Simple behavior economics tells you that a pattern of exclusion over time of a limited market is detrimental to any product that uses it.
followed by your 2 quoted articles, neither of them have anything to do with it.
While interesting, the first article, while it feels fundamentally flawed is only out there to find correlation between social structure and guild quitting.
(...)The character level and level change attributes are intended to capture the character’s sense of progress. The underlying theory being that a character that is making progress will be content with their
current guild.
It quotes while using data from wow. I doubt that most people spend their time just leveling. It shows a fundamental flaw in their approach which can't easily be fixed, since measuring "a sense of progress" after that becomes a lot more complicated.
Other than that whole targeted observation followed by the inevitable conclusion is so banal the only purpose of the paper is bringing it down on paper.
(...)
Guild count (and equivalently the number of guild membership) seems to be the strongest feature. This is intuitive — past switching events are indicative of a character’s lack of loyalty, and implies an easy tendency to depart from his/her current guild as well.
The feature time since last event is positively correlated with quitting,i.e., the longer a player stays activity free, the more likely he/she will quit the guild
yeah duh.. I don't need a paper on it to know this to be true. It's good to "prove" it in a limited capacity, but aside from that, once again it has no ramifications on the influence of meters or exclusionary behaviour.
I don't know what the purpose behind you posting those irrelevant articles are but hey, I had an hour to spare.
The 2nd article was at least informative about interesting bonding mechanics and learning new words (dunbar number woop woop).
The two biggest takeaways of it is that the weak ties hypothesis is possibly confirmed and that TSP can be confirmed.
But once again none of it has any relevance to your claim nor the topic of this thread itself.
Neither of this articles even mention excluding behaviour, in fact the only thing that was observed that
could be viewed as destructive are people that purposefully try to be evil which in turn has an evidently positive effect.
(...) These players tend to take enjoyment in destroying other players’ work or see it as their‘task’. Anonymity of the internet facilitates this behavior to some degree since possible social repercussions in real-world repu-tation are absent. For this reason these few individuals tend to cause a lot of offenses to a big number of players. If such a subject is identified by the community (players are very busy in using the forums to keep others up-to-date of the latest offenses), she may receive pre-emptive enemy markings, either by friends of offended friends or by otherwise non-involved players who hap-pen to read the forums. This destructive behavior and the indirect marking mechanism leads to the emergence of ‘public enemies’,i.e. a few characters with a very high in-degree of enemy mark-ings. The strength of positive social ties is likely to be boosted by people who share the same common enemies: “A world that includes self-proclaimed and loudly advertised Evil people run-ning about represents a great boon to those who are hungry tofight for the Good. Without Evil people, who could be Good?”(Castronova, 2005).
It is just a very loose interpretation but I could arguably propose that introducing meters might evolve into such an entity classified by the article as "public enemy" that you would simply seperate people into "enemy" networks and "friend" networks which would strengthen the bonds in the groups itself. This in turn would boost lifetime as outlined by the first article.
I can be a life fulfilling dream. - Zekece
I can be a life devouring nightmare. - Grisu#1819
It is just a very loose interpretation but I could arguably propose that introducing meters might evolve into such an entity classified by the article as "public enemy" that you would simply seperate people into "enemy" networks and "friend" networks which would strengthen the bonds in the groups itself. This in turn would boost lifetime as outlined by the first article.
Don't take it too seriously tho. It's just a joke really, but I did want to use it to lead into the following. (just had to switch devices and sent the first part early)
The thing is tho, I don't disagree per say with the notion of exclusioury behavior dimishng the lifetime of, say, a game.
Fact remains tho that you would have to prove that meters are such a thing and weighed towards being exclusionary VS helpful/engaging.
Anekdotal I can put forward tho that wow was at its most exclusive time with its content towards its peak subscriber count. Bc and wrath are generally viewed as the most overturned raids in wows history.
Empirical data provides that the subscriber count ramped up to its peak during that time.
I can also provide numbers that the ice crown citadel is the most attempted raid by unique groups in all of wows history.
Those datasets are readily available.
Which somewhat supports once again the public enemy suggestion and the stronger this entity is the stronger it bounds the people together that want to bring justice to it. Which clearly outweighs exclusive in favor of engagement.
That's a positive on count of making money for the company. And you could only have that because of readily available selfranking of possible damageoutput
I can be a life fulfilling dream. - Zekece
I can be a life devouring nightmare. - Grisu#1819
Well putting forth an opinion but not following it with supportive arguments, even going so far as misdirection to something uninvolved is considered bad Form.
Being hostile even tho I took the time to read it and see what you want to educate about is also not helping your case.
Yes I did miss that detail, but it somehow invalidates what I say now? Okay then
Going so far as calling what I do a strawmen constructing using Your scientific papers, that you provided without even attempting to initiate a constructive discussion just shows puts up red flags of an useless endeavor.
Sorry for trying to follow your route. I'll keep it in mind going forward.
Edit: time constraints so I'm editing it in.
It is weird to me that you fling around your scientific knowledge without adhering to its basic principles. It is not my place to disprove you, but yours to prove it. Leaning on '' it's out there" isn't not scientific. Noone would take you serious pulling that stunt in a scientific discussion. After you have proven your initial point it has to hold up against scrutiny overlooked.
So once again I am just saying you have to show me that Meyers are exclusivity inducing and only harmful or that it's negative influence is outweigthing its positives.
I gave examples based on your papers that it is indeed having positive influences too that prolong a games lifespan based on a sense of progression that seems to be a leading factor in how much people interact with a game.
At. I gave examples of how exclusivity is outweigh by a sense of progression. Obviously it's not as simple as that but then again I'm voicing an opinion based on some arguments and now scientific evidence that at the very least says This could correlate to be true and isn't inherently wrong.
I can be a life fulfilling dream. - Zekece
I can be a life devouring nightmare. - Grisu#1819
I am still of the opinion that your text does not implicate that the papers are indeed not related to the topic. That aside even then you could just assume I misunderstood. I thought I made a pretty normal response. I gave it an honest shake and I could have missed something in the paper after all.
I haven't interacted with you before and all you have done so far is being a condescending little piece of work hiding behind big words as others have put it.
Since you seem to have no interest in having a fruitful conversation so be it.
Right now you just went down to mix yourself in with exactly what you described you dislike.
Good on you, sorry for trying to understand a little more about a topic I didn't delve into in a more scientific way when presented with the opportunity of a conversation partner.
I can be a life fulfilling dream. - Zekece
I can be a life devouring nightmare. - Grisu#1819
Don't take it too seriously tho. It's just a joke really
Oh, here I was about to link in two or three papers that had no connection to what you said, pffer up no real connection between them but repeatedly insist that they are in fact relevant, and that if others can't see that then it is on them rather than on me for not articulating my point well enough.
But I think these forums have had enough of that the last few days.
1
Options
MeowsedMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Well I don't know if I just stepped on your toe in a weird way or what went wrong here, but I was interested in it all. Maybe you can come back at a later date, reread it and just reinitiate in a pm or something.
I am put off by your demeaning and condescending fashion but still, if we can have an actual discussion about meters that are scientifically backed I am all ears.
I can be a life fulfilling dream. - Zekece
I can be a life devouring nightmare. - Grisu#1819
0
Options
Undead CanuckMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Well I don't know if I just stepped on your toe in a weird way or what went wrong here, but I was interested in it all. Maybe you can come back at a later date, reread it and just reinitiate in a pm or something.
I am put off by your demeaning and condescending fashion but still, if we can have an actual discussion about meters that are scientifically backed I am all ears.
Nope, you didn't step on a toe. It just seems to be how that person is.
Ah geez, I actually messed up here. I worded that poorly, in an attempt to be relatable and make a joke at the same time. What I meant is that I often get tied up in my own thoughts and take things too seriously, and I'm trying not be so anal about it. And I would appreciate if you didn't take ME too seriously either. You can think of it as a poorly-worded, half-joking apology and plea for forgiveness, because I know I'm not perfect and I want leniency when people finish reading my opinions.
I was not trying to imply that you take things too seriously. And I was definitely not trying to use anyone's level of "seriousness" to de-value their opinions. I can see how my phrasing implied such things, but it was not intended. My mistake.
_______
You also mentioned that we shouldn't expect to change anything with this debate, or expect to be heard by the developers (I'm too lazy to find the quote, sorry). I agree 100%. If that were the only reason I spent time on these forums, then I would surely be disappointed, and the time would not be worth it. If that were my main goal, I would better be served building a resume and applying to Intrepid.
I do have a second reason for using the forums, though: To learn. Obviously, when I read other people's comments, I'm not just looking for things to fight. I often find things I didn't know about, or different perspectives that I didn't understand before, and I try to learn from them. In addition, I think we can hone/sharpen our own thoughts and opinions by discussing them, even if our arguments fail to convince each other. This is the main reason, BY FAR, that I use the forums.
That being said, I admit to trying to persuade people in the hopes that I can make the game better. The possibility that I will ever make a difference in this way is extremely tiny. But I believe it is possible to use grass-roots discussions to slowly win over community consensus.
(Of course, this only applies when there is a level of controversy, and the consensus is not already set in stone. The consensus does seem to be leaning away from me on this one, but I don't know if it's a lost cause just yet.)
It's like a national election: My vote is unlikely to change any outcomes when there are millions of other votes, but it's not entirely worthless. And if I can convince others to vote with me, then my minuscule power becomes less minuscule.
_____________
I'm not actually going to argue about DPS meters today because it's honestly a pain in the ass, and it takes me an hour to write each post. (I edit everything like an essay, and not efficiently. It's a problem, I know. Judge it however you want.) This already consumed the hour of time and the energy I'm willing to devote to these forums.
Thanks for this post. You're probably the only one in this place willing to do themselves what they keep insisting I should do (so they don't have to).
