Talk:Player-made Modifications

"Other Benign Software" should be renamed to "Miscellaneous Programs". The High Resolution Textures mod should be moved to a section called "Deprecated Modifications" (or something of the like) because it is now useless since the introduction of high resolution textures in the graphics options. The "Graphic User Interface" section should be renamed to just "User Interface". In the software section, make sure it is clear that both TexMod and uMod are used to extract textures and apply texture mods. That point isn't very clear (atleast for uMod). There are numerous spelling and grammatical errors, but that can be solved later. Good job so far! God Of Fissures 21:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

My first thought was to eliminate "High Resolution Textures" altogether, since there is no link to a program and only two sample screenshots. --Wendy Black 23:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, I should have added this earlier, I used the word "Benign" meaning harmless and non-evasive. I want the reader to understand that this is not botting and hacking 101. By placing this on the (root) it completely eliminates another layer. I believe you may have noticed, I split the original (UI Enhancements) into Cartography and GUI. I feel these are separate categories and cramming it all together seems cluttered. I still removing the massive over-used BOLD statements and making using the bullet call-outs instead. As for naming and renaming of sections like GUI or UI, I am going to leave it up to Geener to decide. I will place my suggestions section on my talk page explaining all of this new hierarchy. --Wendy Black 07:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

GwDressUp & GwVanquisher need to be updated

Someone contact Argos plz. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 101.88.207.94‎ (talk) at 08:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC).

GWArmory removed?

Horrible, why did you remove GWArmory when you archived the broken mods? It still works. -- kazerniel (talk | contribs) 18:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

That application shares code with another application made by the same developer; the other application allows actions that are explicitly forbidden in the EULA. As such, it's not safe for use and is not suitable for the wiki. horrible | contribs 22:07, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

The code that GWArmory shares is benign and is not used to automate gameplay or intercept server packets in any way. GWArmory is 100% safe to use as long as it is downloaded from a reliable source. If you want to check if a useful program is in breach of the user agreement or terms of service, talking to the developer is a good place to start instead of guessing. Please add this back in. Jon SNOW | 09:57, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Unless you're willing to release the complete source code for both applications, there's no way to actually verify this claim. horrible | contribs 02:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Further more, you do not work for ArenaNet and are not in a position to claim that one of your two tools is not in breach. horrible | contribs 02:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Here you go, retard. https://github.com/GregLando113/GWCA/tree/master/Examples/GwArmory --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 157.52.3.20 (talk).

See https://github.com/GregLando113/GWCA/tree/master/Examples/GwArmory for GwArmory, https://github.com/HasKha/GWToolboxpp for Toolbox and https://github.com/GregLando113/GWCA for GWCA (I've made lots of software contributions to this game over the years, wasn't sure which 2 applications you were referring to). I've read through the terms of service and all of the other waffling that ANet has released so I've got a good idea of what is and isn't in breach, but despite this, a quick scan over main.cpp in GwArmory tells you that it only changes the character appearance and doesn't intercept any network packets in implementation, nor is anything in-game automated on behalf of the player.

Regarding your comment about ArenaNet, it may be difficult for you to comprehend that new software created to improve gameplay on a game that is in maintenance mode doesn't garner much attention from its developer after over 15 years enough to comment, but do not lose sight of why this particular application was created in the first place. I wanted to put it on the wiki to share its benefits with the community and to help players, so stop being such a flannel about it and do your bit too. Jon SNOW | 10:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Whether or not any of your hacks have a place on the wiki isn't really either of our calls. I will reach out to the wiki liason to suggest an official statement. horrible | contribs 16:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

At Stephane's request I'm going to refer this to the bcrats User:Tanetris & User:Poke instead. horrible | contribs 17:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The call belongs with the community, both on the wiki and with the GW community as a whole. There's a giant red box on the page with all of the pertinent warnings; using these programs will always come with an inherent risk. Unless someone can point directly to how the program in question causes undue harm (e.g. steals credentials, etc.) and passes into the legal realm, I see no reason for it to not be added. Greener (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree with Greener, and unless you can point out specific things that the program does that violate the EULA / T&C, I think it should be added back (note I know nothing about the program, but anyone can say that something is against the rules, you need to supply specifics if you want to be taken credibly though). --Rainith (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

