possible, (not just clear it) that is what is fun for them.A low performer is a barrier to that.Your post is indicative of the myopic rhetoric pushed by low-effort players that want a carry and cloak their jealousy over not accessing aspirational content with consumerist outrage.They think that if the community won't give them the carry that Arenanet should.... and you are buying it hook, line and sinker.@uberkingkong.8041 said:Yes, 10 firebrands, back in days 4 warriors 1 mesmer. speedruns.It is because of ARC that neither of these things happens.Actual data shows that a 10 man FB comp does not perform optimally. This is why speedrun guilds like Snowcrows do not simply recommend stacking 10 FBs.@"Kichwas.7152" said:FFXIV has the same problem... and the popular DPS meter and DPS checking website over there reinforce this... NOT with the community, but more dangerously with the devs... the Devs have been 'trained' by the community to keep making fight more and more about maximizing DPS and sliding everything else off the table. The importance of buff managing, CCing, debuff managing, and so on have over time been pushed down in favor of making every class do more DPS... even healers and tanks...

The DPS meter there, officially is not allowed. Some believe it can get you banned, but the devs have been 'caught' streaming while using it and a careful read of the TOS doesn't actually refer to things like it. No player has ever been banned for using it - many have been banned for acting like jerks with the data they got by using it... a key difference...You are attempting to misinform people here.FFXIV allows the use of DPS meters. They've been clear about this on multiple occasions.They also enforce their existing community behavior guidelines for verbal harassment if players step over the line when "DPS shaming".Same thing happens in GW2.We're extremely close to that 'game design broken' line, but not yet over it... In fact I would argue that the reason the 'dungeons' never happened past the launch day set was because they did break that line and the team behind them didn't know how to fix it...Or you know... they might have had abandonment stats that showed past a certain amount of time players were far more likely to drop out of the encounter...so they repackaged their new 5 man content into smaller chunks that allowed them to build more interesting and diverse encounters and renamed them "fractals"...Crazy talk, I know.@Darrack.4069 said:DPS Meters are a cancer in any game.They promote bad game play where all folks do is mash buttons in an attempt to top a crappy list.In my many years of leading raids in numerous games i have found that those that strive to outdo their group to look good in numbers are the worst of all players.We should always reward those that take the time to watch the mechanics, be first to res a team mate, CC when needed at the expense of damage, DPS meters promote the opposite.You are ignoring that fact that it's the players who work the mechanics in this game that have the highest damage numbers. That the low performers in GW2 are the ones who don't pay attention to the mechanics, stand in red circles and mash buttons blowing cooldowns during invuln phases.A player with good numbers in GW2 has those numbers because they work the mechanics, it's the button mashers that are dead weight.

[mindcircus.1506]

@"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.

[Atomos.7593]

@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.

[mindcircus.1506]

@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?Ask Bhagwan "what if...".

You ignoring that does not show those who recall it as "vehemently defending" anything.It just shows your reliance on hypothetical scenarios while others deal in fact.

[Atomos.7593]

@mindcircus.1506 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?Ask Bhagwan "what if...".

You ignoring that does not show those who recall it as "vehemently defending" anything.It just shows your reliance on hypothetical scenarios while others deal in fact.

What are you even talking about now lol? How do you even know that it's simply a hypothetical scenario and not a fact? You don't have the knowledge of how exactly arc templates worked, how it interacts exactly with the game and Anet's stance on plugins. I don't claim to fictitiously know these things, and you shouldn't either if you want any credibility. Despite what you may so determinedly think, arc templates may not have been perfect.

[yann.1946]

@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.

[maddoctor.2738]

@yann.1946 said:

@Atomos.7593 said: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.

Or the dps meter that allowed gear inspections and was also banned. There is zero indication that arc templates had any kind of issue with the game.