I could not possibly care less about DPS meters. AoC has made their call and my concerns about the game go well beyond something as vain as DPS, anyway.
There's an interesting intersection between anthropology, sociology, behavior economics, and game theory. But by far (to me, anyway) the more interesting lens is the distorted one that these forums inevitably render.
Personally, I think over-focus on combat in these games (rather than a more holistic equality in activities of choice, and equality of reward across them) is more corrosive than anyone cares to admit; usually, this is because no one seems to be able to come up with a profitable way to do anything else.
In product management, when this happens, it's a clear indication that you need better research and data because you're not finding the product/market fit you expected. The part I want to emphasize here being that all that activity usually happens well before you've funded, let alone started developing.
The problem with the game industry (MMOs in particular) is that they can't decide if they're an auteur culture, a collaborative culture, or a competitive one (design culture, not game design)... and they certainly haven't figured out how to blend them in a way that doesn't introduce a requisite point of diminishing return (i.e., you cannot outrun content exhaustion unless you make unique paths through content part of the intended experience).
It's not like this stuff isn't common conversation at associations and conferences or in the hallways of companies that make games. I think the real issue is that no one thinks about stepping outside their own industry to explore the problem statement in other contexts... you know, so they can bring in different patterns and innovate on them?
Most of the industry likes to talk about it as a math problem. I think it's actually a philosophy problem. Usually is when humans are involved, and that's the one thing you never really get much meat on - the design philosophy as such. It's not hard to understand why, just look at how any discussion not set in player terms quickly becomes.... this.
It's all good though - even these instances let companies like Intrepid have moments in which to contemplate how their design and business choices contribute to the mindset of their potential and actual players. After all, the perspectives cultivated here are primary drivers long after these forums are archived and forgotten by all.
If anyone at Intrepid reads my posts, they get what I'm saying. That's all that I'm here for, and I'm not really concerned with those folk who just can't get that. Thanks for not being one of them. /salute
First of all, this is one of the only posts you have put together in the last two or three days that actually leaves people able to respond to the ideas you present, rather than to the post itself.
I should point out that since the post here that I have quoted has pulled together a few of your thoughts from various threads, I am going to address them all here.
There is a sizable decrease in the amount of arrogance and self worth here, to the point where it is able to be overlooked. Also, you have presented your ideas here in a coherent manner that doesn't require additional reading in order to participate in a game discussion (and - even more importantly, you haven't suggested additional reading in a way that serves to detract from your point).
What you are saying here is that you think the direction of MMO's in general is wrong.
That's a perfectly valid opinion to have - but to be sure, it is just an opinion.
The fact that you are bringing it up here (these forums) makes me think that you want Ashes to be that MMO that you want.
I'm going to tell you why that won't be the case.
There is actually a two part reason for this, rather than a simple silver bullet reason.
The first is that in order to put out a product that has a drastically different direction than others of it's genre, you would need a sizable amount of R&D.
With the kind of direction change you are talking about here, a game studio would basically need to create an entire MMO as a test bed - with the assumption and understanding that the game in question won't make a profit. They would need to have a live environment to test out how different things could work, and what player reaction (in terms of forum posts, game time and game activity) is to each change.
Basically, this game developer would be taking everything that MMO developers have come to understand about MMO's, and throwing it out the window. In order to have a successful game, they would need to reacquire that same amount of information, but under this new paradigm.
There may be ways to conduct this R&D without having a full MMO as a test bed, but the cost for it would be in the tens of millions - at least. With the changes being proposed here though, it is as important to see how players would actually play the game as it is to see anything else, and the only way to see that specific aspect is with a full game. Based on this, the assumption should be that the first game launched using this new paradigm will not be popular.
A test the size of Apoc (or even Landmark) won't cut it for testing out something as far removed as is being suggested - it would need to be a full MMO that players that are playing feel they will be there for years - and so the players will make decisions based on the fact that they will be there for years.
The second part here is that Intrepid is a start up. This one thing in itself has two specific effects on the above.
The first is that Intrepid don't have the capital to put that amount of money in to R&D. This should go without saying - the company doesn't have an actual product to market as yet.
The second is that since they don't have a product to market as yet, they would likely be unwilling to see their first actual MMO to market be something that would likely turn a lot of the existing MMO base away from them as a developer. If a developer released this as their first title, their first and second titles would fail to make a profit.
Where a game idea like this could potentially see light is in the hands of a developer that meets all (or perhaps most) of the following criteria.
At least three MMO's currently making profit. The likely mix here would be two somewhat traditional MMORPG,s and then either an oddball MMORPG or an MMO***. All three games would need to have a stable development team dealing with additional content and such.
At least one non-MMO, AAA game in the developers stable.
A generally agreeable reputation among the general MMO and wider gaming public.
No close oversight by shareholders (there is no guarantee that this R&D will see a profit, and shareholders are likely to step in and make a mess of things).
A CEO that is happy to take risks.
An existing development staff that have experience working together, but no current project (or are soon to finish a project).
Ability (both actual and legal) to self publish.
There are not many companies that would fit this profile. SoE did 10 years ago, but Daybreak is not SoE.
Some people would claim Blizzard could do it, but they have neither the CEO, talented developers nor lack of shareholder oversight to pull it off.
Square Enix is probably the closest thing to a game developer that would be able to pull it off today.
Amazon Game Studio may be in this position in 5 years, if Amazon actually stick with the idea of having an MMO developer in house.
Intrepid are in no position to be able to do this right now.
As far as I am concerned, that is the end of the "MMO's should be heading in the direction I want them to be heading in" discussion - yeah, well, that's just like, you're opinion man. It is an opinion, as such it's fine, but it isn't something Intrepid are in any place to do anything about, whether they want to or not - and until a game developer actually attempts to make a game under that paradigm, there is no real way to say whether it will succeed or not. However, if no developer ever attempts it, it will never succeed.
---
Now on to what the original point of this thread was - DPS meters.
This is still a relevant discussion to have, or to continue, it's just that the specific branch that was taken a few days ago and bore no fruit is not worth carrying on.
Other than that specific branch, there are two points against DPS meters that I have seen you bring up. The first is the economic argument, and the second is the social aspect.
The economic one seems somewhat false to me. The biggest MMO in terms of total population, player retention and profit is also the MMO that has the most use of combat trackers. To say that profit is a reason to not allow or include a combat tracker seems to only make sense if you very specifically cherry pick specific events within specific games.
So, even though this argument is completely debunked, we'll come back to it again at the end of the next point.
Now we have the social aspect of combat trackers. This is anecdotal at best, I have seen no evidence that combat trackers cause any anti-social behavior, but have similar anecdotal evidence that combat trackers can fix as many issues as people claim they cause. There are no research papers on this at all - I've been looking for a decade. I know of people that have attempted to try to write such a paper, but the ability to collect data on the matter simply doesn't exist.
So, anecdotal one way or the other is the absolute best we have to go on here. We can agree that anti-social behavior is bad (although I'll debate that soon too), but there is no evidence that combat trackers = anti-social behavior.
However, because I am both nice and willing to compromise in debates, I have always been willing to concede this point. I've been happy to assume that combat trackers do cause anti-social behavior in MMO's, and that this is bad.
Anecdotally, this behavior always and only happens in pick up groups - and since I am willing to accept this thing happens without actual evidence, I don't think it too much to ask to then also agree that this is when it happens.
So, based on this, what we don't want to see is people able to run combat trackers in pick up groups. If the ability to do this is removed from players completely, then the anti-social behavior that we have agreed happens and also agreed happens in pick up groups is now unable to happen.
So now what we need to do is - we need to figure out how to make sure players in pick up groups can't track combat of the whole group. If Intrepid do nothing at all about combat trackers, this thing we want to not happen absolutely will happen. Every other MMORPG has not implemented a combat tracker in to the game, and every other MMORPG has had a third party one developed for it. These third party trackers are able to track combat in pickup groups, which is what we want to not happen.
So now, we need to think about what would stop third party combat trackers from existing for Ashes. There are two options - the first is to give no combat feedback to players at all. No text feedback, no floating number feedback, no cast bar, no cast animation, no HP bar. Any of these things can be used to make a combat tracker of sorts, and if Intrepid want to block combat trackers, they need to block all of these things.
The second option for how to make sure third party combat trackers don't become a thing is to make it so there is no need to develop them in the first place. This is the route no game has gone as yet - and so if the results of all other games are not what is desired in Ashes, this would be the logical path.
In order to do this, what Intrepid need to do is to make their own combat tracker and put it in to the game.
The people making combat trackers now will happily stop if there is an in game means of objectively analyzing both player builds and encounters.
So, the only logical and reasonable way to stop players being able to track others combat in pick up groups is to provide players with a means to analyze player builds and encounters in game, but in a way where it can't be used in pick up groups.
Thus, my suggestion for all of this time has been to make a combat tracker a high level guild reward, as one of several very good options with each other option being aimed at players that PvP more, or that craft more, or that solo more - leaving this combat tracker as something only PvE guilds taking on raid content would consider. Then, you make it so that combat tracker only works on members of that guild, and suddenly you have a system where players are able to analyze builds and encounters, but where there is no ability for anyone to track any players combat in a pick up group.
So far, no one has been able to come up with a single thing against this suggestion - including Steven/Intrepid.
To be clear, this isn't how I would like things to be. I'm quite happy in a game where combat trackers are everywhere. Rather, what the above suggestion is, when you actually look at it, is the only way to have a game where pick up group players can be sure no one is tracking their combat.
This is the solution to the other side of the argument, not to my side.
Now back to the two points I said above that I would swing back to.
Economic decisions in regards to combat trackers.
I'm going to use fast food as an example here, because it makes it easier, and most people would understand.
There is more than 10 times more money in selling burgers than there is in selling chicken. These numbers are out there.
