So since I just saw there is another topic on it I'll just copy the last part here, just to be part of the goal of having the longest debate ever.
(...)so too round it off I will address THE only one claimed negative aspect that keeps getting brought up against combat trackers.
Getting kicked because you under perform according to the dps tracker.
If you really think, that a person that instant kicks you because you didn't do well just once, won't do the same thing because you were the first one to die then I have some bad news for you.
He will. You have them in WoW as well as in Tera as well as in any other game in existence ever.
Have you heard of LoL and it's community? I am yet to see a combat tracker there. "You died twice you are absolute and utter garbage and ruin the game, reported trash!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
It's called a shitty human being. They exist regardless of tools available.
Also, it works both ways, if I can find out early that the people I tried to group with are that sort, I can avoid them faster. Not using it as a tool to improve and offer criticism to someone but instead as an excuse to blame is an easy enough red flag to avoid. If you are salty about not being able to play with that sort of people well... right? I don't really see the issue here.
I really like that last spark at the end, how can anyone complain about not being able to play in a raid/group that is obviously a bad environment?
I can be a life fulfilling dream. - Zekece
I can be a life devouring nightmare. - Grisu#1819
This one is not online publicly that I can find: Borbora, Z.; Hsu, K.; Srivastava, J.; and Williams, D. 2011.
Churn prediction in mmorpgs using player motivation theories and ensemble approach. Proceedings of SocialCom-11.
I'm not sure what these papers have to do with the conversation at hand though. I mean, it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that MMO developers release the serverside logs for research purposes and have been doing so for about 15 years. Neither these papers nor this data has any relation to combat trackers - which is why I am confused as to why they are being posted here.
DPS meters are a wonderful example of exclusionary behavior
I have seen no evidence of this other than anecdotal, and in such anecdotal evidence I have seen no attempt to provide evidence that the combat tracker was the initiator of that behavior, rather than just a tool used while said behavior was being displayed.
If a combat tracker was not the instigator of the behavior, then we should cease looking at them, and start looking at what did instigate that behavior, and also at other measures that would prevent it from happening in the first instance.
Attempting to focus on a tool that is only (or mostly) used during that behavior - rather than focusing on what caused it or what could prevent it - seems foolish.
0
Options
MeowsedMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I think an equal or larger portion of the blame can be placed on game designs which focus on endless extrinsic rewards. Rewards which require neither skill nor allies (nor skilled allies), but immense amounts of time. Naturally, these grinds reward compulsive efficiency as a side effect. But "the expense of player community and more robust community cohesion" is already paid when the developers decide to de-prioritize community-building gameplay, and create only progression-focused content instead.
When allies are a-dime-a-dozen, and you only need them briefly, there's no reason to show them respect. And there's sure to be a large supply of faceless allies when everyone is focused on clearing easy content repetitively. Anybody can participate, and everyone wants the rewards. If that's the case, it only makes sense to seek higher efficiency through exclusionary behavior. At this point, DPS meters, being a morally-agnostic tool, can provide the service of weeding out inefficiencies.
I hope that I've illustrated properly that exclusionary behavior involving DPS meters is merely a result of a much longer chain of events. The root cause is found in the game and it's founding community. (I believe communities influence the way a game gets played, even if they have no hand in designing it, in the same way that the interpretation of art, by the viewer, is often in dissimilar to the artist's intentions.)
A better worded version of my point that games that see players require the community tend to have better communities than games that don't see players require the community.
0
Options
MeowsedMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I think an equal or larger portion of the blame can be placed on game designs which focus on endless extrinsic rewards. Rewards which require neither skill nor allies (nor skilled allies), but immense amounts of time. Naturally, these grinds reward compulsive efficiency as a side effect. But "the expense of player community and more robust community cohesion" is already paid when the developers decide to de-prioritize community-building gameplay, and create only progression-focused content instead.
