AzryilMember, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I would much rather see a system like WoW's "Advanced Combat Logging" that exports a log file instead of an in game interface panel tracking combat in real time. This would, for the most part remove the toxic environment during a raid encounter while still allowing guilds and raid teams to perform a postmortem after the raid to help improve and progress over time.
I would much rather see a system like WoW's "Advanced Combat Logging" that exports a log file instead of an in game interface panel tracking combat in real time. This would, for the most part remove the toxic environment during a raid encounter while still allowing guilds and raid teams to perform a postmortem after the raid to help improve and progress over time.
This is what most people mean when they talk about a combat tracker. DPS meters are useful features of target dummies, in a raid setting they no longer accurately reflect an individual’s skill level due to the introduction of mechanics that disrupt damage dealing opportunities.
BDO is the closest thing to what Ashes will have in terms of community and PvP combining at the end game, but even that game doesn't have the same level of interaction.
The way BDO does server channels rather than servers means community is much less of an issue, and players can avoid guilds they don't like by simply moving to a different channel.
This isn't an option in Ashes.
Even back in Eden server, you would have to avoid 75% of the channels given.
Mediah 1-5 were populated by Mangobay and GIGA, Serendia was mostly operated by ManUp, Calpheon was BlackRose and Snake(Chonation) if I am not wrong, Balenos were the most small guilds were at. That was pretty much it for the channel transfer at the beginning. It was not that hard to find someone either with a 10 minute cd, you had an NPC that shows the location of a person and if you had a hardcore guild, they would be on every single channel in groups of 5 grinding the best mobs.
WoW especially is a culprit in putting a bad taste in peoples mouths when it comes to damage meters. Most of the people you ask who are against their official inclusion, will point out repeated negative events from those systems in that game, myself included.
Though i personally don't want them included in Ashes, and would even rather them be a TOS violation worth a ban (mostly so there's a recourse when someone inevitable abuses them) I will agree with @noaani that as long as Intrepid stays to their current course for the game, I see it being at least less of an occurrence than it was in WoW. When there is an established community in a server, peoples reputations actually start meaning something, to a degree. Step on too many toes, and your name gets known for all the wrong reasons. WoW sacrificed this community level when they opened cross server play, so another can of worms there entirely.
Also nice points made everybody, and mostly in a civil fashion too!
WoW especially is a culprit in putting a bad taste in peoples mouths when it comes to damage meters. Most of the people you ask who are against their official inclusion, will point out repeated negative events from those systems in that game, myself included.
Though i personally don't want them included in Ashes, and would even rather them be a TOS violation worth a ban (mostly so there's a recourse when someone inevitable abuses them) I will agree with @noaani that as long as Intrepid stays to their current course for the game, I see it being at least less of an occurrence than it was in WoW. When there is an established community in a server, peoples reputations actually start meaning something, to a degree. Step on too many toes, and your name gets known for all the wrong reasons. WoW sacrificed this community level when they opened cross server play, so another can of worms there entirely.
Also nice points made everybody, and mostly in a civil fashion too!
Regardless of the community, I'd rather not have any combat tracker than have it in the manner that WoW has it.
In order to have a BDM style syste, a third party application needs specific API hooks - the information needed to make such a tracker can't be found any other way.
Not wanting it to get to that stage though is why I'd like to see a first party combat tracker rather than a third party one. If Intrepid control it, they are able to say what information it contains and doesn't contain, and on which players. They can also control who can use it and who can see the information. They could also control what is needed to gain access to it (they could make it a quest reward or a raid drop for all I care).
As long as there is the basic information present, players won't have a need or desire to finish developing a third party application to do all this stuff - which means third party combat trackers won't exist.
I guess, to me, the most important thing is not having a WoW-esk situation, but the second most important thing is to get the functionality to players without requiring third parties.
The notion that the existence of a combat tracker will automatically see WoW levels of hostility seems to me to be a very naive viewpoint when you consider all the other factors that went in to said hostility.
The fact that the person in charge of this game seems to have that viewpoint has me a bit worried - and to me that is a bigger issue than trackers.
Go play WoW then if you want DPS metres that badly. Sandal God already said no. But you are right, trying to stop them won't do anything, because they're not being implemented. What would be the point in trying to stop something that isn't happening.
So guessing from posts dps meters have positive effect on commumity. Well while I personally like dps meters. I amnot going to pretend they do not have a down side. If they design the game so that the floor is not so far from the ceiling then not having one will not be to much of a problem.
Another thing this id kind of a dead issue now Ashes of creation has listen to our input (same topic discussed in past huge thread so do not think any one will post any thing new) And most likely discussed it in a meeting and the result is No dps meters.
Want to point out that other companies do not even acknowledge there player base. And that Intrepid Studios is doing it for the better of the community.
Guessing lot of people are used to dps meters and addons. Well those things are actually not needed. I was a really good raider with out addons or dps meter so....If you always had dps meters and addons and now you do not yeah it is going to be kind of strange.
Go play WoW then if you want DPS metres that badly. Sandal God already said no. But you are right, trying to stop them won't do anything, because they're not being implemented. What would be the point in trying to stop something that isn't happening.
You realize I just finished saying I'd rather not have a combat tracker at all than have one in the way it is in WoW, right? I mean, assuming you know that (the first thing I said in the post above yours), your comment is kind of odd, and perhaps out of place.
That said, they have already been made for Ashes.
All that is waiting now is to see the exact format of the information Ashes will display on screen.
Like it or not, Intrepid can't actually stop people from using them. No game has ever managed to do this. Intrepid can say they won't support them, or provide API hooks for them, and may even go as far as saying people caught using them will be banned (they are unlikely to go this far).
However, they can't say people can't use them. If they have a rule against them, I can break that rule if I want to. If Intrepid can't tell if I have broken that rule, they will have real trouble banning me from the game - and they won't be able to detect the combat trackers in development now.
I mean, they could have security that looks through literally every file on the client PC and analyzes them all for anything that could be considered a combat tracker, and they still won't find one. All that would do is invade the privacy of every single player of this game - and turn up zero results in terms of what they were looking for.
I mean, you are free to hate on what ever you want - I am really not here to stop you from doing that. However, in that hating that you may or may not want to do, what I suggest is that you keep one foot firmly planted in reality in terms of how you form opinions on various matters.
Now, assuming you are keeping one foot in reality right now, and work with me on the fact that combat trackers will exist for Ashes, and will not be able to be detected by Intrepid, the question i have for you is this - would you prefer a situation where third party actors are in control of combat trackers, including what is in them and who has access to them, or would you rather Intrepid have that control?
I would personally rather Intrepid have that control, myself. I honestly think that most players would agree with that, given these two situations (which are the only two eventual situations here).
Now, in order for Intrepid to be in control of who has access to combat trackers and what information they are able to show, all they have to do is provide the basic functionality of a combat tracker in two specific situations. The first is for people to be able to objectively assess a build, which would be via a combat dummy. The second is to people raiding PvE content, and only for those PvE raids.
If Intrepid put that in to the base game, third party combat trackers would cease to be developed right now, today.
To me, that is the best possible outcome. I'm quite sure that if you kept one foot firmly planted in reality, you would also see that it is the best of the possible options.
Go play WoW then if you want DPS metres that badly. Sandal God already said no. But you are right, trying to stop them won't do anything, because they're not being implemented. What would be the point in trying to stop something that isn't happening.