Based on that, if all fast food places simply followed the biggest chunk of money, they would all just sell burgers. However, placed like Nando's or KFC and other fried chicken outlets exist and are profitable.
The reason here is simple, fried chicken places offer an alternative to people that don't want a burger. There will always be those people offering alternatives to the most popular, because there will always be people that want something else.
In terms of MMO's, a new game probably shouldn't attempt to compete with WoW, GW2, ESO or FFXIV. These are the burger places, and they have that market locked down between them.
However, if you look at those games, none of them really have a hold on either the top end PvE player, nor on the serious PvP player. So a game focusing on one or both of them could then be the KFC of MMO's.
However, that KFC of MMO's needs to then understand their own audience, and be aware that it will have differences to the burger MMO audience. If you look at the burger MMO's, one of them is anti-tracker, one is neutral, and two have officially sanctioned them.
However, this means nothing for the KFC MMO. Rather, the KFC MMO needs to look at who it's audience is going to be, and then you need to look at what that audience wants and expects from your KFC MMO.
Now, since Steven has said he wants a high end PvE scene in this game, and since high end PvE players will have (not will expect - will have) a combat tracker, suggesting that Ashes will not have a combat tracker goes against basic economic principles.
Turn that to PvP - if we carry on assuming that a combat tracker causes anti-social behavior, that means combat trackers will cause more PvP. This is something Intrepid want - the game is built around the notion that players can kill each other for any reason almost any where they want - and there are systems in the game that require this to happen somewhat regularly.
When players are able to tear down the time and effort that an entire guild or alliance of guilds has put in to the game for months, the amount of negativity that can then be generated by saying "oh, and your DPS was a bit low too" seems kind of irrelevant.
So, all up, in regards to combat trackers, this is what we have...
If combat trackers are bad, the best thing to do is for Intrepid to implement one in to the game themselves so that there can be some control over who can use it, and who they can use it on.
On the other hand, if combat trackers are not bad, the best thing that could happen for the game is for Intrepid to put one directly in to the game themselves, and in this situation they need not restrict it's usage.
---
The reason I am still arguing this point - and will continue to do so any time there is a thread in which to do so - is not because I want Steven/Intrepid to listen to me. I am on record as saying I specifically don't want them listening to me (or to you, or to any player). I keep these conversations going so that Intrepid know the conversation is still going. If the conversation is still going out here, then there is a chance the conversation is still going on internally at Intrepid.
Since I know there are people high up at Intrepid that are all for combat trackers, my hope is that Steven will listen to them - the professionals in their field that he hired to advise him on the best decisions to make for his game.
I really don't get your problem Ekadzati. I didn't miss a statement, I missed a detail that suggests that your claim of meters being harmful is unrelated to the papers you posted.
I still responded to what the papers themself explore which you so nicely suggested that we should educate ourselves in. I even went to the trouble to find the publicly available version of the 2nd paper. It is publicly available btw like pretty much all papers.
Sure it didn't have any relevance to the topic itself which we clarified by now in all extend, but I thought they are still interesting in itself and worth talking about(at least the 2nd one), so I did.
I think I made it clear that I don't see the correlation between the two subjects and it should be taken just as such. Clearly I missed something you intended to be clear happens.
Wheresoever you get the idea I suggested that all of what you wrote is irrelevant is beyond me, I mean I even agreed with you conditionally.
Well I think I threaded this out enough. Apparently we got off on the wrong foot and it's beyond trying to mend it. You seem to have developed a detestation for me now, so w/e I guess. I just thought I try to clear it up one last time.
Have a good one.
I can be a life fulfilling dream. - Zekece
I can be a life devouring nightmare. - Grisu#1819
0
Options
CaelronMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Going in a different direction here, but on the same topic. Have you guys played Breath of the Wild?
There's armor stats and attack power and stats on weapons, etc.
There's also crazy hard fights, which require certain sets of weapons and armor that need to be completed.
But... there's no meters in the game. The only armor piece you can wear to show the enemy's hit points isn't the best for those super-hard encounters most of the time, either.
Although this is a very specific example of no damage/dps meter - you still have fun. It also nearly forces you to be creative in the encounters, and even before engaging the encounter.
I would argue that "with" a DPS meter in Breath of the Wild, you would almost force players to think in terms of damage and dps as opposed to finding those creative solutions.
I think this same concept also applies to groups, raids, and mmorpg's, even if players are running around solo. Even when fighting 'target dummies' for personal use. It doesn't show even half of the whole picture.
If as a general statement saying that "meters reduce creativity", wouldn't that be enough not to implement them? Even without them, people will find the solutions, the builds, the class and ability combinations to succeed eventually - and that knowledge will spread, and people will adapt and follow.
I also don't think the "40-man raid" argument is a valid argument, since the base level of play is designed around groups of 8. If you're the group leader (in the group of 8), it will become pretty clear who the "bad eggs" are, or the people who aren't exactly playing in smart ways, making easy mistakes, etc. when you play with them - even if you're succeeding all the time. Another example: I don't need a dps meter to see that the rogue is standing in fire. And a healing meter won't give you accurate encounter numbers if people are making mistakes, requiring more healing (just as an example.)
Meters have a huge tendency to mask more problems than they solve. Now, if you wanted a "meter" or something like a data-analysis tool after an encounter, completely outside of the game... sure. Maybe. Can't really avoid that, I suppose. But even then, the original argument of a "good leader" vs. "bad leader" would still hold true. The good people looking for improvement will find them. The rest will look for problems and easy solutions to exclude people, criticize, or even use it as a metric to go against what's "normal" or "desired".
Wow, this was a LOT of information. I'm not even going to attempt to fool anyone into thinking I actually read all of it so I apologize if this has been mentioned before.
I've personally seen the positives and negatives with meters. As an example I'll use the last MMO I was really into, SWTOR.
With the introduction of meters I found class and build exclusion increased. There were a number of times I was excluded from a raid or a PvP team due to playing the wrong class. This is because the meters showed that my class dps output was X dps lower than another class on average or that another class did more burst damage. I had to argue the point and then prove that I could perform as well as the other class(which i did), but it required me downloading an additional program, waiting to find a time where the "raid or PvP team leader" was available and completing content while they monitored my dps. Bullshit. It put a bad taste in my mouth.
This did force me into downloading the program and fighting dummies for hours and hours to try to get my numbers higher, and in a way it did make me a better player i guess. It did not bring me any closer to my guild though, quite the opposite. It made me feel like less of a member since I was just a number and developed no loyalty to the guild. I ended up leaving a few months later despite being better than a LOT of their other DPS. I also quit tanking for them which they were really upset about.
I also found that the use of meters also restricted a players "rotation" or ability to play a character the way they wanted. There were definitely times where I was asked "What's your rotation? Are you using Dulfy's rotation?" where I would proudly answer "No, I'm not". I am not the same as everyone else and will not play my character the same as everyone else.
Gear ratings are a different story and I dont see the problem with using them as a way to restrict access. I say this but I constantly put together raids just to help juniors gear up where the "raid teams" were to busy raiding to smash face over and over just to help out guildies. "Sorry, you cant come on this raid but we'll do another raid in a few days to get you some gear"
If as a general statement saying that "meters reduce creativity", wouldn't that be enough not to implement them?
I don't believe this statement to be true, but even if it were, I wouldn't think that were enough of a reason to not have combat trackers.
The thing that forces players to be creative in coming up with a way to kill an encounter is not due to having a lack of information. What forces creativity in a raid situation is creativity from the developers.
If there is an encounter that requires an outside-the-box method to kill it, that method would be required whether I have a combat tracker or not. What a combat tracker will do though, it tell me what this encounter is doing. If I pay attention to what it is doing like this, I may come to the realization that I need a creative solution sooner than I would have without a combat tracker.
As to why I don't believe that it would be a valid reason to not have trackers if your statement were true - it is simply because the bulk of raid leadership is analytical, not creative.
If Intrepid were to target their raid game at creative types rather than analytical types, what they are essentially saying is that anyone in an existing high end PvE guild may as well skip over Ashes, because it is not the game for their guild.
While there is nothing at all wrong with requiring more creativity in raids, it should not be done at the expense of the analytical side of raiding - assuming Ashes wants to court existing raid guilds.
If they increase the creativity without deminishing the analytical side of things, what that does is encourage these guilds to expand their leadership group to encompass a bit more creative thinking. If they replace analytical thinking with creative thinking, those same guilds would need to replace their analytical leadership with completely new leadership.
Edit to add; if they replace analytical thinking with trial and error, as Steven has claimed he is doing, all that will do is see guilds replace their analytical leadership with four leaf clovers, rabbits feet and other lucky charms as at that point, successful raiding is more about lucking on to the right strategy early than it is about anything else.
Wow, this was a LOT of information. I'm not even going to attempt to fool anyone into thinking I actually read all of it so I apologize if this has been mentioned before.
I've personally seen the positives and negatives with meters. As an example I'll use the last MMO I was really into, SWTOR.
With the introduction of meters I found class and build exclusion increased. There were a number of times I was excluded from a raid or a PvP team due to playing the wrong class. This is because the meters showed that my class dps output was X dps lower than another class on average or that another class did more burst damage. I had to argue the point and then prove that I could perform as well as the other class(which i did), but it required me downloading an additional program, waiting to find a time where the "raid or PvP team leader" was available and completing content while they monitored my dps. Bullshit. It put a bad taste in my mouth.
This did force me into downloading the program and fighting dummies for hours and hours to try to get my numbers higher, and in a way it did make me a better player i guess. It did not bring me any closer to my guild though, quite the opposite. It made me feel like less of a member since I was just a number and developed no loyalty to the guild. I ended up leaving a few months later despite being better than a LOT of their other DPS. I also quit tanking for them which they were really upset about.