This program is sketch af. Like I have to disable security settings to even download it and to run it. Then ignore a virus malware warning too. And then it crashes guild wars on startup. Toolbox and gwdressup didn't have all these hurdles so I don't know why this one does. Needs some work before being relisted here imo. Justice (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

It works without issues for me 🤷‍♂️ -- kazerniel (talk | contribs) 12:54, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

remove yours and redownload it and if it works put up a repeatable guide on how to. Justice (talk) 06:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Now that I tried it out, the 2021-04-15 version does crash the game for me too. But I've been using 2020-03-22, and that works without crashing. You can find the link here. -- kazerniel (talk | contribs) 11:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok so apparently I haven't used this software since my comment in July. Now that I tried the 2020-03-22 version, that crashes too 🤷‍♂️ Idk why it stopped working. ETA: the 2021-08-02 released today works all right. -- kazerniel (talk | contribs) 11:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Is there an updated version of GWArmory that doesn't act like a virus? GWDressup never had a warning, I find it odd this is flashing warnings left and right. 99.99.160.123 02:45, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Check on the GWToolbox Discord, that's where the dev posts the new versions. Though the newest is still that 2021-08-02 one. -- kazerniel (talk | contribs) 11:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

(Reset indent) There is no further discussion to have. Toolbox is a tos-breaking third party program that bypasses client side restrictions in numerous ways, not limited to remote opening of chests, bypassing quest prerequisites and objectives, displaying effects for non-party NPCs, and more. It also allows automated usage of consumables, scripted skill targeting and execution (macros), and exposes the map's walkable navmesh to the player in place of the standard minimap. It is not something the wiki can, should, or needs to link to in any circumstance.

While there may exist releases without some of these features, they are all present in others. I have had this discussion countless times elsewhere with various bad-faith actors, and I will not continue it here. horrible 18:40, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Jesus Christ just stfu you whiny brat. Sincerely, 172.58.242.235 21:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

That's not the best way to discuss things; I suggest you try again.

I would also like to hear from other wiki contributors about GWArmory's presence on this page, given that it was previously discussed before. If you feel that nothing has changed, then it can again be removed. Greener (talk) 18:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Horrible... ban? 73.148.97.93 19:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Remember that time Horrible contributed to the wiki? Me neither. 73.148.97.93 19:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Does GWArmory truly break ToS? 73.148.97.93 20:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I have zero idea whether or not GWA breaks ToS. But if there is any possibility, my suggested modus opperandi would be to remove it and only re-add it if proven innocent. Non-conformity issues, ToS breaches and such are no laughing matter in the real world. Yes, this is a dead wiki of a unfortunately pretty dead game. Still, it rubs me the wrong way to do it like that. Steve1 (talk) 21:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't really care one way or the other if it stays or goes, but I do find it annoying that it seems like one person says that it breaks the TOS but then doesn't back that statement up with any sort of proof. Show links / screenshots / whatever where it does something and then then point to the respective section of the TOS that says you can't do that and I'll agree that it shouldn't be here. --Rainith (talk) 16:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

@Rainith: given that the "Anet's stance on Toolbox" links to a reddit comment by Anet stating "If you use it to cheat, then you could get banned for cheating, but if you only use it for the fancy UI and tweaks then it is okay." I think it is reasonable to take as a given that Toolbox has ToS-breaking capabilities without forcing anyone to download it to take screenshots.