You realize I just finished saying I'd rather not have a combat tracker at all than have one in the way it is in WoW, right? I mean, assuming you know that (the first thing I said in the post above yours), your comment is kind of odd, and perhaps out of place.
That said, they have already been made for Ashes.
All that is waiting now is to see the exact format of the information Ashes will display on screen.
Like it or not, Intrepid can't actually stop people from using them. No game has ever managed to do this. Intrepid can say they won't support them, or provide API hooks for them, and may even go as far as saying people caught using them will be banned (they are unlikely to go this far).
However, they can't say people can't use them. If they have a rule against them, I can break that rule if I want to. If Intrepid can't tell if I have broken that rule, they will have real trouble banning me from the game - and they won't be able to detect the combat trackers in development now.
I mean, they could have security that looks through literally every file on the client PC and analyzes them all for anything that could be considered a combat tracker, and they still won't find one. All that would do is invade the privacy of every single player of this game - and turn up zero results in terms of what they were looking for.
I mean, you are free to hate on what ever you want - I am really not here to stop you from doing that. However, in that hating that you may or may not want to do, what I suggest is that you keep one foot firmly planted in reality in terms of how you form opinions on various matters.
Now, assuming you are keeping one foot in reality right now, and work with me on the fact that combat trackers will exist for Ashes, and will not be able to be detected by Intrepid, the question i have for you is this - would you prefer a situation where third party actors are in control of combat trackers, including what is in them and who has access to them, or would you rather Intrepid have that control?
I would personally rather Intrepid have that control, myself. I honestly think that most players would agree with that, given these two situations (which are the only two eventual situations here).
Now, in order for Intrepid to be in control of who has access to combat trackers and what information they are able to show, all they have to do is provide the basic functionality of a combat tracker in two specific situations. The first is for people to be able to objectively assess a build, which would be via a combat dummy. The second is to people raiding PvE content, and only for those PvE raids.
If Intrepid put that in to the base game, third party combat trackers would cease to be developed right now, today.
To me, that is the best possible outcome. I'm quite sure that if you kept one foot firmly planted in reality, you would also see that it is the best of the possible options.
A blocked DPS meter will not hide your skill. People will find out. So do your best to find people that want to improve with you and learn togheter. This way, you won't get kicked for underperforming based on your class avarege.
You just proved why its important to not have it. To get people to group together for more reasons then just powering through an encounter.
A blocked DPS meter will not hide your skill. People will find out. So do your best to find people that want to improve with you and learn togheter. This way, you won't get kicked for underperforming based on your class avarege.
You just proved why its important to not have it. To get people to group together for more reasons then just powering through an encounter.
That just seems to me to be some misplaced twisted logic to attempt to prove a pre-existing point that you have nothing logical to actually back up with.
Since literally every game has a combat tracker, you are suggesting that people never group up in any game for any reason other than to power through an encounter.
This is clearly and demonstrably false. People group up in games for many reasons. Some group up to power through an encounter, some group up for purely social reasons, but most players have a reason that is somewhere between the two.
I hope they never add statistic tools.
This is a game, not the stock market.
If you cant beat the content with action and combat sense then you are not good enough.
I am happy that a lot of people wont have to waste time doing a boring activity like parsing on a test dummy, just because some people want combat trackers to be ingame.
Nobody stops me from speeding on the roads because I dont like the speed limit.
If I get caught I pay the price.
I speed when I feel like it.
I dont try to convince the cops to raise the limit Sydney. I chose to live in this city I obey these rules.
I could always go back to my country in Europe and their speeding rules.
Nobody stops me from speeding on the roads because I dont like the speed limit.
If I get caught I pay the price.
I speed when I feel like it.
I dont try to convince the cops to raise the limit Sydney. I chose to live in this city I obey these rules.
I could always go back to my country in Europe and their speeding rules.
In your analogy here, not having a combat tracker is more akin to all cars being limited by the manufacturer to not be able to go over the speed limit.
Fortunately for you and I, there are people out there that will modify our vehicles so that we can do as we want.
Nobody stops me from speeding on the roads because I dont like the speed limit.
If I get caught I pay the price.
I speed when I feel like it.
I dont try to convince the cops to raise the limit Sydney. I chose to live in this city I obey these rules.
I could always go back to my country in Europe and their speeding rules.
In your analogy here, not having a combat tracker is more akin to all cars being limited by the manufacturer to not be able to go over the speed limit.
Fortunately for you and I, there are people out there that will modify our vehicles so that we can do as we want.
No my analogy is simple.
Nothing will stop you from running combat trackers, even if devs say no.
If you do, you will get banned.
Happy to help you in avoiding twisting simple words.
I've seen incredibly demeaning posts about player performance in this thread alone so I think DPS meters do help foster elitism.
There is no way to remove “elitism” as long as players who don’t care about performance play with people who do. There will always be a best way to do something, there will always be average ways to do something, and there always be poor ways to do something. The most issue comes up with the last group and first group have to play together. When the first and second play together, which is the typical scenario, then there’s hardly an issue.
Like I’ve said before, the majority of players you’ve played with that have used combat trackers, you’d never know because, aside from the rare few trolls who would judge you anyway, they don’t use it to judge others.
0
Options
MeowsedMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Disclaimer: Because this is basically a political debate, and I know people don't like listening to their opposition, here's a one-sentence summary: The following is a "Both Sides", centrist argument, leveraged to say that combat trackers are fine.
I won't be offended if you don't read the rest, but please don't @ me if you aren't going to actually read and consider all of my words.
_____________________________________
I hope they never add statistic tools.
This is a game, not the stock market.
If you cant beat the content with action and combat sense then you are not good enough.
I am happy that a lot of people wont have to waste time doing a boring activity like parsing on a test dummy, just because some people want combat trackers to be ingame.
This is interesting. It suggests to me that this is really just a debate between two kinds of player enjoyment. There are those who just want to play the game and learn by doing (aka trial and error), who rely mostly on their experience and practiced skills. And there are those who prefer to take a more meticulous/tedious approach, by planning and analyzing their gameplay with the help of data and graphs.
I don't think either way is better than the other. (I've enjoyed both playstyles myself, in different games/contexts.) But there is obviously friction when one type of player imposes their playstyle on others.
I've already made it clear that I hold a pro-combat tracker bias, so I think you could see where this is going: If both playstyles are equally valid, then why are people villainizing, and pushing for bans of, the number-crunching playstyle? To me, this is evidence that toxicity runs both ways. There are assholes inconsiderate people on both sides.
DPS meters aren't causing the problems, they just offer a clear marker between two playstyles (planning & analysis vs. practice & experience). It's just as easy to harass someone for poor DPS on a meter, as it is to harass someone for not moving quickly enough or using certain skills. Similarly, all of those can be valid criticisms (in the right context and using polite language). The only difference is that one of them uses data/numbers and the others use basic observations. So what's the point of banning the data/numbers, while the other type of criticism/harassment is left alone?
Toxicity comes from people, and how people talk to each other. Data/numbers are not the source of it.
So can we please stop with the tribal warfare and just let people play however they like, as long as they aren't pushing that playstyle on everyone else?
Nobody stops me from speeding on the roads because I dont like the speed limit.
If I get caught I pay the price.
I speed when I feel like it.
I dont try to convince the cops to raise the limit Sydney. I chose to live in this city I obey these rules.
I could always go back to my country in Europe and their speeding rules.
In your analogy here, not having a combat tracker is more akin to all cars being limited by the manufacturer to not be able to go over the speed limit.
Fortunately for you and I, there are people out there that will modify our vehicles so that we can do as we want.
No my analogy is simple.
Nothing will stop you from running combat trackers, even if devs say no.
If you do, you will get banned.
Happy to help you in avoiding twisting simple words.
Your analogy was simple, but it was incorrect - pr perhaps just backwards.
You want to go the speed you want.
I want to use a combat tracker.
You will go the speed you want regardless of the rules.
I will use a combat tracker regardless of the rules
So far, your analogy is holding up just fine, but so is my point.
Intrepid have not made combat trackers against the rules as yet - not supporting and making against the rules are vastly different things. However, I have said several times that I will be running a combat tracker, and I know I have made enough of a deal about it that if they do go looking for a combat tracker, my client PC is probably among the first they will look at.
I am also somewhat on record as telling them to do their best. If I am caught running a combat tracker, ban me - but only if there is actual proof of it.
So, back to your analogy.
If you get caught, you are happy paying the price.
If I am caught, I am happy paying the price.
The difference is in the notion that you can buy a car that can go above the speed limit.
You can break your rule directly from the manufacturer, so in order to make your analogy work here, it would only actually apply as an argument against combat trackers if you could not by a vehicle capable of going above the speed limit. It would only apply if it was needed to get a third party in to modify vehicles to break that rule, just as the only way I am able to break the rule I will break (assuming they make it against the rules) is to get a third party involved.
So really, I wasn't twisting your words at all, I was just pointing out where your analogy fell short.
It was perfectly fine as an analogy until you consider that you can buy a car that is able to break the rule you want to break directly from the manufacturer, but can't break they rule you wanted to make analogous to that without getting a third party involved.
But from the design point of veiw dps meters are more trouble than they are worth.
This is untrue.
If you read the thread, you will learn something.
DPS meters allow players to be able to engage with the games developers to point out potential balance issues and bugs with the games combat.
Players have much more time to go over these things than developers, and so will find issues that developers never would. Players then point them out to developers, who in turn confirm and fix the issues.
Without a combat tracker, this is not possible. This means the game retains these issues.
So, all other things aside (which we can assume to balance out, if you like) combat trackers help the game get rid of in combat bugs.
Except players cannot and will not be objective about their analysis, just objective in their demands. As in, they will object to every thing they don't like regardless of the developer's intentions or opinions.
Planetside 1 and 2 was full of people crunching the numbers for excuses to get buffs to THEIR faction's weapons, or nerf the enemy factions weapons. Whole threads were just filled with whiny people making demands.
That kind of trash doesn't help the devs build a better game. It just ruins everything for the players and developers alike.
But from the design point of veiw dps meters are more trouble than they are worth.
This is untrue.
If you read the thread, you will learn something.
DPS meters allow players to be able to engage with the games developers to point out potential balance issues and bugs with the games combat.
Players have much more time to go over these things than developers, and so will find issues that developers never would. Players then point them out to developers, who in turn confirm and fix the issues.
Without a combat tracker, this is not possible. This means the game retains these issues.
So, all other things aside (which we can assume to balance out, if you like) combat trackers help the game get rid of in combat bugs.
Except players cannot and will not be objective about their analysis, just objective in their demands. As in, they will object to every thing they don't like regardless of the developer's intentions or opinions.
Planetside 1 and 2 was full of people crunching the numbers for excuses to get buffs to THEIR faction's weapons, or nerf the enemy factions weapons. Whole threads were just filled with whiny people making demands.
That kind of trash doesn't help the devs build a better game. It just ruins everything for the players and developers alike.
If you have a thread saying "rock is fine, love scissors" and another saying "rock is over powered, love paper" you know, as a developer, that rock is balanced.
The more objective data that is used to fuel each sides debate, the more balanced you know it is. On the other hand, if scissors is using objective data to say that rock is over powered, and paper is using subjective data to prove that rock is fine, then you should probably give rock a bit of a balance pass.
In terms of developer communication, the type of data used becomes as much a metric as the data itself.
That said, it is absolutely possible to skew numbers to prove a point - one need only look at claims made by various world leaders right now to see this in action.
This is now more of a point about giving both sides an equal voice than it is about data. If I have the means of proving data has been skewed in a discussion, and I have a voice in said discussion, I can use that voice to point out how the data was misused. Take away either my voice or my ability to objectively analyze data, and I can no longer do that.
Yay, a discussion over whether or not players can/should use tools to be tools.
Sounds riveting.
Randomized mob stats and randomized spell/ability effectiveness sounds more fun than "You aren't playing your class the way I would! GET OUT!".
This is an argument I completely understand people making.
Now I'll tell you why it is misplaced.
People that say "you aren't playing your class the way I could! GET OUT!" are dicks, this is something I think we can almost all agree on (and the people that disagree are probably the people that would say that).
In this specific point, it isn't a case of your side, my side. It is something we all agree on.
However, these people don't need a combat tracker in order to say this. Archeage is the game that has the least amount of combat tracker usage of any game I have played (it exists, but with no PvE content to speak of it is of limited use). That game is as full of people that say you are playing your class wrong as any other game other than WoW.
So even in a game where people don't use combat trackers, and where class builds are almost all subjective rather than objective, people still say you are doing it wrong.
I mean, if a particular undesired behavior exists in the game with the most combat tracker usage and also in the game with the least combat tracker usage, can we really attribute that undesired behavior to combat trackers?
The reason it exists in both games is because both WoW and Archeage attract that kind of player, and neither have any negative consequences associated with it. Neither game requires real community involvement to play the game, and so people have no reason to attempt to be a part of their local community.
This is the real reason some games have this kind of player. It isn't about the presence or absence of combat trackers, it is about the need to be a part of the games community or not.
If you look at the games that have a real community feel (which do tend to be smaller games - though that isn't a hard requirement), you will see a noticeable drop off in this undesired behavior. This is because a sense of community is more important in these games.
The tl;dr here is that the thing you don't want is a thing I also don't want. However, this thing we don't want exists whether combat trackers are used or not, but only exists where community is unimportant. Thus, the way for a game developer to avoid that undesired behavior in their game is to ensure a sense of community - combat trackers have no measure on this behavior.
Disclaimer: Because this is basically a political debate, and I know people don't like listening to their opposition, here's a one-sentence summary: The following is a "Both Sides", centrist argument, leveraged to say that combat trackers are fine.
I won't be offended if you don't read the rest, but please don't @ me if you aren't going to actually read and consider all of my words.
_____________________________________
I hope they never add statistic tools.
This is a game, not the stock market.
If you cant beat the content with action and combat sense then you are not good enough.
I am happy that a lot of people wont have to waste time doing a boring activity like parsing on a test dummy, just because some people want combat trackers to be ingame.
This is interesting. It suggests to me that this is really just a debate between two kinds of player enjoyment. There are those who just want to play the game and learn by doing (aka trial and error), who rely mostly on their experience and practiced skills. And there are those who prefer to take a more meticulous/tedious approach, by planning and analyzing their gameplay with the help of data and graphs.
I don't think either way is better than the other. (I've enjoyed both playstyles myself, in different games/contexts.) But there is obviously friction when one type of player imposes their playstyle on others.