I also found that the use of meters also restricted a players "rotation" or ability to play a character the way they wanted. There were definitely times where I was asked "What's your rotation? Are you using Dulfy's rotation?" where I would proudly answer "No, I'm not". I am not the same as everyone else and will not play my character the same as everyone else.
Gear ratings are a different story and I dont see the problem with using them as a way to restrict access. I say this but I constantly put together raids just to help juniors gear up where the "raid teams" were to busy raiding to smash face over and over just to help out guildies. "Sorry, you cant come on this raid but we'll do another raid in a few days to get you some gear"
Respectfully
Me
This is a situation I have seen a lot. I have three specific things I'd like to point out.
The first is that not all players want to play the analytical game. There is nothing wrong with this at all, but it is important to know if that is you or not. If that is not you, then don't join a guild that is analytical.
This experience from SWTOR has taught you a lesson that will likely be with you in every online game you play going forward.
Second, if common wisdom in that game was that your class was not able to DPS to the same level as other classes, and you showed that you could - then you just increased the knowledge of every player in that game, and that is something to be proud of.
Third, regardless of whether combat trackers exist, the playerbase will have a general opinion on each class and how good it is vs other classes. This means that anyone that would exclude a class based on a combat tracker reading would then instead exclude a class based on general opinion that the class is not as good as other classes.
The only way to change this general opinion is via a combat tracker.
The same can be said of rotations (for games that have combat simple enough to be able to use a rotation). There will be a generally considered "best" rotation, with or without a combat tracker. If combat trackers exist, at least you are able to objectively say how good your rotation is, rather than just trying to bang your head against general subjective opinion.
Basically, if players think a class or rotation isn't as good as another class or rotation, and you can't prove that it is, they will have no reason to take you over someone of that class/rotation that players think is good.
If you want to prove that your way is just as good (which is usually the case, in my experience), then you need objective data, which can only be obtained via a combat tracker.
1
Options
arodicusMember, Phoenix Initiative, Hero of the People
Personally I like meters because it does let me compare myself to other people playing the same class as me to see if we are comparable.
The thing with ashes is the game is supposed to rely on skill as well as strategy. The boss fights aren’t going to be as scripted as you would see in wow or other mmos. It has been said that while there are some enemies meant to be killed by 8-10 people a smaller group of 1-3 people could theoretically take it out with hard work skill and determination.
As a side note they have not said anything about the possibility of obtaining a copy of the combat log. I’ve used the method of exporting combat logs to a file on my desktop then uploading them to 3rd party websites for after the fact meters. Maybe this could be a possibility.
With the introduction of meters I found class and build exclusion increased. There were a number of times I was excluded from a raid or a PvP team due to playing the wrong class. This is because the meters showed that my class dps output was X dps lower than another class on average or that another class did more burst damage.
So you deny that there is any evidence of anti-social behavior from trackers but then say that you see a lot of anti-social behavior from trackers when Moseph posts their experience with them? But you also concede this "anecdotal" information in order to push your argument that it "always and only happens" in pick up groups so if we don't allow it for them then it's not so bad.
If combat trackers are bad, the best thing to do is for Intrepid to implement one in to the game themselves so that there can be some control over who can use it, and who they can use it on.
players will have (not will expect - will have) a combat tracker
Why does Intrepid need to implement a tracker when, according to you, players are going to make and use whatever tracker they want anyway? Maybe instead of devoting time on implementing toxic features, they should work on better detection systems for players who are breaking rules instead.
A combat tracker is not the only way to change a general opinion of how well a class plays. How well a player plays said class can also change an opinion of how well a class does. If someone wants to exclude another player because they think that class is generally looked at as bad, that is the same ignorant and discriminatory behavior as saying "my combat meter says your dps is too low, goodbye".
An argument can also be made that the reason games are being played so analytically now, is because of tools like combat meters. Instead of finding enjoyment from the game in things like working together to defeat a hard foe, or finally figuring out some mechanic, it's changed to working together to see the highest numbers on the combat meter while checking the most optimal path and skill rotation on the wiki.
There is nothing wrong with someone enjoying being the most efficient. There is also nothing wrong with someone who wants to spend a lot of real world money on loot boxes or cash shops in order to be better than everyone else in a game, if that's how they enjoy playing the game. However, just because those people enjoy playing that way, it doesn't mean those features should be implemented into AoC no matter how those people want to rationalize it or come to some compromise to make it "not as bad". It just doesn't need to be in the game and I agree with Steven's position on this matter.
So you deny that there is any evidence of anti-social behavior from trackers but then say that you see a lot of anti-social behavior from trackers when Moseph posts their experience with them? But you also concede this "anecdotal" information in order to push your argument that it "always and only happens" in pick up groups so if we don't allow it for them then it's not so bad.
Actually, yes.
Situations like that pointed out by Moseph happen in games with heavy combat tracker use, but also happen in games where the bulk of the population don't even realize combat trackers exist.
There is no evidence at all that the cause of these issues is the combat tracker itself, since it happens both with them and without them.
The arguments that this kind of thing happen at all because of combat trackers are anecdotal at best. Anecdotally, these stories are almost entirely within the confines of pick up groups.
It you want to leave teh realm of theoretical discussion, then that means two things. The first is that you will find infrequent examples of anti-social behavior involving combat trackers that are not in pick up groups, and secondly that you now need more than anecdotal evidence to prove that this behavior is CAUSED by combat trackers, rather than simply INVOLVING combat trackers.
The argument that combat trackers cause this kind of behavior is weak because this behavior exists without combat trackers, and because combat trackers exist without this behavior. The logical conclusion here is that this behavior exists, and combat trackers exist, but there is no causation at all in either direction.
The reason I am happy to concede this point - even though it is blatantly false - is because that allows the conversation to them move on to how to combat player perception of combat trackers.
Now, if you want to debate that anti-social behavior in relation isn't restricted to pick up groups, I am more than happy to meet you in that discussion. However, the first part of that discussion is you providing empirical proof that combat trackers cause the anti-social behavior in which they are used, rather than being simply used in anti-social behavior that would exist regardless of whether a combat tracker was present or not.
Why does Intrepid need to implement a tracker when, according to you, players are going to make and use whatever tracker they want anyway? Maybe instead of devoting time on implementing toxic features, they should work on better detection systems for players who are breaking rules instead.
They don't have to - it is simply the best outcome for all involved (when you look at the actual possible outcomes - of which there are only two).
If Intrepid make one, then they have control of it. If Intrepid do not make one, others will, and Intrepid will have no control over it. This is not really up for debate, as there are already multiple in development for Ashes.
Ponder this question;
Ashes will have a combat tracker, would you rather Intrepid be in control of it, or an anonymous third party be in control of it?
If your answer is that you would rather Intrepid be in control of a combat tracker for Ashes than a third party, then you agree with me that the best thing for the game is for Intrepid to make one.
If you would rather a third party have control of a combat tracker, that's cool. I actually would personally rather it be left to third parties myself - my reason for wanting Intrepid to make one isn't because it is my preference - as I said in the above post, it is because that is what I think would be best for the game.
If someone wants to exclude another player because they think that class is generally looked at as bad, that is the same ignorant and discriminatory behavior as saying "my combat meter says your dps is too low, goodbye".
Yes it is.
I don't condone this kind of behavior, nor do I behave in this way.
However, we all know this kind of behavior exists, and it exists with or without combat trackers.
So my point here is that any argument in regards to combat trackers in an attempt to mitigate this kind of behavior is misplaced - as it will exist either way.
An argument can also be made that the reason games are being played so analytically now, is because of tools like combat meters. Instead of finding enjoyment from the game in things like working together to defeat a hard foe, or finally figuring out some mechanic, it's changed to working together to see the highest numbers on the combat meter while checking the most optimal path and skill rotation on the wiki.
This argument to me only seems appropriate when talking about WoW.
Things like DBM are not combat trackers, they are combat assistants.
A combat tracker doesn't mean you and your guild no longer need to work together, nor does it mean you no longer need to figure out an encounters mechanic. A combat assistant means those things, but not a combat tracker.
A combat tracker does nothing more than tell you what an encounter just did. It doesn't tell you how to deal with anything the encounter may throw at you, or provide any work around for teamwork - it simply provides you with objective data on what has taken place.
When you have this objective data, content developers (good ones, at least) are then able to put more in to an encounter with the expectation that the encounter will still provide the same level of challenge as an encounter with fewer things going on in a situation where a combat tracker doesn't exist. These additional things that the content developer can add in due to more information from a combat tracker can be things that require even more teamwork, or even more time to work out a viable strategy - at the discretion of that content developer.
Basically, with a combat tracker you can actually see what is going on, and when you can see what is going on you can deal with more things at once. The more things at once your raid is dealing with, the more need there is for solid teamwork.
Now again, this all only applies to combat trackers, not combat assistants. If Ashes has combat assistants (first or third party) I'm done with the game.
There is nothing wrong with someone enjoying being the most efficient. There is also nothing wrong with someone who wants to spend a lot of real world money on loot boxes or cash shops in order to be better than everyone else in a game, if that's how they enjoy playing the game. However, just because those people enjoy playing that way, it doesn't mean those features should be implemented into AoC no matter how those people want to rationalize it or come to some compromise to make it "not as bad". It just doesn't need to be in the game and I agree with Steven's position on this matter.
The problem here is that whether a combat tracker will exist for Ashes or not isn't up to Steven. The only way he will have any control is if he puts one in to the game. If he doesn't have that by beta, others will, and then he will never be able to get that control back.
With what I have seen over the last 5 years or so of knowing people that are more interested in pulling data from MMO encounters than they are in the encounters themselves (or the MMO's themselves), there are no measures Intrepid can take to stop a combat tracker working in Ashes.
From what I've seen in games and read here... both arguments are accurate.
