Greetings, glorious adventurers! If you're joining in our Alpha One spot testing, please follow the steps here to see all the latest test info on our forums and Discord!
Options
Inbuilt Skill Rating System vs Inspection
Is it better for the game to decide how skilled a player is, rather than the player base creating their own hierarchy system, where the boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable will shift according to group owner ?
I am all for self improvement. I am against players picking only the perfect for their group when perfection is not required. It is also their argument that some people cant be bothered to put in any level of effort and want to be carried by everyone else to get a reward.
So I was thinking of an autonomous rating system that anyone can see like a leader board. This lets Intrepid clarify what level of performance is acceptable to complete content and what needs improvement. Basically, Intrepid defines the standard required and noone else.
I am all for self improvement. I am against players picking only the perfect for their group when perfection is not required. It is also their argument that some people cant be bothered to put in any level of effort and want to be carried by everyone else to get a reward.
So I was thinking of an autonomous rating system that anyone can see like a leader board. This lets Intrepid clarify what level of performance is acceptable to complete content and what needs improvement. Basically, Intrepid defines the standard required and noone else.
0
Comments
And please define what you mean by "performance", because I can't grasp what you're trying to say... Unless the way you completed dungeon X impacts how likely you are to complete dungeon V despite the fact that they may need completely different mechanics + the fact that you might have never done dungeon V before.
So how would an gear inspection system allow you to garner how well a player can combat game mechanics ?
How does an inspection system declare how many times a player has completed a dungeon ?
A personal performance ranking system will define how a player reacts to its environment....rather than define simply a potential that may or may not represent performance reality.
There will be veteran players that cant be bothered to reach a basic level of competency. There will be new players whose ability far exceeds their experience. Looking at someones build cant tell you that. Looking at how they have historically performed (with their build) can.
A bad craftsmen blames their tools
Personally I agree. But I am playing devils advocate here and trying to see the other side of the coin too. I am trying to see if such a stance that you and I and many others share is flawed. There is after all, many in the community with a completely opposite view. The point on this thread was to hopefully encourage a mature debate. Rather than have two parts of a community that have diametrically opposed views staying in their respective corners and smouldering. We all need to try and fix this source of hate. A community game would be all the better for it if we could.
The devil of course is in the detail. Trying to isolate what aspects of this are fundamentally required to improve group gameplay (collaboration), and what is a blatant bigotry system. Is it simply a case of any system that encourages exclusion rather than inclusion should be dropped? And if so what aspects of a rating system does not condone exclusion ? Is the concept of a 'standard', a fundamentally negative or positive thing ?
I posted this because although I recognise only allowing the user defined perfect player within the group, is an exclusion system. Is the concept of someone deliberately dragging the whole team down not also a problem ? Should the deliberately useless be excluded if they prevent the group from functioning as a group by not performing their class skills for instance ? Is someone in a group who wont collaborate really a community member to which we espouse ?
This does of course high light the problem that not all community members play well as a team. Some even play well in large groups but not small groups. Although they can contribute just as much to the community individually or in their own way.
It's the character levels vs mob level. Simple.
If you meet the minimum character level that IS has set themselves there is no reason to add extra layers of requirements imposed by players.
Lets for arguments sake talk about a project that needs to be done at work. It requires various tradesmen with their own skillset. Each of those workers would have been employed, once proven they were capable of doing their job to a set standard and may well have a trial period. Their boss would have a standard of quality for the work produced, that would require skill in the respected field that was of a minimum standard. The worker may well be sacked if he/she cant produce acceptable work.
I would never attempt to be called a chemist, physicist, biologist etc....because I am not skilled enough to be identified as such.
And yes there will be the dick moaning at all of those 'friends' not doing the things the way he/she wanted... regardless
In fact there may well be drama and one friend told to bugger off before they get their lights punched out.
We see this in game when someone decides to be a jackass. Specifically doing the opposite of what was expected. Some do it as an attempt at group humour, some do it because they love to upset people and watch the world burn. Granted no rating system would protect you from a skilled person who cant be bothered to use their skill.
But my main point was..what would you do about the friend that put your socks and knickers down the toilet, your tools in the panty drawer, your food in the shed and the garden tools in the fridge ....that was now in the shed with no plug socket ? (Not because they were malicious but simply didnt know any better)
Even your friends are expected to do certain things in a certain way to achieve the task in hand.
So my argument for that would be, why can't players also be offered trial periods? Invite them and see how they play, if they're not good enough to you explain it to them and kick them if you're really unhappy with it.
I think it's fair to give everyone a chance if they already meet the level requirement. Just because content could be easier with a specific set up doesn't make it a requirment.
Your angle is also what they do that counts, not what they look like. You are still going to judge them on their effectiveness to complete the task and perform their role. You will still have a 'standard' you expect of others.
Personally, I think I think it would be best if this was left vague and up to players to individually decide on a case by case basis for what they can expect from a party.
I'm sure this opinion is in a minority as most people seem to be in favour of DPS meters, gear scores and equipment inspection. I just feel like these tools more likely to breed elitist attitudes and gatekeeping.