To the best of my knowledge, no claim is currently being made that GWArmory itself breaks ToS, only that linking to its discord also links to Toolbox (due to them being made & maintained by the same person), which does. - Tanetris (talk) 20:42, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay, but if that is the case, right there it is saying that Anet says it is okay to use it as long as you don't use it to break the rules. Which to me says that we should have it on here. Like many other tools it can be used for "good" or "bad." A computer can be used for many things, most of which are legal, some of which (say pirating software, movies, music, etc...) are not. It sounds to me like this is the same thing. --Rainith (talk) 21:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, Rainith, but. This whole Player-made Modifications thing started with TexMod, which explicitly does not touch the game itself, just what is displayed to you, the player. Even that much we were cautious about any seeming endorsement, and when there was pushback about having it on the wiki we could clearly say that it is not capable of enabling cheating. Backtracking to allowing anything so long as it ALSO has some non-cheating uses that won't necessarily get you banned feels... Irresponsible, at best. Certainly we should have SOME standards, even with the disclaimers.

To me, Toolbox seems like a very obvious no for the wiki. If people in the community are using it for non-ToS-violating purposes and that's going fine for them, then that is precisely none of my business, but I don't think it belongs on the wiki.

I'm personally much more ambivalent about GWArmory. As far as I understand from what's been said (I have no intention of downloading either program myself, so someone correct me if I'm wrong), it has no ToS-breaking uses. That it's hosted on the same discord as Toolbox isn't ideal, but at the same time, there's only so far that it makes sense for us to nanny what people do once they leave the wiki? Maybe that's a wishy-washy answer. Certainly I see why neither Horrible nor the Toolbox folks would be happy with it, but that's my thinking.

Alternatively, we could always just nuke the entire page as too much of a pain in the ass to maintain at this point in the wiki's life. That's starting to feel tempting too. - Tanetris (talk) 05:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

There are some noteworthy extentions like Guild Wars Map Browser not even listed there yet, with high probability it being not the last one made by a player for other players. So why should a single utility (Toolbox) serve as potential cause of putting the entire article off the rails? Don't see much sense in considering its whole removal at all. Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 22:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

"there's only so far that it makes sense for us to nanny what people do once they leave the wiki"

We have a responsibility not to explicitly direct people to content of this nature.

This is an official platform to document the game as it exists, and secondary content such as this article cannot imperil that.

I would prefer this whole article removed and restored to the pre-2015 Texmod-only state. horrible 02:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

we are not arenanet and not beholden to any responsibility plus this is a page about the games community not the game and it does not imperil the documentation (in fact we are documenting by including it). having a disclaimer should be enough and i think anets stance should be moved to the top of the article. that said there is no pre-2015 state of this article as this article was created in 2015 and there inst a texmod only state as that creation included other mods such as GwCamUnlocker GwVanquisher and GwDressUp all of which are basically what became toolbox and gwarmory. Senti (talk) 13:44, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

1) Please indent your comments using colons (:) to one more level than the comment you are replying to, or use {{ri}} to explicitly reset indentation in long comment chains.

2) Please sign your comments with ~~~~, so that a timestamp is automatically appended as well.

3) This is an official platform; see Guild Wars Wiki:About. The community is entirely made up of voluntary editors, but the content of the wiki of it is still ultimately representative of ArenaNet. The content of this article is wholly outside of the wiki's primary purpose.

4) The pre-2015 version of the Texmod article is located here.

5) "GwCamUnlocker GwVanquisher and GwDressUp all of which are basically what became toolbox and gwarmory" GwCamUnlocker and GwVanquisher were single-purpose applications that did not even remotely reach the scope of Toolbox. Please inform yourself to at least a cursory level before making such statements. horrible 14:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

“This is an official platform to document the game as it exists” – I think that’s a very important sentence in this discussion. This wiki’s purpose it to document the game and its community. We have always included content beyond the pure in-game facts; we always documented how the community played the game and what it was doing outside of it. And now, it’s 2023 and it has been 18 years since this game was released so obviously a lot of things have changed. But seeing things like the “Guild Wars Map Browser” that Dmitri Fatkin linked above totally fascinates me. The game is so old, and there is so little going on in the game, yet people are still motivated to create tools like that. And I’m going to be honest and say that I would hate us to miss the opportunity to document these additional parts of the game.