The one problem I see is that for meters to be implemented correctly, EVERYONE has to use them (which they wont), and EVERYONE has to be able to accurately interpret the information(which few will be able to do). This IMO is what leads to exclusion. One person or group will post a chart for whatever... a class, ability, or rotation, and the majority take it as gospel.
I've also seen a smaller number of clans/guilds who DO use meters than those that don't, and of those that did use meters not as many of them could accurately interpret the information as they thought. As an example, they didn't know how to or couldn't understand dps ramps (stacking DoTs vs dropping bombs).
It basically comes down to THOROUGHLY educating the player base... which won't happen. Not everyone wants to put in the effort to learn about it, or they don't care enough about it, or the big one, they assume they understand it.
All in all, meters DO lead to exclusion, but not because the meters themselves are bad, but because of the people.
Which is why I dont like meters. I put in time and effort to learn my characters and the fight mechanics. Why should I have to deal with or put in even more effort because a chart says my class puts out 500 heals or dps less than another class over the same amount of time. Play with me, evaluate me, and you will see I'm the better choice.
From what I've seen in games and read here... both arguments are accurate.
The one problem I see is that for meters to be implemented correctly, EVERYONE has to use them (which they wont), and EVERYONE has to be able to accurately interpret the information(which few will be able to do). This IMO is what leads to exclusion. One person or group will post a chart for whatever... a class, ability, or rotation, and the majority take it as gospel.
I've also seen a smaller number of clans/guilds who DO use meters than those that don't, and of those that did use meters not as many of them could accurately interpret the information as they thought. As an example, they didn't know how to or couldn't understand dps ramps (stacking DoTs vs dropping bombs).
It basically comes down to THOROUGHLY educating the player base... which won't happen. Not everyone wants to put in the effort to learn about it, or they don't care enough about it, or the big one, they assume they understand it.
All in all, meters DO lead to exclusion, but not because the meters themselves are bad, but because of the people.
Which is why I dont like meters. I put in time and effort to learn my characters and the fight mechanics. Why should I have to deal with or put in even more effort because a chart says my class puts out 500 heals or dps less than another class over the same amount of time. Play with me, evaluate me, and you will see I'm the better choice.
This is why the suggestion has been put forth to make combat logging a feature of guilds. A high level guild perk geared toward serious PvE raiders that could only be used within that guild. So those who would want and need this tool will have access to it, meanwhile PUGs will not have access to it.
The information brought by combat logs are invaluable. They provide entry level information to newbies, and high-end level knowledge to experienced players.
A group that would exclude based on less than a 1% dps difference is a group that is either 1) a PUG run by an ass or 2) a group that intends to score push.
In 1, which just intends to clear, does not, and the lead knows it does not, require a min-maxed group. A 1% difference will never be the difference between a clear or a wipe. This situation also happens regardless of whether the “best” and “worst” are determined by data or by popular opinion.
In 2, you don’t intend to be the using the most efficient class/strategy/build/rotation, which is fine, but that group is not obligated to take someone who doesn’t share their goals.
If combat logging was a guild perk exclusively, then situation 1 would still happen but with objective data to prove how pointless the exclusion is. In situation 2, you would also have the tool to prove the difference is negligible. You have a chance to plead your case there, to prove what you came up with is better than the popular build is.
Objective data is always better than being forced to wade through subjective, unclear information.
And like has already been said, a combat tracker will exist for Ashes. There’s no doubt about that. The decision for IS now becomes “do we let combat tracking be controlled by third parties?” or “do we implement the tool ourself and keep the control in our hands?”
@Caeryl
I agree, in the correct hands, a meter can be a valuable tool. An individual can use it and fight target dummies for as long as they want to figure out the best combo of moves or whatever. I personally enjoy doing this, and pushing my characters to the bleeding edge of their abilities. This does not negate the fact that it still brings the unwanted or negative effects with it. There's a lot of examples for this... probably more than there are good examples.
Because it IS such a valuable tool (in your opinion), you'll make sure to have one in your guild, even if you don't truly know how to interpret the information (I'm not say you don't, and I'm not trying to insult you, but right now there's no proof that you do), or don't have enough people in your guild to really push nightmare or HC modes, but you'll still have it and more than likely use it. In the case you're in someone else guild, because you think it's so valuable you'll probably push them to use it even though THEY might not be able to properly use it.
I don't think anyone said meters weren't valuable. Most people who argue against them are arguing that they think they negatively affect the game more than they positively affect it. Which I'd be inclined to agree with.
If I can remember, the dps meters I've seen and used only displayed how much dps, heals, and aggro people generated or received. Correct me if I'm wrong. They dont show if someone is using interrupts when they should or if they're moving when they should. I've seen a LOT of players hang out in fire or lava for a few extra seconds or miss an interrupt with the goal of pushing their numbers so they would look better, which places a greater demand on the healers / tank increasing the chances for a wipe. I've also seen more people (not playing the same class as someone) tell other they're playing their character wrong because they're not putting out as much dps as someone else. It's even happened to me, despite the fact that I hit all my interrupts and the other didn't.
I can't speak from experience but from the youtube videos and streamers i've watched, I honestly believe that good guilds, pushing for server firsts, or NM/HC mode don't need or use DPS meters. It seems to be all great teamwork and camaraderie. What I HAVE seen both IRL and in streams/videos, is tryhards using the meters to blame others for wipes instead of trying to teach the others the proper mechanics. I'm not saying you're one or the other, these are just my observations. I would love to hear from someone who has actually been in a top guild (with some type of proof) how they use meters, or if they do. I don't personally know, I was never in a guild with server firsts, or 100% NM completions. I HAVE played with a lot of tryhard guilds who thought they were HC though, even though they weren't.
But in the end it really just comes down to what you said I guess.
In 2, you don’t intend to be the using the most efficient class/strategy/build/rotation, which is fine, but that group is not obligated to take someone who doesn’t share their goals.
If you want a meter, that is fine, but the studio is not obligated to make or support one for someone who doesn’t share their goals.
@Moseph Yeah i'd agree that most of the people on the No side come from that logic. As to meters, nowadays there are many (depending on game) that show how many interrupts you've used, how much damage you've taken, and what are the last few sources of that dealt damage. Noanni and Caeryl are also referring to parses, or after combat log data, which can give a pretty big glut of data, like what abilities were active upon you at what points of the fight, along with all the damage, healing, etc. that youd expect.
I don't really want any kind of addons to be allowed or supported. Play the game as its meant to be played, within the game. Get better by playing it. I don't need nor want nor am i conditioned or limited by the lack of dmg meters. Git gud
Comments
While interesting, the first article, while it feels fundamentally flawed is only out there to find correlation between social structure and guild quitting.
(...)The character level and level change attributes are intended to capture the character’s sense of progress. The underlying theory being that a character that is making progress will be content with their
current guild.
It quotes while using data from wow. I doubt that most people spend their time just leveling. It shows a fundamental flaw in their approach which can't easily be fixed, since measuring "a sense of progress" after that becomes a lot more complicated.
Other than that whole targeted observation followed by the inevitable conclusion is so banal the only purpose of the paper is bringing it down on paper.
(...)
Guild count (and equivalently the number of guild membership) seems to be the strongest feature. This is intuitive — past switching events are indicative of a character’s lack of loyalty, and implies an easy tendency to depart from his/her current guild as well.
The feature time since last event is positively correlated with quitting,i.e., the longer a player stays activity free, the more likely he/she will quit the guild
yeah duh.. I don't need a paper on it to know this to be true. It's good to "prove" it in a limited capacity, but aside from that, once again it has no ramifications on the influence of meters or exclusionary behaviour.
I don't know what the purpose behind you posting those irrelevant articles are but hey, I had an hour to spare.
The 2nd article was at least informative about interesting bonding mechanics and learning new words (dunbar number woop woop).
The two biggest takeaways of it is that the weak ties hypothesis is possibly confirmed and that TSP can be confirmed.
But once again none of it has any relevance to your claim nor the topic of this thread itself.
Neither of this articles even mention excluding behaviour, in fact the only thing that was observed that
could be viewed as destructive are people that purposefully try to be evil which in turn has an evidently positive effect.
It is just a very loose interpretation but I could arguably propose that introducing meters might evolve into such an entity classified by the article as "public enemy" that you would simply seperate people into "enemy" networks and "friend" networks which would strengthen the bonds in the groups itself. This in turn would boost lifetime as outlined by the first article.
I can be a life devouring nightmare. - Grisu#1819
The thing is tho, I don't disagree per say with the notion of exclusioury behavior dimishng the lifetime of, say, a game.
Fact remains tho that you would have to prove that meters are such a thing and weighed towards being exclusionary VS helpful/engaging.
Anekdotal I can put forward tho that wow was at its most exclusive time with its content towards its peak subscriber count. Bc and wrath are generally viewed as the most overturned raids in wows history.
Empirical data provides that the subscriber count ramped up to its peak during that time.
I can also provide numbers that the ice crown citadel is the most attempted raid by unique groups in all of wows history.
Those datasets are readily available.
Which somewhat supports once again the public enemy suggestion and the stronger this entity is the stronger it bounds the people together that want to bring justice to it. Which clearly outweighs exclusive in favor of engagement.
That's a positive on count of making money for the company. And you could only have that because of readily available selfranking of possible damageoutput
I can be a life devouring nightmare. - Grisu#1819
Being hostile even tho I took the time to read it and see what you want to educate about is also not helping your case.
Yes I did miss that detail, but it somehow invalidates what I say now? Okay then
Going so far as calling what I do a strawmen constructing using Your scientific papers, that you provided without even attempting to initiate a constructive discussion just shows puts up red flags of an useless endeavor.
Sorry for trying to follow your route. I'll keep it in mind going forward.
Edit: time constraints so I'm editing it in.