I've already made it clear that I hold a pro-combat tracker bias, so I think you could see where this is going: If both playstyles are equally valid, then why are people villainizing, and pushing for bans of, the number-crunching playstyle? To me, this is evidence that toxicity runs both ways. There are assholes inconsiderate people on both sides.
DPS meters aren't causing the problems, they just offer a clear marker between two playstyles (planning & analysis vs. practice & experience). It's just as easy to harass someone for poor DPS on a meter, as it is to harass someone for not moving quickly enough or using certain skills. Similarly, all of those can be valid criticisms (in the right context and using polite language). The only difference is that one of them uses data/numbers and the others use basic observations. So what's the point of banning the data/numbers, while the other type of criticism/harassment is left alone?
Toxicity comes from people, and how people talk to each other. Data/numbers are not the source of it.
So can we please stop with the tribal warfare and just let people play however they like, as long as they aren't pushing that playstyle on everyone else?
Some people like to carry guns on their person at all times.
Some people do not.
There is a disagreement. Why should those who want guns be denied their guns? Are not both parties capable of violence and murder?
Well, logically, if you want to resolve problems in society that involve gun related violence, you'd take guns away. That simple. Is it fair to the people who want their guns? Nope. Is it necessary to prevent various illicit uses of guns? Yes, absolutely.
How is this related to this discussion?
If data trackers objectively allow and encourage toxic communities, and you want to avoid toxic communities, you remove data tracking abilities.
The tool, as a tool, makes it EASIER to be toxic. That's part of it's function in the game, to allow toxicity. The tool encourages elitism, but does so in a very lazy manner.
Can players still be toxic without it? Absolutely. As stated above, both players can hold very anal opinions about how one conducts themselves. The difference is, it becomes much harder to justify kicking a player because they jumped when they should've backpedaled.
I've never used data trackers myself. I actually despise using mods of any kind that are not strictly aesthetic in nature (in MMOs). I've never had a problem outperforming "experienced" players in their own field using my often unorthodox methods through extensive trial and error. I do this by putting in the effort to research my play style and optimize every aspect of it personally.
So the idea that someone can look at some 3rd party software and tell me what I need to do to "git gud" kind of pisses me off.
I've never used data trackers myself. I actually despise using mods of any kind that are not strictly aesthetic in nature (in MMOs). I've never had a problem outperforming "experienced" players in their own field using my often unorthodox methods through extensive trial and error. I do this by putting in the effort to research my play style and optimize every aspect of it personally.
So the idea that someone can look at some 3rd party software and tell me what I need to do to "git gud" kind of pisses me off.
So, you make use of someone else's use of a combat tracker then?
In order for a combat tracker to be a boon to a player, they don't even need to use it themselves. All they need to do is read up on their class somewhere. The second they have done that, they have made use of a combat tracker - and made use of the "elitist" that took the time to objectively analyze the class in question and then freely share their findings.
This is why my argument here isn't actually for an open, free for all combat tracker in Ashes. I want one implemented in to the game with limitations. But the only way those limitations would able to exist is if Intrepid implement this tracker themselves. As soon as it becomes a third party application, restrictions like what I am asking for are no longer possible.
In terms of the gun analogy (another imperfect one, but I am happy to run with it), my suggestion would be to allow people to use guns, but only at gun clubs, or while out hunting in designated hunting areas. I am also quite keen on getting rid of fully automatic guns that are excessively over powered for the needs of hunting or target shooting (this is remarkably close to my position on guns irl).
To knock it back out of that analogy, I want combat trackers to be a guild perk, that is only able to be used with guild members (the gun club). While out killing raid encounters (hunting) it won't log the combat of any non-guild member. If Intrepid also maintain control of combat trackers, they can prevent things from creeping in that are overpowered (fully automatic guns).
However, if combat trackers are left to a third party (which is 100% guaranteed if they are not built in to the game client), then it is basically a case of concealed carry. Anyone could be using a combat tracker, and they will be able to use them on you. Additionally, those combat trackers may well have functionality on them that would be considered overpowered, but since Intrepid have no control over them, they are unable to do anything about it.
@noaani First Response: That's oversimplifying the mess that the PS forums turn into.
My point is, players cannot and will not be objective. Their data, regardless of how serious they are, will always be biased. Developers have to take that bias into consideration, and that usually means dismissing their data and testing the details out personally.
When every element inevitably requires "fixing", for reasons, every element requires developer testing to verify that need.
Development bogs down.
Now, this is just a speculative reason to reject data tracking as a means of balancing. The notion in it's entirety is really quite silly.
Players have a players paradox for a reason: "I want challenges, but I want to EASILY DESTROY THEM!"
Second Response: Data tracking makes elitist behavior easier. I understand full well that there will always be butt heads in MMOs. However, you can't tell me data tracking doesn't encourage the behavior.
Your example of Archage vs WoW isn't verifiable. I can't simply take your word that there's "very little data tracking" done in Archage just because there's no PvE content. I can, however, state that if Archage is as well designed as everyone paints it to be, it's pretty obvious what classes are best based purely on performance. Which would explain why there would be butt heads in Archage despite an apparent lack of data trackers. Data trackers make performance measurement easy, if the game itself is easy to measure performance...
That argument is just shooting yourself in the foot, is what I'm saying.
@noaani First Response: That's oversimplifying the mess that the PS forums turn into.
My point is, players cannot and will not be objective. Their data, regardless of how serious they are, will always be biased. Developers have to take that bias into consideration, and that usually means dismissing their data and testing the details out personally.
Literally and completely agree with everything here.
The difference between us seems to be that while we agree that players won't always be objective, I see that as no reason to not give players objective data, you seem to see it as a reason to not give them objective data.
I mean, we essentially agree that most players will behave the same with it or without it.
What I will say is that most games (including all SoE games) have/had an invitation only section of their forums. The developers of the game invite knowledgeable posters to these forums. Generally posters that hold various different perspectives, but always people that are able to remain objective (in my observations of these sections).
The developers open discussions on various topics here, knowing that the players with access to this specific section of the forums will conduct an objective debate, and it is one that is able to exist without the white noise of the general open sections of the forum for that game.
I was mistakenly invited to this section on all SoE games when it should have only been EQ2. I had a good look around at the quality if discussion in most games (including both Planetside games) and the discussions were considerably different to similar discussions in the main section.
I was also invited to a similar section in the Archeage forum in response to a thread I nurtured through to over a thousand posts in regards to bridge blocking in that game.
This is where (I would wager) developers get the bulk of their player input from.
Your example of Archage vs WoW isn't verifiable. I can't simply take your word that there's "very little data tracking" done in Archage just because there's no PvE content. I can, however, state that if Archage is as well designed as everyone paints it to be, it's pretty obvious what classes are best based purely on performance. Which would explain why there would be butt heads in Archage despite an apparent lack of data trackers. Data trackers make performance measurement easy, if the game itself is easy to measure performance...
You could take my word for it, but I would advise against it. That would be subjective data from your perspective, as I've not provided you with any hard statistics - and obviously, I am all about objective rather than subjective data.
However, you assertion that it is not verifiable is incorrect. Archeage is still a live game, and so anything said about it is able to be verified. Do a google search for combat tackers or DPS meters for Archeage and compare the results to the same search from WoW. While this still won't be fully objective data (it is a mix between objective and subjective) it will paint a picture of the level of combat tracking that occurs in that game.