When allies are a-dime-a-dozen, and you only need them briefly, there's no reason to show them respect. And there's sure to be a large supply of faceless allies when everyone is focused on clearing easy content repetitively. Anybody can participate, and everyone wants the rewards. If that's the case, it only makes sense to seek higher efficiency through exclusionary behavior. At this point, DPS meters, being a morally-agnostic tool, can provide the service of weeding out inefficiencies.
I hope that I've illustrated properly that exclusionary behavior involving DPS meters is merely a result of a much longer chain of events. The root cause is found in the game and it's founding community. (I believe communities influence the way a game gets played, even if they have no hand in designing it, in the same way that the interpretation of art, by the viewer, is often in dissimilar to the artist's intentions.)
A better worded version of my point that games that see players require the community tend to have better communities than games that don't see players require the community.
Where do you think I got the idea from? I have been reading most of the posts here (except the 100s of responses on Dev Discussions).
But it's not just from your comments. It's also because of my hatred of time-sinks, and ennui for endless progression systems. Let's just say I understand the mindset required to disregard other people's humanity in pursuit of faster completion.
...
I hope Ashes' time sinks won't be too bad. I know there's gonna be a lot of long-term grinds... I'm gonna suspend that thought until tomorrow.
If successful grouping requires people actively want to group with you, then there are consequences for being a dick
0
Options
Undead CanuckMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Back to the original question of why say no. Because Steven doesn't want them.
It really doesn't matter what opinion anyone other than the game developers have. We are not making the game. Since they are, they get to decide.
2
Options
AzryilMember, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
As if explicit developer and publisher statements are taken seriously... p'shaw, say it ain't so. (I'm willing to wager that >90% here think they are going to change development direction or major mechanics of this offering - the foundation assumption being that explicit statements are NOT taken seriously.)
Irony? You betcha.
you really talk to much without having a point
The dead do not squabble as this land’s rulers do. The dead have no desires, petty jealousies or ambitions. A world of the dead is a world at peace
I mean she usually has a point, it's just a super simple one couched in bigger words for whatever reason.
Seems to me to be a mistaken belief that if what is being said sounds sounds like it is coming from an educated perspective, people will respect it more.
Fairly sure the person has me blocked, because I call that out in the first or second interaction we had.
What this person seems to be unaware of is that technical language is specific to a given field, and should only be used when discussing that field, and only with others in said field.
They also need to understand that having a big idea is not special, using technical language to discuss a big idea is not special, but being able to take a big idea and articulate it so that others not in that field can understand it is special.
An idea is nothing if you can't articulate it well.
This is something I struggle with a bit too - so I fully understand the issue. In my defense, at least I try, and I always quote posts that do a better job of saying what I have been trying to say.
Seems to me to be a mistaken belief that everyone should coddle the lowest common denominator.
If you are talking to that lowest common denominator, then yes, you do.
If you are talking to a specific group of people that you want to engage with you, then you make sure that you talk in a way that they can all understand and follow along.
I'm not sure why this would be something new to you - there is no point talking if no one is listening.
The trick to conveying intelligence to others does not lie in attempting to convey big ideas using big words or terms - especially when those terms belong to a field other than what you are talking about.
Rather, the way to convey intelligence is to take that same big idea and convey it to someone that doesn't understand those big words or terms.
Most people here are smarter than you seem to want to give them credit for, but when you use terms that have no place in a game forum, nobody is going to make the least bit of an effort to understand where you are coming from.
At that point, any and every idea you may have is completely wasted.
Back to the original question of why say no. Because Steven doesn't want them.
It really doesn't matter what opinion anyone other than the game developers have. We are not making the game. Since they are, they get to decide.
All they get to decide is if the game will have a built in one, if the game will provide API hooks for one, and if the game will provide a log file for one.
Anything other than that is out of their hands.
I want these things to be kept in Intrepids hands, which is why I still argue this point.
As if explicit developer and publisher statements are taken seriously... p'shaw, say it ain't so. (I'm willing to wager that >90% here think they are going to change development direction or major mechanics of this offering - the foundation assumption being that explicit statements are NOT taken seriously.)
Irony? You betcha.