It is weird to me that you fling around your scientific knowledge without adhering to its basic principles. It is not my place to disprove you, but yours to prove it. Leaning on '' it's out there" isn't not scientific. Noone would take you serious pulling that stunt in a scientific discussion. After you have proven your initial point it has to hold up against scrutiny overlooked.
So once again I am just saying you have to show me that Meyers are exclusivity inducing and only harmful or that it's negative influence is outweigthing its positives.
I gave examples based on your papers that it is indeed having positive influences too that prolong a games lifespan based on a sense of progression that seems to be a leading factor in how much people interact with a game.
At. I gave examples of how exclusivity is outweigh by a sense of progression. Obviously it's not as simple as that but then again I'm voicing an opinion based on some arguments and now scientific evidence that at the very least says This could correlate to be true and isn't inherently wrong.
I can be a life devouring nightmare. - Grisu#1819
I haven't interacted with you before and all you have done so far is being a condescending little piece of work hiding behind big words as others have put it.
Since you seem to have no interest in having a fruitful conversation so be it.
Right now you just went down to mix yourself in with exactly what you described you dislike.
Good on you, sorry for trying to understand a little more about a topic I didn't delve into in a more scientific way when presented with the opportunity of a conversation partner.
I can be a life devouring nightmare. - Grisu#1819
It is a link that simply doesn't hold up over a broad outlook.
But I think these forums have had enough of that the last few days.
I am put off by your demeaning and condescending fashion but still, if we can have an actual discussion about meters that are scientifically backed I am all ears.
I can be a life devouring nightmare. - Grisu#1819
Nope, you didn't step on a toe. It just seems to be how that person is.
First of all, this is one of the only posts you have put together in the last two or three days that actually leaves people able to respond to the ideas you present, rather than to the post itself.
I should point out that since the post here that I have quoted has pulled together a few of your thoughts from various threads, I am going to address them all here.
There is a sizable decrease in the amount of arrogance and self worth here, to the point where it is able to be overlooked. Also, you have presented your ideas here in a coherent manner that doesn't require additional reading in order to participate in a game discussion (and - even more importantly, you haven't suggested additional reading in a way that serves to detract from your point).
What you are saying here is that you think the direction of MMO's in general is wrong.
That's a perfectly valid opinion to have - but to be sure, it is just an opinion.
The fact that you are bringing it up here (these forums) makes me think that you want Ashes to be that MMO that you want.
I'm going to tell you why that won't be the case.
There is actually a two part reason for this, rather than a simple silver bullet reason.
The first is that in order to put out a product that has a drastically different direction than others of it's genre, you would need a sizable amount of R&D.
With the kind of direction change you are talking about here, a game studio would basically need to create an entire MMO as a test bed - with the assumption and understanding that the game in question won't make a profit. They would need to have a live environment to test out how different things could work, and what player reaction (in terms of forum posts, game time and game activity) is to each change.
Basically, this game developer would be taking everything that MMO developers have come to understand about MMO's, and throwing it out the window. In order to have a successful game, they would need to reacquire that same amount of information, but under this new paradigm.
There may be ways to conduct this R&D without having a full MMO as a test bed, but the cost for it would be in the tens of millions - at least. With the changes being proposed here though, it is as important to see how players would actually play the game as it is to see anything else, and the only way to see that specific aspect is with a full game. Based on this, the assumption should be that the first game launched using this new paradigm will not be popular.
A test the size of Apoc (or even Landmark) won't cut it for testing out something as far removed as is being suggested - it would need to be a full MMO that players that are playing feel they will be there for years - and so the players will make decisions based on the fact that they will be there for years.
The second part here is that Intrepid is a start up. This one thing in itself has two specific effects on the above.
The first is that Intrepid don't have the capital to put that amount of money in to R&D. This should go without saying - the company doesn't have an actual product to market as yet.
The second is that since they don't have a product to market as yet, they would likely be unwilling to see their first actual MMO to market be something that would likely turn a lot of the existing MMO base away from them as a developer. If a developer released this as their first title, their first and second titles would fail to make a profit.
Where a game idea like this could potentially see light is in the hands of a developer that meets all (or perhaps most) of the following criteria.
At least three MMO's currently making profit. The likely mix here would be two somewhat traditional MMORPG,s and then either an oddball MMORPG or an MMO***. All three games would need to have a stable development team dealing with additional content and such.
At least one non-MMO, AAA game in the developers stable.
A generally agreeable reputation among the general MMO and wider gaming public.
No close oversight by shareholders (there is no guarantee that this R&D will see a profit, and shareholders are likely to step in and make a mess of things).
A CEO that is happy to take risks.
An existing development staff that have experience working together, but no current project (or are soon to finish a project).
Ability (both actual and legal) to self publish.
There are not many companies that would fit this profile. SoE did 10 years ago, but Daybreak is not SoE.
Some people would claim Blizzard could do it, but they have neither the CEO, talented developers nor lack of shareholder oversight to pull it off.
Square Enix is probably the closest thing to a game developer that would be able to pull it off today.
Amazon Game Studio may be in this position in 5 years, if Amazon actually stick with the idea of having an MMO developer in house.
Intrepid are in no position to be able to do this right now.
As far as I am concerned, that is the end of the "MMO's should be heading in the direction I want them to be heading in" discussion - yeah, well, that's just like, you're opinion man. It is an opinion, as such it's fine, but it isn't something Intrepid are in any place to do anything about, whether they want to or not - and until a game developer actually attempts to make a game under that paradigm, there is no real way to say whether it will succeed or not. However, if no developer ever attempts it, it will never succeed.
---
Now on to what the original point of this thread was - DPS meters.
This is still a relevant discussion to have, or to continue, it's just that the specific branch that was taken a few days ago and bore no fruit is not worth carrying on.
Other than that specific branch, there are two points against DPS meters that I have seen you bring up. The first is the economic argument, and the second is the social aspect.
The economic one seems somewhat false to me. The biggest MMO in terms of total population, player retention and profit is also the MMO that has the most use of combat trackers. To say that profit is a reason to not allow or include a combat tracker seems to only make sense if you very specifically cherry pick specific events within specific games.
So, even though this argument is completely debunked, we'll come back to it again at the end of the next point.
Now we have the social aspect of combat trackers. This is anecdotal at best, I have seen no evidence that combat trackers cause any anti-social behavior, but have similar anecdotal evidence that combat trackers can fix as many issues as people claim they cause. There are no research papers on this at all - I've been looking for a decade. I know of people that have attempted to try to write such a paper, but the ability to collect data on the matter simply doesn't exist.
So, anecdotal one way or the other is the absolute best we have to go on here. We can agree that anti-social behavior is bad (although I'll debate that soon too), but there is no evidence that combat trackers = anti-social behavior.
However, because I am both nice and willing to compromise in debates, I have always been willing to concede this point. I've been happy to assume that combat trackers do cause anti-social behavior in MMO's, and that this is bad.
Anecdotally, this behavior always and only happens in pick up groups - and since I am willing to accept this thing happens without actual evidence, I don't think it too much to ask to then also agree that this is when it happens.
So, based on this, what we don't want to see is people able to run combat trackers in pick up groups. If the ability to do this is removed from players completely, then the anti-social behavior that we have agreed happens and also agreed happens in pick up groups is now unable to happen.
So now what we need to do is - we need to figure out how to make sure players in pick up groups can't track combat of the whole group. If Intrepid do nothing at all about combat trackers, this thing we want to not happen absolutely will happen. Every other MMORPG has not implemented a combat tracker in to the game, and every other MMORPG has had a third party one developed for it. These third party trackers are able to track combat in pickup groups, which is what we want to not happen.
So now, we need to think about what would stop third party combat trackers from existing for Ashes. There are two options - the first is to give no combat feedback to players at all. No text feedback, no floating number feedback, no cast bar, no cast animation, no HP bar. Any of these things can be used to make a combat tracker of sorts, and if Intrepid want to block combat trackers, they need to block all of these things.
The second option for how to make sure third party combat trackers don't become a thing is to make it so there is no need to develop them in the first place. This is the route no game has gone as yet - and so if the results of all other games are not what is desired in Ashes, this would be the logical path.
In order to do this, what Intrepid need to do is to make their own combat tracker and put it in to the game.
The people making combat trackers now will happily stop if there is an in game means of objectively analyzing both player builds and encounters.
So, the only logical and reasonable way to stop players being able to track others combat in pick up groups is to provide players with a means to analyze player builds and encounters in game, but in a way where it can't be used in pick up groups.
Thus, my suggestion for all of this time has been to make a combat tracker a high level guild reward, as one of several very good options with each other option being aimed at players that PvP more, or that craft more, or that solo more - leaving this combat tracker as something only PvE guilds taking on raid content would consider. Then, you make it so that combat tracker only works on members of that guild, and suddenly you have a system where players are able to analyze builds and encounters, but where there is no ability for anyone to track any players combat in a pick up group.
So far, no one has been able to come up with a single thing against this suggestion - including Steven/Intrepid.
To be clear, this isn't how I would like things to be. I'm quite happy in a game where combat trackers are everywhere. Rather, what the above suggestion is, when you actually look at it, is the only way to have a game where pick up group players can be sure no one is tracking their combat.
This is the solution to the other side of the argument, not to my side.
Now back to the two points I said above that I would swing back to.
Economic decisions in regards to combat trackers.
I'm going to use fast food as an example here, because it makes it easier, and most people would understand.
There is more than 10 times more money in selling burgers than there is in selling chicken. These numbers are out there.
Based on that, if all fast food places simply followed the biggest chunk of money, they would all just sell burgers. However, placed like Nando's or KFC and other fried chicken outlets exist and are profitable.
The reason here is simple, fried chicken places offer an alternative to people that don't want a burger. There will always be those people offering alternatives to the most popular, because there will always be people that want something else.
In terms of MMO's, a new game probably shouldn't attempt to compete with WoW, GW2, ESO or FFXIV. These are the burger places, and they have that market locked down between them.