And Archeage is not a well designed game. It is essentially a game that XL used as an experiment bed to try out various things for the game that they at one time considered to be their real money-maker; Civilization Online. Archeage class design was basically broken when I played it last. I have never heard anyone state that the game is well designed in terms of class design, not even in the three years I was playing it every day. It is a little better now with ancestral levels - which were added purely as a means of attempting to balance the completely unbalance class design present before they were added - but it still isn't that well designed.
My first point is that data tracking as a means for balance assessment is ultimately null as a reason. Development teams will inevitable disregard any data presented by players, and test the details themselves. Player feedback need not include "objective data", a simple "hey, this ability seems a bit weak and useless compared to it's cost and cast time" should be enough information for the team to reevaluate it.
In fact, the "objective data" only serves to get in the way of that assessment.
Secondly, Archage cannot be verified as having little to no data tracker usage simply by searching for the number of data trackers made. If a GOOD data tracker is made, there is no need to make another or attempt to improve on the first. Secondly, I was being sarcastic when I said Archage was well designed. My point, however, still stands. The game made it super easy to judge performance. If you are not this class with these abilities, you are not performing well.
Whether or not Archage has a player base that widely uses data trackers is irrelevant, the game itself is flawed in a manner that allows judgement to be made.
Any method that allows for easy judgement of player performance is going to encourage a toxic environment. While the developers can (and likely will) do their best to make a well designed game with thoroughly vetted balance passes over the classes for Ashes of Creation, they cannot control the toxicity that is inevitably generated by data trackers which would undermine their efforts in balancing the classes in the first place.
Ultimately, the arguments FOR data trackers are similar to the arguments for gun control. They ignore the negatives rather than address them, or attempt to point out that those negatives will exist whether or not the control is in place. This is a very very silly argument.
My game play should not be dictated by some nerd with a calculator and a 3rd party program. That eliminates my personal agency and reduces me to following a cookie cutter build that some OTHER nerd will inevitably claim to have come up with. And that would be my personal objection to data trackers as a concept.
0
Options
MeowsedMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited May 2020
Hmm, I was trying not to bring up the gun control analogy out of courtesy/cowardice, but the thread hasn't imploded yet, so good job on that.
Regarding "easy judgement of player performance", I think you have a decent point there. The battlefield is often a chaotic place, and when things go wrong there's usually no obvious scapegoat, since you can't be watching everyone for mistake all the time. But with a combat tracker, you can just blame whoever is at the bottom of the DPS list (even if DPS wasn't the real problem). The fact that this is easier than every other problem-solving tactic makes it tempting and prone to abuse.
Ideally, I would hope that players have enough sense to only use DPS meters when party DPS is the #1 problem for the group. (My criteria is that if mechanics are being done properly, and there are only 1 or 2 deaths per run, but we're constantly dying to the DPS checks or enrage timer, then DPS becomes a legitimate concern.)
But of course, with public access to combat data, and no guidelines on how to use it, there will inevitably be a lot of misuse and toxicity based around it. Not everyone wants to, or knows how to, analyze combat data properly, but it's just so easy to try and fail. It's like having no gun-control laws or gun-handling classes at all.
That's where Noanni's suggestion for first-party "control" over combat trackers comes in. They can limit who has access and who they can shoot track, while still letting the pros use them in good ways.
In addition to that or separate, I think social engineering can help teach players to use combat trackers responsibly: Let people use the tool freely, but allow people to report misuse, and punish chronic assholes. And ask helpful individuals (like Noanni and Jahlon) to explain the good uses of them, using any of the social platforms which players frequent. Make it clear to the community that there are contexts where combat trackers and DPS-based arguments are not appropriate*. But also make it clear that combat trackers are not universally evil or taboo. Because the only way to get people to use combat trackers responsibly is to allow people to use and discuss them openly.
* Inappropriate places to bitch about DPS:
In content that is easy/moderate difficulty, where serious optimization isn't necessary or helpful. In openly-accessible content that is intended to welcome different skill levels, such as large-scale, open-world events. That also includes most PvP -- Even though skill and performance are hugely important in PvP, if you don't have control over who joins your team (e.g. open-world PvP, and match-made arenas), then you cannot expect your team to satisfy your arbitrary performance metrics, and therefore you shouldn't harass anybody over it. Unless of course you make your own, pre-made, elite PvP group. -- Even in high-end content, where there are tight DPS checks, it can be inappropriate to complain about DPS, such as in clearly-marked "learning parties", and in cases where there are more serious problems than DPS.
Naturally, there's an exception in all of those cases if you're playing with friends who are all on the same page. Friendly competition via DPS meters is acceptable if everyone recognizes it as "friendly".
And of course, more important than all of that, is HOW you discuss combat trackers with your team. Regardless of the context, you shouldn't attack your teammates, or blame them without offering help. And kicking underperformers should be a last resort. Even if you're trying to get an elite group together for speedruns, there are good and bad ways to tell newbies that they aren't good enough for the group.
Just to throw in another semi-political analogy, I see this situation in a similar way to mental health. You can't treat poor mental health just by locking up all the crazies. Well, I mean, you CAN, and it helps society a little bit, but it doesn't work out very well for mentally-ill people or the people associated with them. Instead, it's better to let people discuss mental health like any other sickness, so we get help to the people who need it, and generally make society function better around/with mental health issues (including more minor cases that don't need direct intervention). [End analogy]
Communities are capable of learning, regulation, and self-policing, but not if combat trackers are painted as a black-and-white evil; if the tool is painted as synonymous with it's abusers. Instead, let people use them openly, let people mess up occasionally, but control the issue with proper messaging. And empower people to defend themselves against abusers, with reports and blacklists and such. And make that self-policing transparent: Give quarterly reports on the number of banned/suspended accounts, broken down by offense (RMT, cheating, harassment, and specifically DPS-meter harassment). Maybe give players a notification when their reports are acted upon (justice served).
And uh... yeah, that's all. I'm out of rant juice.
Comments
This is what most people mean when they talk about a combat tracker. DPS meters are useful features of target dummies, in a raid setting they no longer accurately reflect an individual’s skill level due to the introduction of mechanics that disrupt damage dealing opportunities.
Even back in Eden server, you would have to avoid 75% of the channels given.
Mediah 1-5 were populated by Mangobay and GIGA, Serendia was mostly operated by ManUp, Calpheon was BlackRose and Snake(Chonation) if I am not wrong, Balenos were the most small guilds were at. That was pretty much it for the channel transfer at the beginning. It was not that hard to find someone either with a 10 minute cd, you had an NPC that shows the location of a person and if you had a hardcore guild, they would be on every single channel in groups of 5 grinding the best mobs.
Though i personally don't want them included in Ashes, and would even rather them be a TOS violation worth a ban (mostly so there's a recourse when someone inevitable abuses them) I will agree with @noaani that as long as Intrepid stays to their current course for the game, I see it being at least less of an occurrence than it was in WoW. When there is an established community in a server, peoples reputations actually start meaning something, to a degree. Step on too many toes, and your name gets known for all the wrong reasons. WoW sacrificed this community level when they opened cross server play, so another can of worms there entirely.
Also nice points made everybody, and mostly in a civil fashion too!
Regardless of the community, I'd rather not have any combat tracker than have it in the manner that WoW has it.
In order to have a BDM style syste, a third party application needs specific API hooks - the information needed to make such a tracker can't be found any other way.
Not wanting it to get to that stage though is why I'd like to see a first party combat tracker rather than a third party one. If Intrepid control it, they are able to say what information it contains and doesn't contain, and on which players. They can also control who can use it and who can see the information. They could also control what is needed to gain access to it (they could make it a quest reward or a raid drop for all I care).
As long as there is the basic information present, players won't have a need or desire to finish developing a third party application to do all this stuff - which means third party combat trackers won't exist.
I guess, to me, the most important thing is not having a WoW-esk situation, but the second most important thing is to get the functionality to players without requiring third parties.
The notion that the existence of a combat tracker will automatically see WoW levels of hostility seems to me to be a very naive viewpoint when you consider all the other factors that went in to said hostility.
The fact that the person in charge of this game seems to have that viewpoint has me a bit worried - and to me that is a bigger issue than trackers.
Another thing this id kind of a dead issue now Ashes of creation has listen to our input (same topic discussed in past huge thread so do not think any one will post any thing new) And most likely discussed it in a meeting and the result is No dps meters.
Want to point out that other companies do not even acknowledge there player base. And that Intrepid Studios is doing it for the better of the community.
Guessing lot of people are used to dps meters and addons. Well those things are actually not needed. I was a really good raider with out addons or dps meter so....If you always had dps meters and addons and now you do not yeah it is going to be kind of strange.
You realize I just finished saying I'd rather not have a combat tracker at all than have one in the way it is in WoW, right? I mean, assuming you know that (the first thing I said in the post above yours), your comment is kind of odd, and perhaps out of place.
That said, they have already been made for Ashes.
All that is waiting now is to see the exact format of the information Ashes will display on screen.
Like it or not, Intrepid can't actually stop people from using them. No game has ever managed to do this. Intrepid can say they won't support them, or provide API hooks for them, and may even go as far as saying people caught using them will be banned (they are unlikely to go this far).
However, they can't say people can't use them. If they have a rule against them, I can break that rule if I want to. If Intrepid can't tell if I have broken that rule, they will have real trouble banning me from the game - and they won't be able to detect the combat trackers in development now.
I mean, they could have security that looks through literally every file on the client PC and analyzes them all for anything that could be considered a combat tracker, and they still won't find one. All that would do is invade the privacy of every single player of this game - and turn up zero results in terms of what they were looking for.
I mean, you are free to hate on what ever you want - I am really not here to stop you from doing that. However, in that hating that you may or may not want to do, what I suggest is that you keep one foot firmly planted in reality in terms of how you form opinions on various matters.
Now, assuming you are keeping one foot in reality right now, and work with me on the fact that combat trackers will exist for Ashes, and will not be able to be detected by Intrepid, the question i have for you is this - would you prefer a situation where third party actors are in control of combat trackers, including what is in them and who has access to them, or would you rather Intrepid have that control?
I would personally rather Intrepid have that control, myself. I honestly think that most players would agree with that, given these two situations (which are the only two eventual situations here).
Now, in order for Intrepid to be in control of who has access to combat trackers and what information they are able to show, all they have to do is provide the basic functionality of a combat tracker in two specific situations. The first is for people to be able to objectively assess a build, which would be via a combat dummy. The second is to people raiding PvE content, and only for those PvE raids.
If Intrepid put that in to the base game, third party combat trackers would cease to be developed right now, today.
To me, that is the best possible outcome. I'm quite sure that if you kept one foot firmly planted in reality, you would also see that it is the best of the possible options.
@noaani
My comment was directed to the OP. Never even read your comment. 🤷🏼♂️
Just my 5 cents for this 3-year-old conversation >P
Now go back and read then reply to the post, even if you were not directly replying to me, I directly replied to you.
You just proved why its important to not have it. To get people to group together for more reasons then just powering through an encounter.
That just seems to me to be some misplaced twisted logic to attempt to prove a pre-existing point that you have nothing logical to actually back up with.
Since literally every game has a combat tracker, you are suggesting that people never group up in any game for any reason other than to power through an encounter.
This is clearly and demonstrably false. People group up in games for many reasons. Some group up to power through an encounter, some group up for purely social reasons, but most players have a reason that is somewhere between the two.
This is a game, not the stock market.
If you cant beat the content with action and combat sense then you are not good enough.
I am happy that a lot of people wont have to waste time doing a boring activity like parsing on a test dummy, just because some people want combat trackers to be ingame.
Nobody stops me from speeding on the roads because I dont like the speed limit.
If I get caught I pay the price.
I speed when I feel like it.
I dont try to convince the cops to raise the limit Sydney. I chose to live in this city I obey these rules.
I could always go back to my country in Europe and their speeding rules.
Fortunately for you and I, there are people out there that will modify our vehicles so that we can do as we want.
No my analogy is simple.
Nothing will stop you from running combat trackers, even if devs say no.
If you do, you will get banned.
Happy to help you in avoiding twisting simple words.
And why should I? I don't care about what you have to say lol you're an angry demanding toxic little shit aren't you haha
There is no way to remove “elitism” as long as players who don’t care about performance play with people who do. There will always be a best way to do something, there will always be average ways to do something, and there always be poor ways to do something. The most issue comes up with the last group and first group have to play together. When the first and second play together, which is the typical scenario, then there’s hardly an issue.
Like I’ve said before, the majority of players you’ve played with that have used combat trackers, you’d never know because, aside from the rare few trolls who would judge you anyway, they don’t use it to judge others.
I won't be offended if you don't read the rest, but please don't @ me if you aren't going to actually read and consider all of my words.
_____________________________________
This is interesting. It suggests to me that this is really just a debate between two kinds of player enjoyment. There are those who just want to play the game and learn by doing (aka trial and error), who rely mostly on their experience and practiced skills. And there are those who prefer to take a more meticulous/tedious approach, by planning and analyzing their gameplay with the help of data and graphs.
I don't think either way is better than the other. (I've enjoyed both playstyles myself, in different games/contexts.) But there is obviously friction when one type of player imposes their playstyle on others.
I've already made it clear that I hold a pro-combat tracker bias, so I think you could see where this is going: If both playstyles are equally valid, then why are people villainizing, and pushing for bans of, the number-crunching playstyle? To me, this is evidence that toxicity runs both ways. There are assholes inconsiderate people on both sides.
DPS meters aren't causing the problems, they just offer a clear marker between two playstyles (planning & analysis vs. practice & experience). It's just as easy to harass someone for poor DPS on a meter, as it is to harass someone for not moving quickly enough or using certain skills. Similarly, all of those can be valid criticisms (in the right context and using polite language). The only difference is that one of them uses data/numbers and the others use basic observations. So what's the point of banning the data/numbers, while the other type of criticism/harassment is left alone?
Toxicity comes from people, and how people talk to each other. Data/numbers are not the source of it.
So can we please stop with the tribal warfare and just let people play however they like, as long as they aren't pushing that playstyle on everyone else?
I've also seen demeaning posts by people against them, which lead me to believe this is a result of people, not tools.
George Blacks post a few above is as elitist and confrontational ss they get, and he is sgsint combat trackers.
I fail to see how a post like that can be read by someone that can still claim combat trackers cause elitism. Your analogy was simple, but it was incorrect - pr perhaps just backwards.