The issue with that 90%, is the assumption that 100% of all of the game players are forum users. Just because 90% of forums say they want it, doesn't mean that reflects the opinion of everyone in the game. I sure as hell don't want them, I agree with Steven. Yet when the game is released, you probably won't see me on the forums ever again.
I just like to keep the reality of "revenue > DPS meters" up front and center for those who forget.
Probably the only factual thing I've seen you type out.
However, there is no connection at all to suggest a combat tracker lowers revenue.
Everything to that effect is anecdotal at best, but more often simply made up and completely ignores any advantages that combat trackers bring to the game - including those that relate to revenue.
Comments
I really like that last spark at the end, how can anyone complain about not being able to play in a raid/group that is obviously a bad environment?
I can be a life devouring nightmare. - Grisu#1819
While I do prefer some intelligence put in to debates, I'm always happy to reply to unintelligent posts with unintelligent replies.
I'm not sure what these papers have to do with the conversation at hand though. I mean, it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that MMO developers release the serverside logs for research purposes and have been doing so for about 15 years. Neither these papers nor this data has any relation to combat trackers - which is why I am confused as to why they are being posted here. I have seen no evidence of this other than anecdotal, and in such anecdotal evidence I have seen no attempt to provide evidence that the combat tracker was the initiator of that behavior, rather than just a tool used while said behavior was being displayed.
If a combat tracker was not the instigator of the behavior, then we should cease looking at them, and start looking at what did instigate that behavior, and also at other measures that would prevent it from happening in the first instance.
Attempting to focus on a tool that is only (or mostly) used during that behavior - rather than focusing on what caused it or what could prevent it - seems foolish.
If successful grouping requires people actively want to group with you, then there are consequences for being a dick
It really doesn't matter what opinion anyone other than the game developers have. We are not making the game. Since they are, they get to decide.
True, however that doesn't mean we can't argue our case and attempt to change his mind.
you really talk to much without having a point
I mean she usually has a point, it's just a super simple one couched in bigger words for whatever reason.
Seems to me to be a mistaken belief that if what is being said sounds sounds like it is coming from an educated perspective, people will respect it more.
Fairly sure the person has me blocked, because I call that out in the first or second interaction we had.
What this person seems to be unaware of is that technical language is specific to a given field, and should only be used when discussing that field, and only with others in said field.
They also need to understand that having a big idea is not special, using technical language to discuss a big idea is not special, but being able to take a big idea and articulate it so that others not in that field can understand it is special.
An idea is nothing if you can't articulate it well.
This is something I struggle with a bit too - so I fully understand the issue. In my defense, at least I try, and I always quote posts that do a better job of saying what I have been trying to say.
If you are talking to a specific group of people that you want to engage with you, then you make sure that you talk in a way that they can all understand and follow along.
I'm not sure why this would be something new to you - there is no point talking if no one is listening.
The trick to conveying intelligence to others does not lie in attempting to convey big ideas using big words or terms - especially when those terms belong to a field other than what you are talking about.
Rather, the way to convey intelligence is to take that same big idea and convey it to someone that doesn't understand those big words or terms.
Most people here are smarter than you seem to want to give them credit for, but when you use terms that have no place in a game forum, nobody is going to make the least bit of an effort to understand where you are coming from.
At that point, any and every idea you may have is completely wasted.
What ignore block?
Speaking of one trick ponies, got any more googled research papers to link?
Anything other than that is out of their hands.
I want these things to be kept in Intrepids hands, which is why I still argue this point.
The issue with that 90%, is the assumption that 100% of all of the game players are forum users. Just because 90% of forums say they want it, doesn't mean that reflects the opinion of everyone in the game. I sure as hell don't want them, I agree with Steven. Yet when the game is released, you probably won't see me on the forums ever again.
However, there is no connection at all to suggest a combat tracker lowers revenue.
Everything to that effect is anecdotal at best, but more often simply made up and completely ignores any advantages that combat trackers bring to the game - including those that relate to revenue.
Oh hey, that's easier than attempting to carry on the discussion!