However, if you look at those games, none of them really have a hold on either the top end PvE player, nor on the serious PvP player. So a game focusing on one or both of them could then be the KFC of MMO's.
However, that KFC of MMO's needs to then understand their own audience, and be aware that it will have differences to the burger MMO audience. If you look at the burger MMO's, one of them is anti-tracker, one is neutral, and two have officially sanctioned them.
However, this means nothing for the KFC MMO. Rather, the KFC MMO needs to look at who it's audience is going to be, and then you need to look at what that audience wants and expects from your KFC MMO.
Now, since Steven has said he wants a high end PvE scene in this game, and since high end PvE players will have (not will expect - will have) a combat tracker, suggesting that Ashes will not have a combat tracker goes against basic economic principles.
Turn that to PvP - if we carry on assuming that a combat tracker causes anti-social behavior, that means combat trackers will cause more PvP. This is something Intrepid want - the game is built around the notion that players can kill each other for any reason almost any where they want - and there are systems in the game that require this to happen somewhat regularly.
When players are able to tear down the time and effort that an entire guild or alliance of guilds has put in to the game for months, the amount of negativity that can then be generated by saying "oh, and your DPS was a bit low too" seems kind of irrelevant.
So, all up, in regards to combat trackers, this is what we have...
If combat trackers are bad, the best thing to do is for Intrepid to implement one in to the game themselves so that there can be some control over who can use it, and who they can use it on.
On the other hand, if combat trackers are not bad, the best thing that could happen for the game is for Intrepid to put one directly in to the game themselves, and in this situation they need not restrict it's usage.
---
The reason I am still arguing this point - and will continue to do so any time there is a thread in which to do so - is not because I want Steven/Intrepid to listen to me. I am on record as saying I specifically don't want them listening to me (or to you, or to any player). I keep these conversations going so that Intrepid know the conversation is still going. If the conversation is still going out here, then there is a chance the conversation is still going on internally at Intrepid.
Since I know there are people high up at Intrepid that are all for combat trackers, my hope is that Steven will listen to them - the professionals in their field that he hired to advise him on the best decisions to make for his game.
These are the people I want Steven to listen to.
I still responded to what the papers themself explore which you so nicely suggested that we should educate ourselves in. I even went to the trouble to find the publicly available version of the 2nd paper. It is publicly available btw like pretty much all papers.
Sure it didn't have any relevance to the topic itself which we clarified by now in all extend, but I thought they are still interesting in itself and worth talking about(at least the 2nd one), so I did.
I think I made it clear that I don't see the correlation between the two subjects and it should be taken just as such. Clearly I missed something you intended to be clear happens.
Wheresoever you get the idea I suggested that all of what you wrote is irrelevant is beyond me, I mean I even agreed with you conditionally.
Well I think I threaded this out enough. Apparently we got off on the wrong foot and it's beyond trying to mend it. You seem to have developed a detestation for me now, so w/e I guess. I just thought I try to clear it up one last time.
Have a good one.
I can be a life devouring nightmare. - Grisu#1819
There's armor stats and attack power and stats on weapons, etc.
There's also crazy hard fights, which require certain sets of weapons and armor that need to be completed.
But... there's no meters in the game. The only armor piece you can wear to show the enemy's hit points isn't the best for those super-hard encounters most of the time, either.
Although this is a very specific example of no damage/dps meter - you still have fun. It also nearly forces you to be creative in the encounters, and even before engaging the encounter.
I would argue that "with" a DPS meter in Breath of the Wild, you would almost force players to think in terms of damage and dps as opposed to finding those creative solutions.
I think this same concept also applies to groups, raids, and mmorpg's, even if players are running around solo. Even when fighting 'target dummies' for personal use. It doesn't show even half of the whole picture.
If as a general statement saying that "meters reduce creativity", wouldn't that be enough not to implement them? Even without them, people will find the solutions, the builds, the class and ability combinations to succeed eventually - and that knowledge will spread, and people will adapt and follow.
I also don't think the "40-man raid" argument is a valid argument, since the base level of play is designed around groups of 8. If you're the group leader (in the group of 8), it will become pretty clear who the "bad eggs" are, or the people who aren't exactly playing in smart ways, making easy mistakes, etc. when you play with them - even if you're succeeding all the time. Another example: I don't need a dps meter to see that the rogue is standing in fire. And a healing meter won't give you accurate encounter numbers if people are making mistakes, requiring more healing (just as an example.)
Meters have a huge tendency to mask more problems than they solve. Now, if you wanted a "meter" or something like a data-analysis tool after an encounter, completely outside of the game... sure. Maybe. Can't really avoid that, I suppose. But even then, the original argument of a "good leader" vs. "bad leader" would still hold true. The good people looking for improvement will find them. The rest will look for problems and easy solutions to exclude people, criticize, or even use it as a metric to go against what's "normal" or "desired".
I've personally seen the positives and negatives with meters. As an example I'll use the last MMO I was really into, SWTOR.
With the introduction of meters I found class and build exclusion increased. There were a number of times I was excluded from a raid or a PvP team due to playing the wrong class. This is because the meters showed that my class dps output was X dps lower than another class on average or that another class did more burst damage. I had to argue the point and then prove that I could perform as well as the other class(which i did), but it required me downloading an additional program, waiting to find a time where the "raid or PvP team leader" was available and completing content while they monitored my dps. Bullshit. It put a bad taste in my mouth.
This did force me into downloading the program and fighting dummies for hours and hours to try to get my numbers higher, and in a way it did make me a better player i guess. It did not bring me any closer to my guild though, quite the opposite. It made me feel like less of a member since I was just a number and developed no loyalty to the guild. I ended up leaving a few months later despite being better than a LOT of their other DPS. I also quit tanking for them which they were really upset about.
I also found that the use of meters also restricted a players "rotation" or ability to play a character the way they wanted. There were definitely times where I was asked "What's your rotation? Are you using Dulfy's rotation?" where I would proudly answer "No, I'm not". I am not the same as everyone else and will not play my character the same as everyone else.
Gear ratings are a different story and I dont see the problem with using them as a way to restrict access. I say this but I constantly put together raids just to help juniors gear up where the "raid teams" were to busy raiding to smash face over and over just to help out guildies. "Sorry, you cant come on this raid but we'll do another raid in a few days to get you some gear"
Respectfully
Me
The thing that forces players to be creative in coming up with a way to kill an encounter is not due to having a lack of information. What forces creativity in a raid situation is creativity from the developers.
If there is an encounter that requires an outside-the-box method to kill it, that method would be required whether I have a combat tracker or not. What a combat tracker will do though, it tell me what this encounter is doing. If I pay attention to what it is doing like this, I may come to the realization that I need a creative solution sooner than I would have without a combat tracker.
As to why I don't believe that it would be a valid reason to not have trackers if your statement were true - it is simply because the bulk of raid leadership is analytical, not creative.
If Intrepid were to target their raid game at creative types rather than analytical types, what they are essentially saying is that anyone in an existing high end PvE guild may as well skip over Ashes, because it is not the game for their guild.
While there is nothing at all wrong with requiring more creativity in raids, it should not be done at the expense of the analytical side of raiding - assuming Ashes wants to court existing raid guilds.
If they increase the creativity without deminishing the analytical side of things, what that does is encourage these guilds to expand their leadership group to encompass a bit more creative thinking. If they replace analytical thinking with creative thinking, those same guilds would need to replace their analytical leadership with completely new leadership.
Edit to add; if they replace analytical thinking with trial and error, as Steven has claimed he is doing, all that will do is see guilds replace their analytical leadership with four leaf clovers, rabbits feet and other lucky charms as at that point, successful raiding is more about lucking on to the right strategy early than it is about anything else.
This is a situation I have seen a lot. I have three specific things I'd like to point out.
The first is that not all players want to play the analytical game. There is nothing wrong with this at all, but it is important to know if that is you or not. If that is not you, then don't join a guild that is analytical.
This experience from SWTOR has taught you a lesson that will likely be with you in every online game you play going forward.
Second, if common wisdom in that game was that your class was not able to DPS to the same level as other classes, and you showed that you could - then you just increased the knowledge of every player in that game, and that is something to be proud of.
Third, regardless of whether combat trackers exist, the playerbase will have a general opinion on each class and how good it is vs other classes. This means that anyone that would exclude a class based on a combat tracker reading would then instead exclude a class based on general opinion that the class is not as good as other classes.
The only way to change this general opinion is via a combat tracker.
The same can be said of rotations (for games that have combat simple enough to be able to use a rotation). There will be a generally considered "best" rotation, with or without a combat tracker. If combat trackers exist, at least you are able to objectively say how good your rotation is, rather than just trying to bang your head against general subjective opinion.
Basically, if players think a class or rotation isn't as good as another class or rotation, and you can't prove that it is, they will have no reason to take you over someone of that class/rotation that players think is good.
If you want to prove that your way is just as good (which is usually the case, in my experience), then you need objective data, which can only be obtained via a combat tracker.
The thing with ashes is the game is supposed to rely on skill as well as strategy. The boss fights aren’t going to be as scripted as you would see in wow or other mmos. It has been said that while there are some enemies meant to be killed by 8-10 people a smaller group of 1-3 people could theoretically take it out with hard work skill and determination.
As a side note they have not said anything about the possibility of obtaining a copy of the combat log. I’ve used the method of exporting combat logs to a file on my desktop then uploading them to 3rd party websites for after the fact meters. Maybe this could be a possibility.
So you deny that there is any evidence of anti-social behavior from trackers but then say that you see a lot of anti-social behavior from trackers when Moseph posts their experience with them? But you also concede this "anecdotal" information in order to push your argument that it "always and only happens" in pick up groups so if we don't allow it for them then it's not so bad.