You want to go the speed you want.
I want to use a combat tracker.
You will go the speed you want regardless of the rules.
I will use a combat tracker regardless of the rules
So far, your analogy is holding up just fine, but so is my point.
Intrepid have not made combat trackers against the rules as yet - not supporting and making against the rules are vastly different things. However, I have said several times that I will be running a combat tracker, and I know I have made enough of a deal about it that if they do go looking for a combat tracker, my client PC is probably among the first they will look at.
I am also somewhat on record as telling them to do their best. If I am caught running a combat tracker, ban me - but only if there is actual proof of it.
So, back to your analogy.
If you get caught, you are happy paying the price.
If I am caught, I am happy paying the price.
The difference is in the notion that you can buy a car that can go above the speed limit.
You can break your rule directly from the manufacturer, so in order to make your analogy work here, it would only actually apply as an argument against combat trackers if you could not by a vehicle capable of going above the speed limit. It would only apply if it was needed to get a third party in to modify vehicles to break that rule, just as the only way I am able to break the rule I will break (assuming they make it against the rules) is to get a third party involved.
So really, I wasn't twisting your words at all, I was just pointing out where your analogy fell short.
It was perfectly fine as an analogy until you consider that you can buy a car that is able to break the rule you want to break directly from the manufacturer, but can't break they rule you wanted to make analogous to that without getting a third party involved.
Sounds riveting.
Randomized mob stats and randomized spell/ability effectiveness sounds more fun than "You aren't playing your class the way I would! GET OUT!".
Except players cannot and will not be objective about their analysis, just objective in their demands. As in, they will object to every thing they don't like regardless of the developer's intentions or opinions.
Planetside 1 and 2 was full of people crunching the numbers for excuses to get buffs to THEIR faction's weapons, or nerf the enemy factions weapons. Whole threads were just filled with whiny people making demands.
That kind of trash doesn't help the devs build a better game. It just ruins everything for the players and developers alike.
If you have a thread saying "rock is fine, love scissors" and another saying "rock is over powered, love paper" you know, as a developer, that rock is balanced.
The more objective data that is used to fuel each sides debate, the more balanced you know it is. On the other hand, if scissors is using objective data to say that rock is over powered, and paper is using subjective data to prove that rock is fine, then you should probably give rock a bit of a balance pass.
In terms of developer communication, the type of data used becomes as much a metric as the data itself.
That said, it is absolutely possible to skew numbers to prove a point - one need only look at claims made by various world leaders right now to see this in action.
This is now more of a point about giving both sides an equal voice than it is about data. If I have the means of proving data has been skewed in a discussion, and I have a voice in said discussion, I can use that voice to point out how the data was misused. Take away either my voice or my ability to objectively analyze data, and I can no longer do that. This is an argument I completely understand people making.
Now I'll tell you why it is misplaced.
People that say "you aren't playing your class the way I could! GET OUT!" are dicks, this is something I think we can almost all agree on (and the people that disagree are probably the people that would say that).
In this specific point, it isn't a case of your side, my side. It is something we all agree on.
However, these people don't need a combat tracker in order to say this. Archeage is the game that has the least amount of combat tracker usage of any game I have played (it exists, but with no PvE content to speak of it is of limited use). That game is as full of people that say you are playing your class wrong as any other game other than WoW.
So even in a game where people don't use combat trackers, and where class builds are almost all subjective rather than objective, people still say you are doing it wrong.
I mean, if a particular undesired behavior exists in the game with the most combat tracker usage and also in the game with the least combat tracker usage, can we really attribute that undesired behavior to combat trackers?
The reason it exists in both games is because both WoW and Archeage attract that kind of player, and neither have any negative consequences associated with it. Neither game requires real community involvement to play the game, and so people have no reason to attempt to be a part of their local community.
This is the real reason some games have this kind of player. It isn't about the presence or absence of combat trackers, it is about the need to be a part of the games community or not.
If you look at the games that have a real community feel (which do tend to be smaller games - though that isn't a hard requirement), you will see a noticeable drop off in this undesired behavior. This is because a sense of community is more important in these games.
The tl;dr here is that the thing you don't want is a thing I also don't want. However, this thing we don't want exists whether combat trackers are used or not, but only exists where community is unimportant. Thus, the way for a game developer to avoid that undesired behavior in their game is to ensure a sense of community - combat trackers have no measure on this behavior.
Some people like to carry guns on their person at all times.
Some people do not.
There is a disagreement. Why should those who want guns be denied their guns? Are not both parties capable of violence and murder?
Well, logically, if you want to resolve problems in society that involve gun related violence, you'd take guns away. That simple. Is it fair to the people who want their guns? Nope. Is it necessary to prevent various illicit uses of guns? Yes, absolutely.
How is this related to this discussion?
If data trackers objectively allow and encourage toxic communities, and you want to avoid toxic communities, you remove data tracking abilities.
The tool, as a tool, makes it EASIER to be toxic. That's part of it's function in the game, to allow toxicity. The tool encourages elitism, but does so in a very lazy manner.
Can players still be toxic without it? Absolutely. As stated above, both players can hold very anal opinions about how one conducts themselves. The difference is, it becomes much harder to justify kicking a player because they jumped when they should've backpedaled.
I've never used data trackers myself. I actually despise using mods of any kind that are not strictly aesthetic in nature (in MMOs). I've never had a problem outperforming "experienced" players in their own field using my often unorthodox methods through extensive trial and error. I do this by putting in the effort to research my play style and optimize every aspect of it personally.
So the idea that someone can look at some 3rd party software and tell me what I need to do to "git gud" kind of pisses me off.
In order for a combat tracker to be a boon to a player, they don't even need to use it themselves. All they need to do is read up on their class somewhere. The second they have done that, they have made use of a combat tracker - and made use of the "elitist" that took the time to objectively analyze the class in question and then freely share their findings.
This is why my argument here isn't actually for an open, free for all combat tracker in Ashes. I want one implemented in to the game with limitations. But the only way those limitations would able to exist is if Intrepid implement this tracker themselves. As soon as it becomes a third party application, restrictions like what I am asking for are no longer possible.
In terms of the gun analogy (another imperfect one, but I am happy to run with it), my suggestion would be to allow people to use guns, but only at gun clubs, or while out hunting in designated hunting areas. I am also quite keen on getting rid of fully automatic guns that are excessively over powered for the needs of hunting or target shooting (this is remarkably close to my position on guns irl).
To knock it back out of that analogy, I want combat trackers to be a guild perk, that is only able to be used with guild members (the gun club). While out killing raid encounters (hunting) it won't log the combat of any non-guild member. If Intrepid also maintain control of combat trackers, they can prevent things from creeping in that are overpowered (fully automatic guns).
However, if combat trackers are left to a third party (which is 100% guaranteed if they are not built in to the game client), then it is basically a case of concealed carry. Anyone could be using a combat tracker, and they will be able to use them on you. Additionally, those combat trackers may well have functionality on them that would be considered overpowered, but since Intrepid have no control over them, they are unable to do anything about it.
My point is, players cannot and will not be objective. Their data, regardless of how serious they are, will always be biased. Developers have to take that bias into consideration, and that usually means dismissing their data and testing the details out personally.
When every element inevitably requires "fixing", for reasons, every element requires developer testing to verify that need.
Development bogs down.
Now, this is just a speculative reason to reject data tracking as a means of balancing. The notion in it's entirety is really quite silly.
Players have a players paradox for a reason: "I want challenges, but I want to EASILY DESTROY THEM!"
Second Response: Data tracking makes elitist behavior easier. I understand full well that there will always be butt heads in MMOs. However, you can't tell me data tracking doesn't encourage the behavior.
Your example of Archage vs WoW isn't verifiable. I can't simply take your word that there's "very little data tracking" done in Archage just because there's no PvE content. I can, however, state that if Archage is as well designed as everyone paints it to be, it's pretty obvious what classes are best based purely on performance. Which would explain why there would be butt heads in Archage despite an apparent lack of data trackers. Data trackers make performance measurement easy, if the game itself is easy to measure performance...
That argument is just shooting yourself in the foot, is what I'm saying.
The difference between us seems to be that while we agree that players won't always be objective, I see that as no reason to not give players objective data, you seem to see it as a reason to not give them objective data.
I mean, we essentially agree that most players will behave the same with it or without it.
What I will say is that most games (including all SoE games) have/had an invitation only section of their forums. The developers of the game invite knowledgeable posters to these forums. Generally posters that hold various different perspectives, but always people that are able to remain objective (in my observations of these sections).
The developers open discussions on various topics here, knowing that the players with access to this specific section of the forums will conduct an objective debate, and it is one that is able to exist without the white noise of the general open sections of the forum for that game.
I was mistakenly invited to this section on all SoE games when it should have only been EQ2. I had a good look around at the quality if discussion in most games (including both Planetside games) and the discussions were considerably different to similar discussions in the main section.
I was also invited to a similar section in the Archeage forum in response to a thread I nurtured through to over a thousand posts in regards to bridge blocking in that game.
This is where (I would wager) developers get the bulk of their player input from. You could take my word for it, but I would advise against it. That would be subjective data from your perspective, as I've not provided you with any hard statistics - and obviously, I am all about objective rather than subjective data.
However, you assertion that it is not verifiable is incorrect. Archeage is still a live game, and so anything said about it is able to be verified. Do a google search for combat tackers or DPS meters for Archeage and compare the results to the same search from WoW. While this still won't be fully objective data (it is a mix between objective and subjective) it will paint a picture of the level of combat tracking that occurs in that game.
And Archeage is not a well designed game. It is essentially a game that XL used as an experiment bed to try out various things for the game that they at one time considered to be their real money-maker; Civilization Online. Archeage class design was basically broken when I played it last. I have never heard anyone state that the game is well designed in terms of class design, not even in the three years I was playing it every day. It is a little better now with ancestral levels - which were added purely as a means of attempting to balance the completely unbalance class design present before they were added - but it still isn't that well designed.
My first point is that data tracking as a means for balance assessment is ultimately null as a reason. Development teams will inevitable disregard any data presented by players, and test the details themselves. Player feedback need not include "objective data", a simple "hey, this ability seems a bit weak and useless compared to it's cost and cast time" should be enough information for the team to reevaluate it.
In fact, the "objective data" only serves to get in the way of that assessment.
Secondly, Archage cannot be verified as having little to no data tracker usage simply by searching for the number of data trackers made. If a GOOD data tracker is made, there is no need to make another or attempt to improve on the first. Secondly, I was being sarcastic when I said Archage was well designed. My point, however, still stands. The game made it super easy to judge performance. If you are not this class with these abilities, you are not performing well.
Whether or not Archage has a player base that widely uses data trackers is irrelevant, the game itself is flawed in a manner that allows judgement to be made.
Any method that allows for easy judgement of player performance is going to encourage a toxic environment. While the developers can (and likely will) do their best to make a well designed game with thoroughly vetted balance passes over the classes for Ashes of Creation, they cannot control the toxicity that is inevitably generated by data trackers which would undermine their efforts in balancing the classes in the first place.
Ultimately, the arguments FOR data trackers are similar to the arguments for gun control. They ignore the negatives rather than address them, or attempt to point out that those negatives will exist whether or not the control is in place. This is a very very silly argument.
My game play should not be dictated by some nerd with a calculator and a 3rd party program. That eliminates my personal agency and reduces me to following a cookie cutter build that some OTHER nerd will inevitably claim to have come up with. And that would be my personal objection to data trackers as a concept.
Regarding "easy judgement of player performance", I think you have a decent point there. The battlefield is often a chaotic place, and when things go wrong there's usually no obvious scapegoat, since you can't be watching everyone for mistake all the time. But with a combat tracker, you can just blame whoever is at the bottom of the DPS list (even if DPS wasn't the real problem). The fact that this is easier than every other problem-solving tactic makes it tempting and prone to abuse.
Ideally, I would hope that players have enough sense to only use DPS meters when party DPS is the #1 problem for the group. (My criteria is that if mechanics are being done properly, and there are only 1 or 2 deaths per run, but we're constantly dying to the DPS checks or enrage timer, then DPS becomes a legitimate concern.)
But of course, with public access to combat data, and no guidelines on how to use it, there will inevitably be a lot of misuse and toxicity based around it. Not everyone wants to, or knows how to, analyze combat data properly, but it's just so easy to try and fail. It's like having no gun-control laws or gun-handling classes at all.
That's where Noanni's suggestion for first-party "control" over combat trackers comes in. They can limit who has access and who they can shoot track, while still letting the pros use them in good ways.
In addition to that or separate, I think social engineering can help teach players to use combat trackers responsibly: Let people use the tool freely, but allow people to report misuse, and punish chronic assholes. And ask helpful individuals (like Noanni and Jahlon) to explain the good uses of them, using any of the social platforms which players frequent. Make it clear to the community that there are contexts where combat trackers and DPS-based arguments are not appropriate*. But also make it clear that combat trackers are not universally evil or taboo. Because the only way to get people to use combat trackers responsibly is to allow people to use and discuss them openly.
* Inappropriate places to bitch about DPS:
Naturally, there's an exception in all of those cases if you're playing with friends who are all on the same page. Friendly competition via DPS meters is acceptable if everyone recognizes it as "friendly".
And of course, more important than all of that, is HOW you discuss combat trackers with your team. Regardless of the context, you shouldn't attack your teammates, or blame them without offering help. And kicking underperformers should be a last resort. Even if you're trying to get an elite group together for speedruns, there are good and bad ways to tell newbies that they aren't good enough for the group.
Just to throw in another semi-political analogy, I see this situation in a similar way to mental health. You can't treat poor mental health just by locking up all the crazies. Well, I mean, you CAN, and it helps society a little bit, but it doesn't work out very well for mentally-ill people or the people associated with them. Instead, it's better to let people discuss mental health like any other sickness, so we get help to the people who need it, and generally make society function better around/with mental health issues (including more minor cases that don't need direct intervention). [End analogy]
Communities are capable of learning, regulation, and self-policing, but not if combat trackers are painted as a black-and-white evil; if the tool is painted as synonymous with it's abusers. Instead, let people use them openly, let people mess up occasionally, but control the issue with proper messaging. And empower people to defend themselves against abusers, with reports and blacklists and such. And make that self-policing transparent: Give quarterly reports on the number of banned/suspended accounts, broken down by offense (RMT, cheating, harassment, and specifically DPS-meter harassment). Maybe give players a notification when their reports are acted upon (justice served).
And uh... yeah, that's all. I'm out of rant juice.