I am one of those unconventional guys... mostly because I hate the meta/fotm mindset and try to break it whenever I can. Anyone can follow it takes skill to lead
There was a time before damage meters, raid parsers, etc existed. In these times, people worked together. LFG wasn't a deal, so you really had to scout around to find dungeon & raid groups. You had to know your team, you had to learn the fights, and you got an idea, over time spent with these people, how well or how poorly someone managed their jobs.
I've run dungeons & raids with some very poor players who were dear friends, and we've overcome the content. I've run dungeons & raids with some "super-uber-l337" players who couldn't pull their own weight -- especially not the weight of their mouths, running off about their super-uber-l337ness.
Having meters and parsers and whatnots are "easy" methods of accomplishing tasks, and they do not require that one know their teammates. Hey, we didn't beat the rage timer? Pull up the parser, figure out who had the lowest damage, & replace them. There isn't, any longer, a strong sense of helping folk grow their characters, and their characters' abilities.
One of the hopes/dreams that has been given resurgence with Ashes is a return to the more community-based dungeons & raids, where we won't rely on some internal or external guide that tells us how "prepared" a character is. I mean, let's say I have a mage who does whammo! dps ... but then I decide to roll a rogue. So, my mage has been through all the dungeons & raids, but my rogue's still new. If we rely on ANY form of gating that shows us a characters' preparedness, rather than knowing each other, how the other plays, so on and so forth, then what, we're gonna say "Nope, sorry, you've never been in here, don't wanna waste my time with you"?
That's what the bulk of us (admittedly) older players do not wish to see happen. People tout all kinds of alternatives to ye olde dps meter, but in the end, it will all come down to a simple conversation:
RL: "Hey, man, ok, so we're considering you for XYZ raid, but we really need to know what your self-reporting score for blah-blah is."
Alternative 1:
PC: "Um, no?"
RL: "Alright, sorry, next?"
Alternative 2:
PC: "It's 123435"
RL option 1: "Great, you're in!"
RL option 2: "Sorry, next?"
If you can tell me how any kind of damage meter or parser or self-reporter whatever can avoid this, I'd love to hear it.
I'm not opposed to this because I think it's bad to want to use numbers to try to improve your performance. I'm opposed to this, or anything similar, because you know and I know that, in the end, the above scenario will be what occurs, and the ideology behind knowing and actually giving a damn about other players will be lost.
This is the way I feel
All such things are exclusion devices, no reasonable person can argue with that. In an MMO we need to get back to being fully inclusive, as that is what a community means at the end of the day.That inclusion extends to everyone, the strangers and not just our friends.
My point with this thread was to determine if exclusion is never acceptable for any reason, or allowable in certain circumstances. Why have ignore and block if exclusion isnt permitted ? Clearly there is behaviour that is unacceptable. Is a basic level of skill one of them in regard to teamplay. Not being perfect should not be a valid reason. So where do you draw the line if there is one.
Groups are free to invite or not invite whoever they want, I just hope they aren't basing bad presumptions.
Character level normally has nothing to do with skill and everything to do with how much XP you have amassed. So is literally irrelevant as a 'skill' level.
So this is to give 'relevant' information and thus prevent bad assumptions.
While elitists can be a problem, so can a number of other types of players. There are players who constantly bring down the groups they join, there are trolls, and there are people who will perceive any level of performance standards as elitism. But there can often be good reasons to be selective—such as limited playing time, meeting goals that require speed and efficiency, not being able to give the game full attention, or not being in the mood for a drawn out run. Nobody has the right to tell someone how they should form their parties, or enjoy the game.
That being said, in more recent MMOs, it has been getting easier to measure or ballpark performance. Not just because many people have come to rely on it, but also because people tend to set more rigid or unrealistic requirements without it.
I personally think it would be great if MMOs had built-in combat breakdowns (or what is more widely known as a combat parse, although there wouldn't be any parsing involved if it was built-in) and dungeoneering profiles. People could pull up a given player's profile and see how many times they've completed a dungeon, what achievements they've completed for it, and how many times they've killed each boss, including what the player has personally showcased as their best parse for the encounter. Depth of measurement would allow people to be as selective as they want/need to be, instead of the usual shallow gearscore discrimination.
So a good point was raised about how you could implement a standard in a fair way. I was thinking about this last night and had a light bulb moment.
To group up for themepark dungeons:
1. You cannot change your skillbar once grouped.
2. All skills on your skillbar must be at max level.
The idea here is that solo play and ad hoc team play will be used to level up your skills. What skills you choose is upto your own playstyle. All it requires is that you are a master of that playstyle and fully competent to deploy the skills involved with it.
Group play itself is not about being competent with your skills. Its about coordinating your skills with other players in a complementary way. No one can train for this. There is no meter that says their group is going to gel and work well together. It 100% relies on experience with a group of other players that get more and more intimate with each others abilities over time. It 100% relies on a persons abilities to watch each others backs and understand each others weaknesses and plug them.
This isolates mechanical skill from social skill. It makes mechanical skill compulsory, but social skill something that develops as part of group play.