Why does Intrepid need to implement a tracker when, according to you, players are going to make and use whatever tracker they want anyway? Maybe instead of devoting time on implementing toxic features, they should work on better detection systems for players who are breaking rules instead.
A combat tracker is not the only way to change a general opinion of how well a class plays. How well a player plays said class can also change an opinion of how well a class does. If someone wants to exclude another player because they think that class is generally looked at as bad, that is the same ignorant and discriminatory behavior as saying "my combat meter says your dps is too low, goodbye".
An argument can also be made that the reason games are being played so analytically now, is because of tools like combat meters. Instead of finding enjoyment from the game in things like working together to defeat a hard foe, or finally figuring out some mechanic, it's changed to working together to see the highest numbers on the combat meter while checking the most optimal path and skill rotation on the wiki.
There is nothing wrong with someone enjoying being the most efficient. There is also nothing wrong with someone who wants to spend a lot of real world money on loot boxes or cash shops in order to be better than everyone else in a game, if that's how they enjoy playing the game. However, just because those people enjoy playing that way, it doesn't mean those features should be implemented into AoC no matter how those people want to rationalize it or come to some compromise to make it "not as bad". It just doesn't need to be in the game and I agree with Steven's position on this matter.
Situations like that pointed out by Moseph happen in games with heavy combat tracker use, but also happen in games where the bulk of the population don't even realize combat trackers exist.
There is no evidence at all that the cause of these issues is the combat tracker itself, since it happens both with them and without them.
The arguments that this kind of thing happen at all because of combat trackers are anecdotal at best. Anecdotally, these stories are almost entirely within the confines of pick up groups.
It you want to leave teh realm of theoretical discussion, then that means two things. The first is that you will find infrequent examples of anti-social behavior involving combat trackers that are not in pick up groups, and secondly that you now need more than anecdotal evidence to prove that this behavior is CAUSED by combat trackers, rather than simply INVOLVING combat trackers.
The argument that combat trackers cause this kind of behavior is weak because this behavior exists without combat trackers, and because combat trackers exist without this behavior. The logical conclusion here is that this behavior exists, and combat trackers exist, but there is no causation at all in either direction.
The reason I am happy to concede this point - even though it is blatantly false - is because that allows the conversation to them move on to how to combat player perception of combat trackers.
Now, if you want to debate that anti-social behavior in relation isn't restricted to pick up groups, I am more than happy to meet you in that discussion. However, the first part of that discussion is you providing empirical proof that combat trackers cause the anti-social behavior in which they are used, rather than being simply used in anti-social behavior that would exist regardless of whether a combat tracker was present or not. They don't have to - it is simply the best outcome for all involved (when you look at the actual possible outcomes - of which there are only two).
If Intrepid make one, then they have control of it. If Intrepid do not make one, others will, and Intrepid will have no control over it. This is not really up for debate, as there are already multiple in development for Ashes.
Ponder this question;
Ashes will have a combat tracker, would you rather Intrepid be in control of it, or an anonymous third party be in control of it?
If your answer is that you would rather Intrepid be in control of a combat tracker for Ashes than a third party, then you agree with me that the best thing for the game is for Intrepid to make one.
If you would rather a third party have control of a combat tracker, that's cool. I actually would personally rather it be left to third parties myself - my reason for wanting Intrepid to make one isn't because it is my preference - as I said in the above post, it is because that is what I think would be best for the game.
Yes it is.
I don't condone this kind of behavior, nor do I behave in this way.
However, we all know this kind of behavior exists, and it exists with or without combat trackers.
So my point here is that any argument in regards to combat trackers in an attempt to mitigate this kind of behavior is misplaced - as it will exist either way.
This argument to me only seems appropriate when talking about WoW.
Things like DBM are not combat trackers, they are combat assistants.
A combat tracker doesn't mean you and your guild no longer need to work together, nor does it mean you no longer need to figure out an encounters mechanic. A combat assistant means those things, but not a combat tracker.
A combat tracker does nothing more than tell you what an encounter just did. It doesn't tell you how to deal with anything the encounter may throw at you, or provide any work around for teamwork - it simply provides you with objective data on what has taken place.
When you have this objective data, content developers (good ones, at least) are then able to put more in to an encounter with the expectation that the encounter will still provide the same level of challenge as an encounter with fewer things going on in a situation where a combat tracker doesn't exist. These additional things that the content developer can add in due to more information from a combat tracker can be things that require even more teamwork, or even more time to work out a viable strategy - at the discretion of that content developer.
Basically, with a combat tracker you can actually see what is going on, and when you can see what is going on you can deal with more things at once. The more things at once your raid is dealing with, the more need there is for solid teamwork.
Now again, this all only applies to combat trackers, not combat assistants. If Ashes has combat assistants (first or third party) I'm done with the game.
The problem here is that whether a combat tracker will exist for Ashes or not isn't up to Steven. The only way he will have any control is if he puts one in to the game. If he doesn't have that by beta, others will, and then he will never be able to get that control back.
With what I have seen over the last 5 years or so of knowing people that are more interested in pulling data from MMO encounters than they are in the encounters themselves (or the MMO's themselves), there are no measures Intrepid can take to stop a combat tracker working in Ashes.
The one problem I see is that for meters to be implemented correctly, EVERYONE has to use them (which they wont), and EVERYONE has to be able to accurately interpret the information(which few will be able to do). This IMO is what leads to exclusion. One person or group will post a chart for whatever... a class, ability, or rotation, and the majority take it as gospel.
I've also seen a smaller number of clans/guilds who DO use meters than those that don't, and of those that did use meters not as many of them could accurately interpret the information as they thought. As an example, they didn't know how to or couldn't understand dps ramps (stacking DoTs vs dropping bombs).
It basically comes down to THOROUGHLY educating the player base... which won't happen. Not everyone wants to put in the effort to learn about it, or they don't care enough about it, or the big one, they assume they understand it.
All in all, meters DO lead to exclusion, but not because the meters themselves are bad, but because of the people.
Which is why I dont like meters. I put in time and effort to learn my characters and the fight mechanics. Why should I have to deal with or put in even more effort because a chart says my class puts out 500 heals or dps less than another class over the same amount of time. Play with me, evaluate me, and you will see I'm the better choice.
This is why the suggestion has been put forth to make combat logging a feature of guilds. A high level guild perk geared toward serious PvE raiders that could only be used within that guild. So those who would want and need this tool will have access to it, meanwhile PUGs will not have access to it.
The information brought by combat logs are invaluable. They provide entry level information to newbies, and high-end level knowledge to experienced players.
A group that would exclude based on less than a 1% dps difference is a group that is either 1) a PUG run by an ass or 2) a group that intends to score push.
In 1, which just intends to clear, does not, and the lead knows it does not, require a min-maxed group. A 1% difference will never be the difference between a clear or a wipe. This situation also happens regardless of whether the “best” and “worst” are determined by data or by popular opinion.
In 2, you don’t intend to be the using the most efficient class/strategy/build/rotation, which is fine, but that group is not obligated to take someone who doesn’t share their goals.
If combat logging was a guild perk exclusively, then situation 1 would still happen but with objective data to prove how pointless the exclusion is. In situation 2, you would also have the tool to prove the difference is negligible. You have a chance to plead your case there, to prove what you came up with is better than the popular build is.
Objective data is always better than being forced to wade through subjective, unclear information.
And like has already been said, a combat tracker will exist for Ashes. There’s no doubt about that. The decision for IS now becomes “do we let combat tracking be controlled by third parties?” or “do we implement the tool ourself and keep the control in our hands?”
I agree, in the correct hands, a meter can be a valuable tool. An individual can use it and fight target dummies for as long as they want to figure out the best combo of moves or whatever. I personally enjoy doing this, and pushing my characters to the bleeding edge of their abilities. This does not negate the fact that it still brings the unwanted or negative effects with it. There's a lot of examples for this... probably more than there are good examples.
Because it IS such a valuable tool (in your opinion), you'll make sure to have one in your guild, even if you don't truly know how to interpret the information (I'm not say you don't, and I'm not trying to insult you, but right now there's no proof that you do), or don't have enough people in your guild to really push nightmare or HC modes, but you'll still have it and more than likely use it. In the case you're in someone else guild, because you think it's so valuable you'll probably push them to use it even though THEY might not be able to properly use it.
I don't think anyone said meters weren't valuable. Most people who argue against them are arguing that they think they negatively affect the game more than they positively affect it. Which I'd be inclined to agree with.
If I can remember, the dps meters I've seen and used only displayed how much dps, heals, and aggro people generated or received. Correct me if I'm wrong. They dont show if someone is using interrupts when they should or if they're moving when they should. I've seen a LOT of players hang out in fire or lava for a few extra seconds or miss an interrupt with the goal of pushing their numbers so they would look better, which places a greater demand on the healers / tank increasing the chances for a wipe. I've also seen more people (not playing the same class as someone) tell other they're playing their character wrong because they're not putting out as much dps as someone else. It's even happened to me, despite the fact that I hit all my interrupts and the other didn't.
I can't speak from experience but from the youtube videos and streamers i've watched, I honestly believe that good guilds, pushing for server firsts, or NM/HC mode don't need or use DPS meters. It seems to be all great teamwork and camaraderie. What I HAVE seen both IRL and in streams/videos, is tryhards using the meters to blame others for wipes instead of trying to teach the others the proper mechanics. I'm not saying you're one or the other, these are just my observations. I would love to hear from someone who has actually been in a top guild (with some type of proof) how they use meters, or if they do. I don't personally know, I was never in a guild with server firsts, or 100% NM completions. I HAVE played with a lot of tryhard guilds who thought they were HC though, even though they weren't.
But in the end it really just comes down to what you said I guess. If you want a meter, that is fine, but the studio is not obligated to make or support one for someone who doesn’t share their goals.
Lineage 2 Veteran