So I would object the idea to just revert to a TexMod-only version of the page. Yes, TexMod surely has a special place in this since it shaped a lot of things, especially for us on the wiki, but we really shouldn’t make it exclusive to that considering what some people came up with afterwards.

I understand that things like Toolbox are more problematic than others. For what it’s worth, its official website even openly tells people that some of its features directly violate the Code of Conduct. I take that as a positive that they are aware of the problem and openly discuss it. So I wouldn’t assume malice by the developer team. Yes, they are doing something dangerous and we shouldn’t openly direct people to it. But it’s still an interesting thing to exist.

My suggestion would be to not link to Toolbox since of its clear uncertainty, as an attempt to protect the users. For the other tools, I don’t really see that much of a problem though, even if some are hosted in the same place. If it helps, let’s make the warnings even bigger and highlight the possible danger even more. But in the end, everyone is still responsible on their own. And I would honestly rather have us mention real tools that might cause problems because of the ToS, than leave users to find fake ones on their own which then cause even bigger issues (viruses et.al.).

As a middle-ground, what about just removing all links (except TexMod related ones) and just mention the tools that exist? poke | talk 00:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

After reading through this, my stance is that it is not for us to monitor what is and isnt allowed by anet to any great degree. We are not Anet and have always been afforded agency beyond what they may want from us. The same way behaviors on the wiki were never within the remit of Anet. We have never only been confined by documenting the game as is and we have always embraced a degree of documentation of the wider aspects of GW and its community, such as players, guilds, notable events and the like... which are arguably outwith the remit of just being a reflection of the game as is. Now of course this is tempered by a degree of judgment and common sense but the stance that this wiki is going to be suddenly imperiled by texmod or the like, after 8 years of this being linked... is just a bit of an extreme take. I would say anything that clearly and explicitly solely breaks ToS we should not be linking to that, but for things that dont, like Texmod, i think are completely fine to stay linked to. Considering that a great deal of our armour pages come from the use of texmod (i should know, because im the one who made them) - i had a personal chat at the time with staff, when i was on the test krew, and was told that it was grand to be used in the format i did and that Texmod cant really be used to break ToS.

The TL/DR here being I personally dont mind us unlinking to something that expressly breaks ToS or is more than likely to be breaking ToS... however Texmod and things like that I believe are totally fair game and should be fine to stay up. (as they have for literally years at this point). I also have no intention of redoing the armour pages and if texmod were to be removed due to concerns about breaches of ToS, then an argument about fruit of the poisoned tree could be made about the images we have derived from texmod's use and I feel that would be a loss to the wiki, thats unneeded. - -- Salome 01:02, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to agree with poke here - especially given that large chunks of this page have existed for literally years without issue. We do not need to invent emergencies where they do not exist. The proximate action that triggered this discussion at all was the addition of Toolbox to the list; it's fine to have a discussion about whether Toolbox deserves to be linked to, but let's not make a mountain out of a molehill by suddenly expanding the scope of the supposed problem to things which have empirically not caused a problem. It's also okay to not have a 100% consistent approach, especially if we have more information about what does or does not seem to practically cause problems in some cases than others. (Aiiane - talk - contribs)

Toolbox Removal

I'd like to ask the sysops to step in on Horrible's removal of another player made modification - Toolbox. I feel that it should be here. It's on many other Guild Wars related sites, why does it not deserve a spot here? Horrible needs to explain why remove another Player-made Modification, when a few have tried to add it back. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by ‎174.218.33.230 (talk) at 08:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC).

The reasons are stated in the section above. I'm under the conviction that all the IPs (you included) that have tried to add it and GwArmory back are the same person. As for Horrible, he has requested for his account to be deleted. He probably doesn't want to interact with you any more than he already has. Cealdor (talk) 10:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Horrible has nothing to do with the matter. Toolbox isn't happening. - Tanetris (talk) 15:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC)