Sometimes, when a thing isn't working, it's only not working because one or two components of the thing aren't working.
When this is the case, you need to diagnose where the problem is, and then you can address that problem.
You don't swap out a car's engine just because the spark plugs are not working, you simply diagnose the issue, and deal with the one component.
A combat tracker is literally a diagnostic tool. It allows you to find what part of the whole needs attention - how you then deal with the need to fix something is then up to the individuals involved, but if you don't know where the problem is, there isn't much you can do to fix it.
The notion that you don't need a combat tracker because you put aside the individual in order to further the whole can only come from the perspective of only using a combat tracker as a means of e-peen waiving, which is all many people know how to do. However, that is a misuse of a combat tracker as a tool, and in no way takes away from the value of it when used correctly.
To me, this is no different than someone using their cars dyno results to gloat to others - when the actual purpose for putting your car on a dyno is to make sure all the individual components of the car work in harmony, and that improvements made to it provide the expected results.
Jinkies! I didn't realise raiders were inanimate objects that will get replaced as soon as the raid leader has ordered in a new part. If only it were possible to trust an inanimate object to fix its own mistakes and communicate when it can't .
Usually people only get kicked from a raid for two reasons:
1)Being an asshat
2)Making the same mistakes over and over again after being told repeatedly how to fix the issue
There is a third reason, but I very rarely ever seen it and I played Tera for 7 years, which is notorious for its high skill set needed for raids and dungeons. That is people getting kicked for being under geared or unprepared. From what I heard from others, it apparently happened all the time, but I was a leader in a hardcore guild, so we all were hitting the ground running and very rarely had issues with each other. Well, on the other hand, we were all pretty sadistic assholes and loved teamkilling each other whenever we were not doing anything serious like a speedrun or attempting world first.
Sometimes, when a thing isn't working, it's only not working because one or two components of the thing aren't working.
When this is the case, you need to diagnose where the problem is, and then you can address that problem.
You don't swap out a car's engine just because the spark plugs are not working, you simply diagnose the issue, and deal with the one component.
A combat tracker is literally a diagnostic tool. It allows you to find what part of the whole needs attention - how you then deal with the need to fix something is then up to the individuals involved, but if you don't know where the problem is, there isn't much you can do to fix it.
The notion that you don't need a combat tracker because you put aside the individual in order to further the whole can only come from the perspective of only using a combat tracker as a means of e-peen waiving, which is all many people know how to do. However, that is a misuse of a combat tracker as a tool, and in no way takes away from the value of it when used correctly.
To me, this is no different than someone using their cars dyno results to gloat to others - when the actual purpose for putting your car on a dyno is to make sure all the individual components of the car work in harmony, and that improvements made to it provide the expected results.
Jinkies! I didn't realise raiders were inanimate objects that will get replaced as soon as the raid leader has ordered in a new part. If only it were possible to trust an inanimate object to fix its own mistakes and communicate when it can't .
Usually people only get kicked from a raid for two reasons:
1)Being an asshat
2)Making the same mistakes over and over again after being told repeatedly how to fix the issue
There is a third reason, but I very rarely ever seen it and I played Tera for 7 years, which is notorious for its high skill set needed for raids and dungeons. That is people getting kicked for being under geared or unprepared. From what I heard from others, it apparently happened all the time, but I was a leader in a hardcore guild, so we all were hitting the ground running and very rarely had issues with each other. Well, on the other hand, we were all pretty sadistic assholes and loved teamkilling each other whenever we were not doing anything serious like a speedrun or attempting world first.
I was about to reply to the post you've replied to here, but you've about covered everything for 99.9% of guilds.
I have been in a guild that had a policy of "if you think you are better than anyone in this guild try out, if you are better, you now have their raid spot", but this is an exceedingly rare situation for guilds to have.
For the most part, if a raid guild is successful but is having an issue on one encounter, then there is probably a small tweak that needs to be made. It is rare that it is a case of having to replace a person, and though this does occasionally happen, it is only ever after a solid attempt to help that player improve.
Even top end guilds are loathe to boot someone from a raid or guild.
Firstly, this is because it's often hard to preempt the fallout that it could have on the other members of the raid. While some people join a raid guild with friends, many other friendships are formed, and I have seen a otherwise well lead raid guild evaporate within hours after a single poor decision to guild kick a player that was well liked, without going through what could be considered the normal process - identifying the issue, educating the player, reassessing the issue, repeating up to two more times if necessary, then removing the player from the guild if no improvement is made.
It isn't ll that dissimilar to the process you need to go through to fire someone from a job in a country with reasonable workers rights laws.
Further, in many non-WoW games, the actual strategy used on an encounter is a closely guarded secret - at least for the first few weeks/months after a kill. If you boot a player out, that means all the strategies you and your guild have worked hard to construct will now be handed for free to what ever raid guild that player goes to (and most raiders do go to another established raid guild).
So, I guess in reply to @seaber, no, players aren't replaced as soon as the raid leader orders in a new part. If anything, raid guilds go to extreme lengths to keep the guild together, which is why there is usually such a stringent recruitment process - as for the most part, once you are in, you are hard to get rid of, so best make sure only suitable people are let in.
Edited to add; most people that complain of getting kicked from a raid guild are actually just people that failed to pass the recruitment stage. They were never actually "in" the guild, even if they had the guilds name tag.
As many guilds hold a vote on whether to accept a recruit or not, and recruits are only ever taken on content that is considered easy for the guild, there is almost never any issues with booting them.
0
Options
Wandering MistModerator, Member, Founder, Kickstarter, Alpha One
@noaani any guild that replaces raid members at the drop of a hat based on performance alone gets a wide berth from me.
In my experience those types of guilds have a very toxic atmosphere since everyone is constantly competing with each other. They are more concerned with being the "best" rather than working as a team.
1
Options
AzryilMember, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I don't think it's unreasonable to drop players that are under-performing during a raid encounter. When it comes down to progression raiding having a large roster and being able to trade people out reduces the time it takes to down encounters. I've been in guilds in the past that would do this, and I wouldn't call them toxic, they're just goal driven and doing what it takes to succeed. It's not like we dropped people because of one bad pull, rather if we spent an hour wiping and there was a couple people that were constantly failing at a mechanic or were under performing at their role, they would get replaced with someone on the bench and we would continue pulling.
@noaani any guild that replaces raid members at the drop of a hat based on performance alone gets a wide berth from me.
In my experience those types of guilds have a very toxic atmosphere since everyone is constantly competing with each other. They are more concerned with being the "best" rather than working as a team.
I would simply say "same", but I have yet to see one.
In the year and a bit I was in the guild that had the "if you're better, you get their slot" policy, we had exactly one player put that policy to the test.
It didn't go well for that player.
The rest of us (the whole server, since the player in question was an opinionated loudmouth) had our own meme for the next 6 months.
Despite what many players think - and what raid guilds often like to propagate - players in top end guilds become friends. I've spent a lot of time in casual guilds in MMO's, about twice what I've spent in top end guilds. There is usually much more of a friendly atmosphere in a top end raid guild as there is in a guild that would style itself a "family" guild. The only people I consider friends still all happen to be from top end guilds.
I'm sure some could say something about pressure situations and such, but I think it's as much to do with when you spend 4 hours a day, 3 or 4 days a week with the same group of 30 - 40 people, doing something you really enjoy, friendships occur far easier than when you just happen to share a chat channel with 150 other people.
@noaani It was your analogy I was reading.
I still do not know why you feel you need a diagnostic tool. If you won't use it to decide who to exclude, do you only want it to make raiding easier?
Legendary Healer
Invincible Tank
Unrivalled Dps
Queen of Growlgate
Kraken Tamer
Super Cutie
H8 me cuz u ain't me
@noaani It was your analogy I was reading.
I still do not know why you feel you need a diagnostic tool. If you won't use it to decide who to exclude, do you only want it to make raiding easier?
As has been pointed out a few times by a few people above in this thread, top end guilds are far more likely to try and fix an issue that a member of the raid is having, rather than replace that member of the raid.
The first step to this is exactly the same as the first step would be if a raid was planning to exclude a player that is not performing - and that first step is identifying the problem.
Whether replacing the person or trying to help then perform on that piece of content, you can't do anything if you don't know exactly who is causing that problem, and exactly what that problem is.
Neither of these are possible without some form of diagnostic tool.
The presence of a combat tracker doesn't make raiding easier, it allows the developers to develop harder, more intricate raids than would be reasonable for them to create without such a tool being present.
Developers develop based on an expected level from players. Expected expected level, gear, expected player numbers, expected available information. The more of each of these a developer can expect, the more intricate and precise he can develop his encounter while still being reasonably sure players will be able to defeat it.
Take out the information, and since developers develop to what they expect from players, developers are tying their own hands in terms of what they can reasonably expect players t deal with. This means raiding as a whole is less interesting, and due to bland content, won't hold the raiding communities interest for long at all.
0
Options
AzathothMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
"The presence of a combat tracker doesn't make raiding easier, it allows the developers to develop harder, more intricate raids than would be reasonable for them to create without such a tool being present."
Assuming players need a combat tracker to handle harder, more intricate raids is a disservice to the players. They develop challenging content to challenge players as a whole, not just the ones that feels it's necessary to squeeze out every last % by using a diagnostic tool to enhance their performance.
Yes, all of the analogies are great, but in the end IS deciding not to add one indicates (to me at least) that they plan on their players rising to the challenge by being challenged, failing, and trying again. Not using a tool to bypass most of that.
It depends on what is meant by detriment and "harmful".
If I thought an individual's DPS was low -especially if that player's character was max level- and I suggested they use an ability that player says they never use or they something similar to, "Well, that is a Repel ability and I'm an Ice Wizard so I don't use that ability...," I would start thinking of abilities other players could use to increase that player's damage input -via buffs or combo synergies, etc- or, how we could debuff the opponents such that they are more vulnerable to that individual's damage abilities - in this case, "What can we do to increase the power of that person's Ice abilities and what can we do to make the opponents more vulnerable to Ice abilities?"
There are 2 thing:
1. Without DPS meter/ACT, you do not know that individual's damage is not high enough. It is also possible that the boss is partially resisting to Repel ability so actually you should find out something increase the Repel mages damage, not the Ice mages. Without the proper tool it is quite hard to find out.
2. The CRPGs has stronger limitation than the P&P RPGs. You can't implement everything what came to the players mind. So you have very limited working strategies. So sometimes if you stick to do not use a useful ability you have to overgear the boss, no other options.
I stopped to raid 5 years ago, but I have worse experience to be kicked because I do not have 'proper' specialization just because the random homepage said that it is better, that I have too low DPS, see the report.
"The presence of a combat tracker doesn't make raiding easier, it allows the developers to develop harder, more intricate raids than would be reasonable for them to create without such a tool being present."
Assuming players need a combat tracker to handle harder, more intricate raids is a disservice to the players. They develop challenging content to challenge players as a whole, not just the ones that feels it's necessary to squeeze out every last % by using a diagnostic tool to enhance their performance.
From one side you are right, it makes the raid easier. But I find it similar to play only with 1 hand. It also makes the raid harder, but in a different way.
I was never tried to be the best, I did not spent hours/days to find the best build. But if we wipe in a raid I always start thinking that I did something wrong. The ACT is a very good tool to find out wether I did something wrong or somebody else. If I die, I can see that I received the less damage in the team, but the healer forget about me. In this case I feel calm. If we wipe and I see that my damage done is at the buttom of the team, I know that I need to do something other way. I am not a hard RP players so I will use each skill, but I like play-styles so if a specialization need different play-styles, I refuse to use it. This is the developers job to make viable each specialization. But if I need to learn a new rotation or need to change the enchants etc. I gladly do it for the team. But I would like to emphasize, without the tool, I do not know that I have to change something.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited July 2019
Devs should have their own combat trackers in any case. They don't need players to use them in order to design harder, more intricate raids.
According to what Steven and Maggie said in the June Livestream, they consider "top end raiding" to be very niche. No reason for them to provide a combat tracker for "top end raiders" at the expense of the rest of the playerbase. Again, this is akin to providing an RP-server.
RPers might argue that without a dev designated RP server, they won't hold the RP communities for long.
I don't think we necessarily have to know whether an individual's damage is not high enough. The team just needs to know that the team's damage isn't high enough - and how to synergize abilities in order to increase damage. Or how to synergize abilities to increase shielding or healing to extend damage output. Or know how to extend combat while they whittle down their opponents.
It's more important for the players to know how to fight as a team than it is to focus on the damage output of one player.
I think the proper analogy would be that the boss is partially resisting Ice abilities, which might indicate that Repel abilities are what's in demand for Wizards in the raid. But, content should be designed such that even Ice Wizard can significantly contribute to defeating such a boss without using Repel abilities. This is especially true for Ashes, where we have numerous augments from racial, religious, social and Node progression in a addition to up to 5 weapon abilities on advanced weapons.
But, by max level especially, we should already know before we leave for the raid that the Winter Dragon is likely to be resistant to Ice abilities... and have contingencies for that. Might be that my Ice Mage doesn't use Fire abilities from the Mage primary archetype while fighting the Winter Dragon, but instead uses Fire weapon abilities from the Igneous Wand created from the resources dropped from the Fire Dragon we defeated earlier.
Or maybe I'm going to bring along that Meteor Spellbook in addition to my signature Polar Staff.
I don't know what is meant by not being able to implement everything that comes to a player's mind in CRPGs. Pen and paper RPGs have that limitation as well.
"Overgearing" the boss is a viable option.
I don't know what is meant by not being able to implement everything that comes to a player's mind in CRPGs. Pen and paper RPGs have that limitation as well.
In a P&P RPG, I can hit a pillar with my fireball, what collapse the roof. I can climb on my other party member to reach a better position to fight. If it is a jump type boss, we can lure it to a smaller room to block his jumping ability. Kite a nearby fire based enemy against the ice based boss to attack each other.
If the developers do not think of these possibilities, you can't do them. In a P&P you can, because the DM can react dynamically.
" But, content should be designed such that even Ice Wizard can significantly contribute to defeating such a boss without using Repel abilities. "
It is depend on if it is just the player do not want to use that ability or that specialty do not have the ability and the player should respec to use it. If the first one, it is not the designer's responsibility. If the 2nd one, I agree with it. The designers have to find the way to make that specialty useful.
""Overgearing" the boss is a viable option. "
If we are talking about a smaller friendly group, I agree with it. With friends the wipe is also fun. If we are talking about random players, I do not really want to wipe all night without knowing what the problem is. If we/they can't solve the issue, I do not want to spend more time in that team. So me or the weak chain link have to leave.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited July 2019
I can kite bosses in a CRPG. There CRPGs and MMORPGs where players learn how to enhance the abilities of their teammates - which should be the case in Ashes. Also, in most MMORPGs players have access to a much wider pool of abilities than characters in a pen and paper RPG - and can even switch specs. So, that all balances out.
Also, we shall have to see what is possible with destructible walls and doors in Ashes.
It doesn't really depend - and especially shouldn't depend on respeccing in an RPG. Especially for Ashes, since Steven wants to bring more of the old-school RP back into the RPG portion of MMORPG.
It's the designers' responsibility to ensure that there is not just one viable method or just one viable spec for defeating a boss. Again, especially true for a game that has augments from a variety of paths - in addition to the myriad combos of weapon abilities possible.
Again, we should know how to play, regardless of whether we know the specific players.
Which of our abilities enhance types of abilities in the other classes. Which of my abilities enhance the damage of other abilities, which of my abilities add a debuff to the mob(s) in and simultaneously enhance the damage of abilities from a different class. Do I have roots and snares that will add to the damage dealt by a Summoners minions? Does my aggro ability enhance the damage of a teammate attacking from stealth?
Those are the types of strategies we should be learning and looking for - rather than relying on combat trackers.
Sometimes, it's just not possible to win with the group you are with, regardless - so you either have to retreat and regroup/replan or wait to overgear. Combat trackers do not inherently result in a winning strategy.
"The presence of a combat tracker doesn't make raiding easier, it allows the developers to develop harder, more intricate raids than would be reasonable for them to create without such a tool being present."
Assuming players need a combat tracker to handle harder, more intricate raids is a disservice to the players. They develop challenging content to challenge players as a whole, not just the ones that feels it's necessary to squeeze out every last % by using a diagnostic tool to enhance their performance.
Yes, all of the analogies are great, but in the end IS deciding not to add one indicates (to me at least) that they plan on their players rising to the challenge by being challenged, failing, and trying again. Not using a tool to bypass most of that.
Without some sort of tool to tell you what went right and what went wrong, that "being challenged, failing and trying again" is all about guesswork and luck, not rising to a challenge.
In order to rise to a challenge, one needs to know what that challenge is. Not knowing what the challenge you are facing even is, yet overcoming it anyway, is actual pure dumb luck.
That isn't rewarding content.
Further, as I tried to point out in my previous post (and perhaps failed), it isn't about players needing the tool to be able to take on intricate content, it is about the developers being able to develop even more intricate content than they otherwise would if they know players taking on that content likely have access to a combat tracker.
Developers will ALWAYS develop content with one eye totally fixed on what to expect from players and player characters. We will still be able to kill content without a tracker, because the content will be made to be able to be killed without one. However, that content will be far less interesting than content that is designed when developers develop content for players with a tracker, as the very presence of a tracker allows the developers to put more in to an encounter, to tighten up tolerances.
The more you add to an encounter in terms of mechanics or the smaller the room for error a raid has, the more enjoyable the encounter is for the raid. Without a tracker, there is less scope to add multiple mechanics to an encounter, and the room for error has to be larger, thus the content itself is - by it's very design - less enjoyable.
I don't really care much at all about DPS. I don't believe that damage per SECOND really matters. DPS is more of a gamer perspective than a dev perspective - the seconds usually aren't crucial. It's usually damage within a span of minutes that is crucial, but... let's go with the colloquial meaning of DPS.
If I thought an individual's DPS was low -especially if that player's character was max level- and I suggested they use an ability that player says they never use or they something similar to, "Well, that is a Repel ability and I'm an Ice Wizard so I don't use that ability...," I would start thinking of abilities other players could use to increase that player's damage input -via buffs or combo synergies, etc- or, how we could debuff the opponents such that they are more vulnerable to that individual's damage abilities - in this case, "What can we do to increase the power of that person's Ice abilities and what can we do to make the opponents more vulnerable to Ice abilities?"
I'm ONLY looking at the portion quoted above, and in this portion I have two major things to point out, things that tell me the poster doesn't really know what they are talking about.
First of all, DPS isn't a measure of damage over any one given second. It is a measure of all damage done in an encounter- or even in a night raiding - divided by the number of seconds of that encounter or nights raiding. It is divided over seconds in order to make it an easy to read, remember and compare number, not because people actually care about how much damage was done in an individual second.
In practice, DPS is a measure of how much damage a given player deals against an encounter, divide by the number of seconds that encounter lasted for, so saying you don't care about how much damage per second a player does, but do consider the amount of damage within a span of seconds to be crucial, all that tells me is - once again - that this is a player that doesn't know what they are talking about, yet continues to talk regardless.
Now on to the second portion of the above post, and the second point I would like to make.
To suggest that if there was a player that was under performing on your raid, one could simply make up that lack of performance via buffs and debuffs tells me that the raid leader is worthless, as in order to be able to put a buff on that player, there has to be an unused buff somewhere in the raid. It's not like buffs are an infinite resource - any good raid leader will make sure that they are making 100% use of all buffs they have on their raid.
Further to that point, if you had a spare buff, say +100 to spell damage, and you had an under performing wizard and a not under performing wizard, you put that buff on the not under performing wizard as that will get you more value out of the buff - and at the end of the day, that buff is a resource belonging - and to be used to the benefit of - the raid.
Redistributing buffs in order to cover up a lack of player ability or willingness to be as good as they can is poor raid leadership. It is the kind of leadership that will see a raid never make it past the first handful of encounters, and puts players off raiding.
No one playing a support class likes to be told to put their buffs on anyone other than the optimal person for them to be on. It's why people playing support classes play support classes.
The suggestion of looking at buffs and debuffs to help one under performing player in your raid is viable, rather than helping that one player perform better by themselves, tells me that - once gain - this is a player that doesn't know what they are talking about, yet continues to talk anyway.
1
Options
Wandering MistModerator, Member, Founder, Kickstarter, Alpha One
"The presence of a combat tracker doesn't make raiding easier, it allows the developers to develop harder, more intricate raids than would be reasonable for them to create without such a tool being present."
Assuming players need a combat tracker to handle harder, more intricate raids is a disservice to the players. They develop challenging content to challenge players as a whole, not just the ones that feels it's necessary to squeeze out every last % by using a diagnostic tool to enhance their performance.
Yes, all of the analogies are great, but in the end IS deciding not to add one indicates (to me at least) that they plan on their players rising to the challenge by being challenged, failing, and trying again. Not using a tool to bypass most of that.
Without some sort of tool to tell you what went right and what went wrong, that "being challenged, failing and trying again" is all about guesswork and luck, not rising to a challenge.
In order to rise to a challenge, one needs to know what that challenge is. Not knowing what the challenge you are facing even is, yet overcoming it anyway, is actual pure dumb luck.
That isn't rewarding content.
Further, as I tried to point out in my previous post (and perhaps failed), it isn't about players needing the tool to be able to take on intricate content, it is about the developers being able to develop even more intricate content than they otherwise would if they know players taking on that content likely have access to a combat tracker.
Developers will ALWAYS develop content with one eye totally fixed on what to expect from players and player characters. We will still be able to kill content without a tracker, because the content will be made to be able to be killed without one. However, that content will be far less interesting than content that is designed when developers develop content for players with a tracker, as the very presence of a tracker allows the developers to put more in to an encounter, to tighten up tolerances.
The more you add to an encounter in terms of mechanics or the smaller the room for error a raid has, the more enjoyable the encounter is for the raid. Without a tracker, there is less scope to add multiple mechanics to an encounter, and the room for error has to be larger, thus the content itself is - by it's very design - less enjoyable.
I'm not sure I agree with anything you just wrote there. First off, if we go with your logic then anyone who manages to kill a Dark Souls boss does it purely by guesswork and dumb luck. After all, Dark Souls players overcome plenty of challenging content without the need for any kind of combat tracker aside from their own health and stamina bars.
Let me put it this way, If I'm fighting a dragon and I die to its breath attack, I don't need to look at a combat tracker to know what went wrong. All I have to do is open my eyes and use my brain to work it out. It's not hard.
Increasing the amount of mechanics and decreasing the margin for error in a raid encounter are fine but up to a point. Mechanical overload is a very real thing, and just because a fight has a lot of mechanics doesn't necessarily make it hard. I also dislike fights where the entire raid can wipe purely from a single person's mistake. These kinds of fights typically rely on everyone in the raid performing 100% perfectly all the time, which is too much to expect from even a 10-man raid, let alone a 40-man one.
As far as I know, Dark Souls is single player only. As has been stated in this thread, a combat tracker is of minimal (virtually no) use to a single player.
While I agree that mechanical overload is a thing, that is also kind of my point. The point of overload is almost totally dependent on how much information you have available to you - if you have more information, you can tackle more mechanics before you reach that overload point.
As to encounters where one person making a mistake can wipe the raid - while they have their place (the end of raid progression), they usually only exist because developers are getting closer to that mechanical overload and still want to challenge a raid. Increase the amount of mechanics developers can throw at players while still being confident players can eventually come out on top, and you reduce the need to put one mistake mobs in to raid progression.
IS wants us to focus on teamwork and environment and an ACT takes away from both of those.
Youre saying u want more mechanical challenge but yet ure saying u cant figure out the encounters without an ACT.
"You're seeking for perfection, but your disillusions are leading to destruction.
You're bleeding for salvation, but you can't see that you are the damnation itself." -Norther
IS wants us to focus on teamwork and environment and an ACT takes away from both of those.
Youre saying u want more mechanical challenge but yet ure saying u cant figure out the encounters without an ACT.
That really isn't what I'm saying at all, not even close.
I'm saying developers will develop content based on what players are capable of doing. This is the basis for what every MMO does - this is why you are able to beat content but not necessarily walk all over it (usually).
A big part of what players can or can't do on a raid is in direct relation to what information they have access to. The more information players have, the more intricate and balanced the developers can make the encounter.
Intricacy and balance are two of the major factors that make tough encounters enjoyable.
Without access to that information, the developer of an encounter has to develop the encounter with a less precise notion of balance, tilted in favor of the players. They also can't make encounters as intricate, as if there are 10 things going on and players have access to a combat tracker, then they are able to figure out which of the 10 things went wrong. Without a tracker, developers can only really put one or two things happening at a time in to an encounter. Any more than that and players have no real way of knowing what went wrong, thus no real way of knowing what they need to fix.
I'll always be able to beat raid encounters, because developers ill only ever develop raid encounters based on what tools I have. I don't need more tools than what the developers had in mind when developing an encounter.
However, I want there to be a thriving raiding scene in Ashes. That can only happen if the content itself is enjoyable. If the actual content isn't enjoyable, raiders won't stay. On the other hand, if it is, raiders will stay in the game en masse for years.
Thing is, as I've said, raid encounters need intricacy and balance in order to be enjoyable. Both things that are able to be vastly improved if there is access in some form to a combat tracker.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited July 2019
In practice, DPS is a measure of how much damage a given player deals against an encounter, divide by the number of seconds that encounter lasted for, so saying you don't care about how much damage per second a player does, but do consider the amount of damage within a span of seconds to be crucial, all that tells me is - once again - that this is a player that doesn't know what they are talking about, yet continues to talk regardless.
Yeah, and I'm still saying that it's not damage per seconds that is crucial but damage per minutes.
And specifically damage per specific section of minutes rather than just overall damage during the encounter divided by the seconds of the encounter.
We don't need to know how much damage per second of the overall raid, rather we need to know that we need to try for optimal damage during a particular section to ensure that the mobs or bosses don't repop or regen health.
To suggest that if there was a player that was under performing on your raid, one could simply make up that lack of performance via buffs and debuffs tells me that the raid leader is worthless, as in order to be able to put a buff on that player, there has to be an unused buff somewhere in the raid. It's not like buffs are an infinite resource - any good raid leader will make sure that they are making 100% use of all buffs they have on their raid.
I'm not sure what you mean by this.
For one thing, I didn't state that one could make up lack of performance simply via buffs and debuffs. Debuffs and buffs were listed along with other tactics.
I know that debuffs and buffs aren't "infinite resources". I never suggested that they were. That they aren't infinite resources is an intrinsic aspect of that point.
In D&D, targets take damage while prone. We should have something similar in Ashes, such that targets take extra damage while knocked down - so that everyone knows that when the Tank successfully knocks down a target there should be designated people in the group who pile on extra damage after a successful use of Charge.
Healers should be aware that an opportune time for healing the Tank is while the buff for increased healing from outside sources is active after the Tank triggers "Ultimate defense skill". Healers should be aware of the combos that lead to that Ultimate. And should probably be on the lookout for the Tank to use Cover, since they will be taking extra damage from that ability as well.
Further to that point, if you had a spare buff, say +100 to spell damage, and you had an under performing wizard and a not under performing wizard, you put that buff on the not under performing wizard as that will get you more value out of the buff - and at the end of the day, that buff is a resource belonging - and to be used to the benefit of - the raid.
Yeah. Probably the buff shouldn't be as simple +100 to Spell Damage.
All abilities used to defeat challenges in a raid are used for the benefit of the raid.
Redistributing buffs in order to cover up a lack of player ability or willingness to be as good as they can is poor raid leadership. It is the kind of leadership that will see a raid never make it past the first handful of encounters, and puts players off raiding.
Ah. You seem to be stuck on the concept of layering buffs on players before starting the raid.
I'm also talking about the buffs and debuffs that become active when other players are using their abilities.
It's not just about leadership - it's about each individual understanding how they can assist their teammates' tactics.
Healers shouldn't just be staring at health bars to see whose health is low. (We know that, in Ashes, healers will be more active in combat than that in any case.) And the same should be true for all the other classes.
Fighters should be keeping an eye out for Rangers to use Snare and Slice in order to stack Bleed damage.
Necromancers should be keeping an eye open for when the Shadow Caster casts Shade because Shade increases the damage of a Necromancer's Zombies for targets trapped in that aoe. That's the kind of design the devs should be focused on; not providing players with combat trackers.
It shouldn't just be, "Hey, the Mage's DPS is low so they are 'underperforming.'" Rather it should be, "Hey, both the Mage and the Summoner will do more damage if they coordinate Shade with Summon Zombie."
Being less than "as good as possible" does not intrinsically lead to failure. So, no, that neither leads to failure nor puts players off of raiding. What puts people off from raiding is the instance of elitists that everyone must be as good as possible in order to participate.
Hence, the problem with DPS meters being used to determine what is "as good as possible".
No one playing a support class likes to be told to put their buffs on anyone other than the optimal person for them to be on. It's why people playing support classes play support classes.
hahahahha
That simply isn't true but I can see how elitists might believe that.
The suggestion of looking at buffs and debuffs to help one under performing player in your raid is viable, rather than helping that one player perform better by themselves, tells me that - once gain - this is a player that doesn't know what they are talking about, yet continues to talk anyway.
Buffs and debuffs and knowing how to take advantage of them to aid the performance of your teammates is part of helping individuals perform better. As is teaching individuals how to do so.
When the group decides that more healing is needed, we shouldn't just be thinking that the High Priest is "underperforming", rather we should be determining how the Soulbow, Soul Weaver and/or Highsword can assist that High Priest.
It might not be that the issue is that a Necromancer is "underperforming" - it might be that it would be better to do a group Summons.
The concept of DPS meters and combat trackers assessing "underperformance" is precisely the problem.
"It doesn't really depend - and especially shouldn't depend on respeccing in an RPG."
Then 2nd part I totally agree if respeccing is necessary it is design issue. But It really depend on if the ability is accessible for that spec, but they do not want to use it for RP reason. You can't expect that the developers can think of every situation when the player do not want to use a useful skill. If the the icemage do not want to use repel spells. No problem, the tank has reduce elemental resistance skill, but the tank said. I will not use it, I am a mighty warrior, I do not use spell-like skills. This definitely not design issue.
"Which of our abilities enhance types of abilities in the other classes. Which of my abilities enhance the damage of other abilities, which of my abilities add a debuff to the mob(s) in and simultaneously enhance the damage of abilities from a different class. Do I have roots and snares that will add to the damage dealt by a Summoners minions? Does my aggro ability enhance the damage of a teammate attacking from stealth?
Those are the types of strategies we should be learning and looking for - rather than relying on combat trackers."
Believe me, the persons who want ACT do not want to remove these options. Actually they really want to use them, but they would like to see that it worth for that fight. Once we can use one ability. I have to chose to attack or I use an ability what increase my teammate's damage. My attack deal 100 damage. My other ability increase my team mate's damage with 25%. If that guy/guys deal damage of 500 with my skill it is indifferent to use. If he do more than 500, it is a good idea to use that skill. If it is less, we should not use, it does not worth. This is what we would like to know. Of course you can make a few try blindly and see what happened, but if we just have the total team's dps, we will not know if that helped or some other thing happened.
"Sometimes, it's just not possible to win with the group you are with,..Combat trackers do not inherently result in a winning strategy."
I know that not always possible to with with a group, and I also know that the combat trackers will not mean winning strategy, but the combat tracker help to find out if it worth to continue with that team or not. It also helps to find out how we should change. It saves lot of time.
Buffs and debuffs and knowing how to take advantage of them to aid the performance of your teammates is part of helping individuals perform better. As is teaching individuals how to do so.
When the group decides that more healing is needed, we shouldn't just be thinking that the High Priest is "underperforming", rather we should be determining how the Soulbow, Soul Weaver and/or Highsword can assist that High Priest.
It might not be that the issue is that a Necromancer is "underperforming" - it might be that it would be better to do a group Summons.
The concept of DPS meters and combat trackers assessing "underperformance" is precisely the problem.
See, you don't get it.
The individual players on your raid have the responsibility to the other 39 people present to know how to play their class, and the raid leader has the responsibility to know what to reasonably expect from that class under the situation they are in.
No raid leader worth their spot on a raid would think that a healer is under performing if they are doing the most healing on the raid. I'm not even going to touch "When the group decides that more healing is needed", as that is not something I can talk about without using "all that tells me is - once again - that this is a player that doesn't know what they are talking about, yet continues to talk regardless".
No raid leader worth their spot on a raid would think that a Necromancer is under performing without taking in to account whether they are or are not able to do a group summons. The raid leader either knows they can or knows they can't do a group summons. Any assessment of their performance will take that in to account. However, if a player is in a substantially below par situation for their class, chances are the raid leader won't even look at how well they are doing (raids don't take substantially below par setups to challenging content).
---
You are looking at this whole thing from the perspective of amateur raiding, Friday Night Warriors, rather than from the perspective of people that know what they are doing.
Given how well you have proven your understanding of the topic, that is more than fair to expect from you. What you should be thinking to yourself is that raiders - REAL raiders - spend far longer thinking about this kind of thing than you do, and so know all the pitfalls and benefits that you could ever possibly think up.
If you want to make an argument that a combat tracker should be kept out of the hands of people that don't know how to use it, that's fine. Not only do I agree with that sentiment, I've actually gone one better and proposed a method for how that could work.
However, if you want to argue that a combat tracker should not be present at all, you would do well to explain why people that know how to make full use of such a tool should not be allowed access to one.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
It really depend on if the ability is accessible for that spec, but they do not want to use it for RP reason. You can't expect that the developers can think of every situation when the player do not want to use a useful skill. If the the icemage do not want to use repel spells. No problem, the tank has reduce elemental resistance skill, but the tank said. I will not use it, I am a mighty warrior, I do not use spell-like skills. This definitely not design issue.
We mostly agree. But the warrior refusing to use "spell-like skills" is not what we're talking about.
To truly know how problematic that would be in Ashes, we would need to know what the specific skills are and which augments and which weapon abilities might compensate for not using "spell-like skills".
Maybe the Tank considers Impale and Righteous Fury to be "spell-like skills", so instead of using the skills from the primary archetype to launch "magic spears", the Guardian attaches the augment versions to Shield Bash or Shield Might. There should be plenty of augments from the available melee secondary archetypes that compensate for the Tank not using "spell-like skills". And even more among the augments from racial, social organization and Node augments. Especially from among the arsenal of Military Node augments.
The devs don't have to think of every situation where a player doesn't want to use a "useful" skill.
Believe me, the persons who want ACT do not want to remove these options. Actually they really want to use them, but they would like to see that it worth for that fight. Once we can use one ability. I have to chose to attack or I use an ability what increase my teammate's damage. My attack deal 100 damage. My other ability increase my team mate's damage with 25%. If that guy/guys deal damage of 500 with my skill it is indifferent to use. If he do more than 500, it is a good idea to use that skill. If it is less, we should not use, it does not worth. This is what we would like to know. Of course you can make a few try blindly and see what happened, but if we just have the total team's dps, we will not know if that helped or some other thing happened.
People can figure out whether that significantly increases damage without relying on DPS meters or combat trackers. It either does or doesn't. And it will be evident by the effects on the targets' healthbar.
People who really want to use those tactics will know what they are before reaching max level.
I know that not always possible to with with a group, and I also know that the combat trackers will not mean winning strategy, but the combat tracker help to find out if it worth to continue with that team or not. It also helps to find out how we should change. It saves lot of time.
For some people combat trackers help to find out whether it's worth it to continue with that team.
That is why the people against them are against them. Also, likely that the people who are against them don't really care about that kind of saved time.
DPS meters and combat trackers facilitating the drive to quickest, most efficient run is precisely what those in the anti camp want to avoid.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
The individual players on your raid have the responsibility to the other 39 people present to know how to play their class, and the raid leader has the responsibility to know what to reasonably expect from that class under the situation they are in.
No. You don't get it.
Everyone on the raid should be striving to use their abilities to help each other defeat the challenges in the raid. It's not just up to the raid leader to what to reasonably expect from the class.
Again, this is especially true in Ashes, where each class has at least 15 different permutations - plus the variations resulting from racial, religious, social and Node augments and the weapon abilities on individual weapons.
No raid leader worth their spot on a raid would think that a healer is under performing if they are doing the most healing on the raid. I'm not even going to touch "When the group decides that more healing is needed", as that is not something I can talk about without using "all that tells me is - once again - that this is a player that doesn't know what they are talking about, yet continues to talk regardless".
I didn't say anything about the healer doing the most healing on the raid. The example of a High Priest under-performing assumes that would be the specific High Priest on the raid who is under-performing, in comparison to the other High Priests or Cleric primary archetypes on the raid.
I expect a raid to have more than one High Priest or Cleric primary archetype.
But, thank you, Oh Mighty Pot.
No raid leader worth their spot on a raid would think that a Necromancer is under performing without taking in to account whether they are or are not able to do a group summons. The raid leader either knows they can or knows they can't do a group summons. Any assessment of their performance will take that in to account. However, if a player is in a substantially below par situation for their class, chances are the raid leader won't even look at how well they are doing (raids don't take substantially below par setups to challenging content).
If the majority of group and raid leaders were that idyllic, the devs might be supportive of DPS meters and combat trackers.
No one is talking about substantially below par setups, as far as I know. Although, what constitutes a substantially subpar setup could be subjective.
Although, not taking someone along on a raid is a luxury we might not often have in Ashes.
You are looking at this whole thing from the perspective of amateur raiding, Friday Night Warriors, rather than from the perspective of people that know what they are doing.
Given how well you have proven your understanding of the topic, that is more than fair to expect from you. What you should be thinking to yourself is that raiders - REAL raiders - spend far longer thinking about this kind of thing than you do, and so know all the pitfalls and benefits that you could ever possibly think up.
Riiiight. That's not at all an elitist perspective.
However, if you want to argue that a combat tracker should not be present at all, you would do well to explain why people that know how to make full use of such a tool should not be allowed access to one.
Because the devs are not going to be trying to determine which players know how to "properly" use the tool and which don't. That's not rocket science.
The same is true of any tool that is banned. The people who feel they properly know how to use the tool while others don't are going to complain about the ban - of course.
0
Options
AzathothMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I am not against ACT/DPS meters. I just don't think we need them and IS has chosen not to put them in Ashes, and I think they should stay true to that.
The main argument given for them, at least over the last few pages/days is that it somehow "allows" developers to develop more challenging content. That is only true if developers do not believe their players can perform optimally with practice.
"Without some sort of tool to tell you what went right and what went wrong, that "being challenged, failing and trying again" is all about guesswork and luck, not rising to a challenge."
That's not true. That is only true for players that rely on ACT/DPS meters. It sounds like you are saying that without an ACT/DPS telling you that a certain boss monster was resistance to fire the whole time you would never be able to figure it out, or if someone suggested not using fire because they noticed their damage was reduced, it would be "guesswork or luck." You literally want to try a dungeon once, then be told what resistances, attacks, etc. the boss monster has, prepare for that, try again and be done.
[Yes, I am assuming that after playing some time players would know what to expect by said fire damage and be able to know when it was weaker. If there is no on screen determination of damage done when attacking (hp bar/dmg numbers/etc) then perhaps an ACT/DPS should be implemented]
Why not wait for someone to post how to defeat the boss monster, do what they say, and move on? That would be the best way to save time and find out what all the resistances and attacks are.
This response is telling me that at least some players relying on ACT/DPS meters don't believe in "practice makes perfect" and that somehow without a tracker people would be unable to tell if their character was performing on par with usual, over par, or under par.
If ACT/DPS meters will be used to determine mob/boss weaknesses and strengths after one attempt, than I would be against them. Again, at that point, just look it up on a wiki after someone that "tried, failed, tried again and succeeded" posted what they did.
People can figure out whether that significantly increases damage without relying on DPS meters or combat trackers. It either does or doesn't. And it will be evident by the effects on the targets' healthbar.
I participated in many raids, even if we did the same, the boss's hp went down different way. From that it is very hard to find out what caused the difference. Sometimes I have a feeling that you never participated in a 25-40 persons raid.
For some people combat trackers help to find out whether it's worth it to continue with that team.
That is why the people against them are against them. Also, likely that the people who are against them don't really care about that kind of saved time.
I am OK, that you like to fight a combat where you do not have chance to win. I do not like it. (Unless I am with good friends, but as I do not have 25-40 good friends, I do not have the possibility participate with them in a raid.)
DPS meters and combat trackers facilitating the drive to quickest, most efficient run is precisely what those in the anti camp want to avoid.
1. I do not really care about the quickest way or the most efficient run, I just want to avoid the dead end street.
2. If somebody use it for that, I do not care about it. I suggest you the same. If it exists, you have the possibility to not use it. If it not exists I do not have the possibility to use it.
This response is telling me that at least some players relying on ACT/DPS meters don't believe in "practice makes perfect" and that somehow without a tracker people would be unable to tell if their character was performing on par with usual, over par, or under par.
To be honest, I do not know without tracker. It come to my mind when I was new in MMORPG. I cleared the dungeons with PUG. Mostly without wipes. After I felt that I am strong enough I started to raiding. I found a nice guild. They bring me with them. I worked hard to make lot of damage. We killed the bosses, because the others were overgeared. Sometimes later, I had the same level of gear and the guild wanted to go for a harder boss. They brought me with them. After a few try they told me that my damage is not high enough. I did not understand I did very hard. I did not even know how they know that I was the weak-spot. So that night I left the raid team. After that we speak lot about an ACT and about some skill rotation etc. As I had the tool to measure myself, I saw immediately that I do something wrong. I found a play-style what fits for me. So I practice lot and not much later, I was among the best in the guild.
So I really believe in the 'practice makes perfect', but I know that without tracker, I can't even estimate my performance.
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
If you allow for an icemage to not use his available skills, you have to allow the warrior as well and for everybody.
Right. The example is an Ice Wizard not using spells from the Repel Wizard spec.
And that's coming from an example of a (Beastmaster) Hunter not using an ability from the Survival Hunter spec.
So, in the case of an Ashes Tank, it would be like a Guardian choosing not to use Spellshield augments even though combat trackers indicate that Spellshield augments are better than Guardian augments.
But, even if a Tank chose not to use Shield Bash, Cover and/or Bulwark, we should be able to compensate with characters using Tank augments.
I participated in many raids, even if we did the same, the boss's hp went down different way. From that it is very hard to find out what caused the difference. Sometimes I have a feeling that you never participated in a 25-40 persons raid.
You don't have to be in a raid to determine whether a Necromancer's Zombies do more damage in a Shadow Caster's Shade. At max level, players should already be aware of that. And, it should be easy enough to see whether a hit did barely any damage or whether it did significant damage. We should expect to see synergies with the abilities of other players doing significant damage.
That's not going to change battle to battle even with boss dynamics in the Ashes design.
I am OK, that you like to fight a combat where you do not have chance to win. I do not like it. (Unless I am with good friends, but as I do not have 25-40 good friends, I do not have the possibility participate with them in a raid.)
I don't know that it matters whether people like to fight a combat where they do not have a chance to win.
It's unlikely you will be able to win every battle. Especially in Ashes, there will be times when we can't win the battle and we will have to retreat, replan, and/or regroup as we figure out how to defeat the content.
Sometimes the best solution might be to "overgear".
In Ashes, it should be easier to find and make good friends to raid with since we will be defending our towns and cities from attacks alongside other citizens of the Node who are online when we're online... same for finding allies to help defend Node-related caravan runs.
Should also be easier to learn how to coordinate and complement the tactics they like to use with the abilities you like to use.
1. I do not really care about the quickest way or the most efficient run, I just want to avoid the dead end street.
2. If somebody use it for that, I do not care about it. I suggest you the same. If it exists, you have the possibility to not use it. If it not exists I do not have the possibility to use it.
The Ashes devs are not including or supporting DPS meters or combat trackers, so... they will not officially exist.
0
Options
AzryilMember, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
The Ashes devs are not including or supporting DPS meters or combat trackers, so... they will not officially exist.
This thread really should just die at this point. All it is at this point is a couple people on each side that will never change their mind, and it's irrelevant since the devs don't plan on supporting it anyways.
2. If somebody use it for that, I do not care about it. I suggest you the same. If it exists, you have the possibility to not use it. If it not exists I do not have the possibility to use it.
After that we speak lot about an ACT and about some skill rotation etc. As I had the tool to measure myself, I saw immediately that I do something wrong
We both know that if one exists everyone has to use it.
The reason Im against ACT is because it makes it very easy to find optimal setups. When you have ACT everyone can figure the optimal setup with ease. Ditching ACTs means its a challenge to players to figure out what to do and an asset to guild to have experimental players.
When ure raiding without ACT youre looking for reliable and smart players instead of those who can push buttons in certain order.
"You're seeking for perfection, but your disillusions are leading to destruction.
You're bleeding for salvation, but you can't see that you are the damnation itself." -Norther
Comments
Usually people only get kicked from a raid for two reasons:
1)Being an asshat
2)Making the same mistakes over and over again after being told repeatedly how to fix the issue
There is a third reason, but I very rarely ever seen it and I played Tera for 7 years, which is notorious for its high skill set needed for raids and dungeons. That is people getting kicked for being under geared or unprepared. From what I heard from others, it apparently happened all the time, but I was a leader in a hardcore guild, so we all were hitting the ground running and very rarely had issues with each other. Well, on the other hand, we were all pretty sadistic assholes and loved teamkilling each other whenever we were not doing anything serious like a speedrun or attempting world first.
I was about to reply to the post you've replied to here, but you've about covered everything for 99.9% of guilds.
I have been in a guild that had a policy of "if you think you are better than anyone in this guild try out, if you are better, you now have their raid spot", but this is an exceedingly rare situation for guilds to have.
For the most part, if a raid guild is successful but is having an issue on one encounter, then there is probably a small tweak that needs to be made. It is rare that it is a case of having to replace a person, and though this does occasionally happen, it is only ever after a solid attempt to help that player improve.
Even top end guilds are loathe to boot someone from a raid or guild.
Firstly, this is because it's often hard to preempt the fallout that it could have on the other members of the raid. While some people join a raid guild with friends, many other friendships are formed, and I have seen a otherwise well lead raid guild evaporate within hours after a single poor decision to guild kick a player that was well liked, without going through what could be considered the normal process - identifying the issue, educating the player, reassessing the issue, repeating up to two more times if necessary, then removing the player from the guild if no improvement is made.
It isn't ll that dissimilar to the process you need to go through to fire someone from a job in a country with reasonable workers rights laws.
Further, in many non-WoW games, the actual strategy used on an encounter is a closely guarded secret - at least for the first few weeks/months after a kill. If you boot a player out, that means all the strategies you and your guild have worked hard to construct will now be handed for free to what ever raid guild that player goes to (and most raiders do go to another established raid guild).
So, I guess in reply to @seaber, no, players aren't replaced as soon as the raid leader orders in a new part. If anything, raid guilds go to extreme lengths to keep the guild together, which is why there is usually such a stringent recruitment process - as for the most part, once you are in, you are hard to get rid of, so best make sure only suitable people are let in.
Edited to add; most people that complain of getting kicked from a raid guild are actually just people that failed to pass the recruitment stage. They were never actually "in" the guild, even if they had the guilds name tag.
As many guilds hold a vote on whether to accept a recruit or not, and recruits are only ever taken on content that is considered easy for the guild, there is almost never any issues with booting them.
In my experience those types of guilds have a very toxic atmosphere since everyone is constantly competing with each other. They are more concerned with being the "best" rather than working as a team.
I would simply say "same", but I have yet to see one.
In the year and a bit I was in the guild that had the "if you're better, you get their slot" policy, we had exactly one player put that policy to the test.
It didn't go well for that player.
The rest of us (the whole server, since the player in question was an opinionated loudmouth) had our own meme for the next 6 months.
Despite what many players think - and what raid guilds often like to propagate - players in top end guilds become friends. I've spent a lot of time in casual guilds in MMO's, about twice what I've spent in top end guilds. There is usually much more of a friendly atmosphere in a top end raid guild as there is in a guild that would style itself a "family" guild. The only people I consider friends still all happen to be from top end guilds.
I'm sure some could say something about pressure situations and such, but I think it's as much to do with when you spend 4 hours a day, 3 or 4 days a week with the same group of 30 - 40 people, doing something you really enjoy, friendships occur far easier than when you just happen to share a chat channel with 150 other people.
I still do not know why you feel you need a diagnostic tool. If you won't use it to decide who to exclude, do you only want it to make raiding easier?
Invincible Tank
Unrivalled Dps
Queen of Growlgate
Kraken Tamer
Super Cutie
H8 me cuz u ain't me
As has been pointed out a few times by a few people above in this thread, top end guilds are far more likely to try and fix an issue that a member of the raid is having, rather than replace that member of the raid.
The first step to this is exactly the same as the first step would be if a raid was planning to exclude a player that is not performing - and that first step is identifying the problem.
Whether replacing the person or trying to help then perform on that piece of content, you can't do anything if you don't know exactly who is causing that problem, and exactly what that problem is.
Neither of these are possible without some form of diagnostic tool.
The presence of a combat tracker doesn't make raiding easier, it allows the developers to develop harder, more intricate raids than would be reasonable for them to create without such a tool being present.
Developers develop based on an expected level from players. Expected expected level, gear, expected player numbers, expected available information. The more of each of these a developer can expect, the more intricate and precise he can develop his encounter while still being reasonably sure players will be able to defeat it.
Take out the information, and since developers develop to what they expect from players, developers are tying their own hands in terms of what they can reasonably expect players t deal with. This means raiding as a whole is less interesting, and due to bland content, won't hold the raiding communities interest for long at all.
Assuming players need a combat tracker to handle harder, more intricate raids is a disservice to the players. They develop challenging content to challenge players as a whole, not just the ones that feels it's necessary to squeeze out every last % by using a diagnostic tool to enhance their performance.
Yes, all of the analogies are great, but in the end IS deciding not to add one indicates (to me at least) that they plan on their players rising to the challenge by being challenged, failing, and trying again. Not using a tool to bypass most of that.
There are 2 thing:
1. Without DPS meter/ACT, you do not know that individual's damage is not high enough. It is also possible that the boss is partially resisting to Repel ability so actually you should find out something increase the Repel mages damage, not the Ice mages. Without the proper tool it is quite hard to find out.
2. The CRPGs has stronger limitation than the P&P RPGs. You can't implement everything what came to the players mind. So you have very limited working strategies. So sometimes if you stick to do not use a useful ability you have to overgear the boss, no other options.
I stopped to raid 5 years ago, but I have worse experience to be kicked because I do not have 'proper' specialization just because the random homepage said that it is better, that I have too low DPS, see the report.
From one side you are right, it makes the raid easier. But I find it similar to play only with 1 hand. It also makes the raid harder, but in a different way.
I was never tried to be the best, I did not spent hours/days to find the best build. But if we wipe in a raid I always start thinking that I did something wrong. The ACT is a very good tool to find out wether I did something wrong or somebody else. If I die, I can see that I received the less damage in the team, but the healer forget about me. In this case I feel calm. If we wipe and I see that my damage done is at the buttom of the team, I know that I need to do something other way. I am not a hard RP players so I will use each skill, but I like play-styles so if a specialization need different play-styles, I refuse to use it. This is the developers job to make viable each specialization. But if I need to learn a new rotation or need to change the enchants etc. I gladly do it for the team. But I would like to emphasize, without the tool, I do not know that I have to change something.
According to what Steven and Maggie said in the June Livestream, they consider "top end raiding" to be very niche. No reason for them to provide a combat tracker for "top end raiders" at the expense of the rest of the playerbase. Again, this is akin to providing an RP-server.
RPers might argue that without a dev designated RP server, they won't hold the RP communities for long.
I don't think we necessarily have to know whether an individual's damage is not high enough. The team just needs to know that the team's damage isn't high enough - and how to synergize abilities in order to increase damage. Or how to synergize abilities to increase shielding or healing to extend damage output. Or know how to extend combat while they whittle down their opponents.
It's more important for the players to know how to fight as a team than it is to focus on the damage output of one player.
I think the proper analogy would be that the boss is partially resisting Ice abilities, which might indicate that Repel abilities are what's in demand for Wizards in the raid. But, content should be designed such that even Ice Wizard can significantly contribute to defeating such a boss without using Repel abilities. This is especially true for Ashes, where we have numerous augments from racial, religious, social and Node progression in a addition to up to 5 weapon abilities on advanced weapons.
But, by max level especially, we should already know before we leave for the raid that the Winter Dragon is likely to be resistant to Ice abilities... and have contingencies for that. Might be that my Ice Mage doesn't use Fire abilities from the Mage primary archetype while fighting the Winter Dragon, but instead uses Fire weapon abilities from the Igneous Wand created from the resources dropped from the Fire Dragon we defeated earlier.
Or maybe I'm going to bring along that Meteor Spellbook in addition to my signature Polar Staff.
I don't know what is meant by not being able to implement everything that comes to a player's mind in CRPGs. Pen and paper RPGs have that limitation as well.
"Overgearing" the boss is a viable option.
In a P&P RPG, I can hit a pillar with my fireball, what collapse the roof. I can climb on my other party member to reach a better position to fight. If it is a jump type boss, we can lure it to a smaller room to block his jumping ability. Kite a nearby fire based enemy against the ice based boss to attack each other.
If the developers do not think of these possibilities, you can't do them. In a P&P you can, because the DM can react dynamically.
" But, content should be designed such that even Ice Wizard can significantly contribute to defeating such a boss without using Repel abilities. "
It is depend on if it is just the player do not want to use that ability or that specialty do not have the ability and the player should respec to use it. If the first one, it is not the designer's responsibility. If the 2nd one, I agree with it. The designers have to find the way to make that specialty useful.
""Overgearing" the boss is a viable option. "
If we are talking about a smaller friendly group, I agree with it. With friends the wipe is also fun. If we are talking about random players, I do not really want to wipe all night without knowing what the problem is. If we/they can't solve the issue, I do not want to spend more time in that team. So me or the weak chain link have to leave.
Also, we shall have to see what is possible with destructible walls and doors in Ashes.
It doesn't really depend - and especially shouldn't depend on respeccing in an RPG. Especially for Ashes, since Steven wants to bring more of the old-school RP back into the RPG portion of MMORPG.
It's the designers' responsibility to ensure that there is not just one viable method or just one viable spec for defeating a boss. Again, especially true for a game that has augments from a variety of paths - in addition to the myriad combos of weapon abilities possible.
Again, we should know how to play, regardless of whether we know the specific players.
Which of our abilities enhance types of abilities in the other classes. Which of my abilities enhance the damage of other abilities, which of my abilities add a debuff to the mob(s) in and simultaneously enhance the damage of abilities from a different class. Do I have roots and snares that will add to the damage dealt by a Summoners minions? Does my aggro ability enhance the damage of a teammate attacking from stealth?
Those are the types of strategies we should be learning and looking for - rather than relying on combat trackers.
Sometimes, it's just not possible to win with the group you are with, regardless - so you either have to retreat and regroup/replan or wait to overgear. Combat trackers do not inherently result in a winning strategy.
Without some sort of tool to tell you what went right and what went wrong, that "being challenged, failing and trying again" is all about guesswork and luck, not rising to a challenge.
In order to rise to a challenge, one needs to know what that challenge is. Not knowing what the challenge you are facing even is, yet overcoming it anyway, is actual pure dumb luck.
That isn't rewarding content.
Further, as I tried to point out in my previous post (and perhaps failed), it isn't about players needing the tool to be able to take on intricate content, it is about the developers being able to develop even more intricate content than they otherwise would if they know players taking on that content likely have access to a combat tracker.
Developers will ALWAYS develop content with one eye totally fixed on what to expect from players and player characters. We will still be able to kill content without a tracker, because the content will be made to be able to be killed without one. However, that content will be far less interesting than content that is designed when developers develop content for players with a tracker, as the very presence of a tracker allows the developers to put more in to an encounter, to tighten up tolerances.
The more you add to an encounter in terms of mechanics or the smaller the room for error a raid has, the more enjoyable the encounter is for the raid. Without a tracker, there is less scope to add multiple mechanics to an encounter, and the room for error has to be larger, thus the content itself is - by it's very design - less enjoyable.
So, I guess thanks @ghoosty for quoting a part of this post that I found interestingly uninformed enough to comment on. I'm ONLY looking at the portion quoted above, and in this portion I have two major things to point out, things that tell me the poster doesn't really know what they are talking about.
First of all, DPS isn't a measure of damage over any one given second. It is a measure of all damage done in an encounter- or even in a night raiding - divided by the number of seconds of that encounter or nights raiding. It is divided over seconds in order to make it an easy to read, remember and compare number, not because people actually care about how much damage was done in an individual second.
In practice, DPS is a measure of how much damage a given player deals against an encounter, divide by the number of seconds that encounter lasted for, so saying you don't care about how much damage per second a player does, but do consider the amount of damage within a span of seconds to be crucial, all that tells me is - once again - that this is a player that doesn't know what they are talking about, yet continues to talk regardless.
Now on to the second portion of the above post, and the second point I would like to make.
To suggest that if there was a player that was under performing on your raid, one could simply make up that lack of performance via buffs and debuffs tells me that the raid leader is worthless, as in order to be able to put a buff on that player, there has to be an unused buff somewhere in the raid. It's not like buffs are an infinite resource - any good raid leader will make sure that they are making 100% use of all buffs they have on their raid.
Further to that point, if you had a spare buff, say +100 to spell damage, and you had an under performing wizard and a not under performing wizard, you put that buff on the not under performing wizard as that will get you more value out of the buff - and at the end of the day, that buff is a resource belonging - and to be used to the benefit of - the raid.
Redistributing buffs in order to cover up a lack of player ability or willingness to be as good as they can is poor raid leadership. It is the kind of leadership that will see a raid never make it past the first handful of encounters, and puts players off raiding.
No one playing a support class likes to be told to put their buffs on anyone other than the optimal person for them to be on. It's why people playing support classes play support classes.
The suggestion of looking at buffs and debuffs to help one under performing player in your raid is viable, rather than helping that one player perform better by themselves, tells me that - once gain - this is a player that doesn't know what they are talking about, yet continues to talk anyway.
I'm not sure I agree with anything you just wrote there. First off, if we go with your logic then anyone who manages to kill a Dark Souls boss does it purely by guesswork and dumb luck. After all, Dark Souls players overcome plenty of challenging content without the need for any kind of combat tracker aside from their own health and stamina bars.
Let me put it this way, If I'm fighting a dragon and I die to its breath attack, I don't need to look at a combat tracker to know what went wrong. All I have to do is open my eyes and use my brain to work it out. It's not hard.
Increasing the amount of mechanics and decreasing the margin for error in a raid encounter are fine but up to a point. Mechanical overload is a very real thing, and just because a fight has a lot of mechanics doesn't necessarily make it hard. I also dislike fights where the entire raid can wipe purely from a single person's mistake. These kinds of fights typically rely on everyone in the raid performing 100% perfectly all the time, which is too much to expect from even a 10-man raid, let alone a 40-man one.
More is not always better.
As far as I know, Dark Souls is single player only. As has been stated in this thread, a combat tracker is of minimal (virtually no) use to a single player.
While I agree that mechanical overload is a thing, that is also kind of my point. The point of overload is almost totally dependent on how much information you have available to you - if you have more information, you can tackle more mechanics before you reach that overload point.
As to encounters where one person making a mistake can wipe the raid - while they have their place (the end of raid progression), they usually only exist because developers are getting closer to that mechanical overload and still want to challenge a raid. Increase the amount of mechanics developers can throw at players while still being confident players can eventually come out on top, and you reduce the need to put one mistake mobs in to raid progression.
Youre saying u want more mechanical challenge but yet ure saying u cant figure out the encounters without an ACT.
You're bleeding for salvation, but you can't see that you are the damnation itself." -Norther
That really isn't what I'm saying at all, not even close.
I'm saying developers will develop content based on what players are capable of doing. This is the basis for what every MMO does - this is why you are able to beat content but not necessarily walk all over it (usually).
A big part of what players can or can't do on a raid is in direct relation to what information they have access to. The more information players have, the more intricate and balanced the developers can make the encounter.
Intricacy and balance are two of the major factors that make tough encounters enjoyable.
Without access to that information, the developer of an encounter has to develop the encounter with a less precise notion of balance, tilted in favor of the players. They also can't make encounters as intricate, as if there are 10 things going on and players have access to a combat tracker, then they are able to figure out which of the 10 things went wrong. Without a tracker, developers can only really put one or two things happening at a time in to an encounter. Any more than that and players have no real way of knowing what went wrong, thus no real way of knowing what they need to fix.
I'll always be able to beat raid encounters, because developers ill only ever develop raid encounters based on what tools I have. I don't need more tools than what the developers had in mind when developing an encounter.
However, I want there to be a thriving raiding scene in Ashes. That can only happen if the content itself is enjoyable. If the actual content isn't enjoyable, raiders won't stay. On the other hand, if it is, raiders will stay in the game en masse for years.
Thing is, as I've said, raid encounters need intricacy and balance in order to be enjoyable. Both things that are able to be vastly improved if there is access in some form to a combat tracker.
And specifically damage per specific section of minutes rather than just overall damage during the encounter divided by the seconds of the encounter.
We don't need to know how much damage per second of the overall raid, rather we need to know that we need to try for optimal damage during a particular section to ensure that the mobs or bosses don't repop or regen health.
I'm not sure what you mean by this.
For one thing, I didn't state that one could make up lack of performance simply via buffs and debuffs. Debuffs and buffs were listed along with other tactics.
I know that debuffs and buffs aren't "infinite resources". I never suggested that they were. That they aren't infinite resources is an intrinsic aspect of that point.
In D&D, targets take damage while prone. We should have something similar in Ashes, such that targets take extra damage while knocked down - so that everyone knows that when the Tank successfully knocks down a target there should be designated people in the group who pile on extra damage after a successful use of Charge.
Healers should be aware that an opportune time for healing the Tank is while the buff for increased healing from outside sources is active after the Tank triggers "Ultimate defense skill". Healers should be aware of the combos that lead to that Ultimate. And should probably be on the lookout for the Tank to use Cover, since they will be taking extra damage from that ability as well.
Yeah. Probably the buff shouldn't be as simple +100 to Spell Damage.
All abilities used to defeat challenges in a raid are used for the benefit of the raid.
Ah. You seem to be stuck on the concept of layering buffs on players before starting the raid.
I'm also talking about the buffs and debuffs that become active when other players are using their abilities.
It's not just about leadership - it's about each individual understanding how they can assist their teammates' tactics.
Healers shouldn't just be staring at health bars to see whose health is low. (We know that, in Ashes, healers will be more active in combat than that in any case.) And the same should be true for all the other classes.
Fighters should be keeping an eye out for Rangers to use Snare and Slice in order to stack Bleed damage.
Necromancers should be keeping an eye open for when the Shadow Caster casts Shade because Shade increases the damage of a Necromancer's Zombies for targets trapped in that aoe. That's the kind of design the devs should be focused on; not providing players with combat trackers.
It shouldn't just be, "Hey, the Mage's DPS is low so they are 'underperforming.'" Rather it should be, "Hey, both the Mage and the Summoner will do more damage if they coordinate Shade with Summon Zombie."
Being less than "as good as possible" does not intrinsically lead to failure. So, no, that neither leads to failure nor puts players off of raiding. What puts people off from raiding is the instance of elitists that everyone must be as good as possible in order to participate.
Hence, the problem with DPS meters being used to determine what is "as good as possible".
hahahahha
That simply isn't true but I can see how elitists might believe that.
Buffs and debuffs and knowing how to take advantage of them to aid the performance of your teammates is part of helping individuals perform better. As is teaching individuals how to do so.
When the group decides that more healing is needed, we shouldn't just be thinking that the High Priest is "underperforming", rather we should be determining how the Soulbow, Soul Weaver and/or Highsword can assist that High Priest.
It might not be that the issue is that a Necromancer is "underperforming" - it might be that it would be better to do a group Summons.
The concept of DPS meters and combat trackers assessing "underperformance" is precisely the problem.
"It doesn't really depend - and especially shouldn't depend on respeccing in an RPG."
Then 2nd part I totally agree if respeccing is necessary it is design issue. But It really depend on if the ability is accessible for that spec, but they do not want to use it for RP reason. You can't expect that the developers can think of every situation when the player do not want to use a useful skill. If the the icemage do not want to use repel spells. No problem, the tank has reduce elemental resistance skill, but the tank said. I will not use it, I am a mighty warrior, I do not use spell-like skills. This definitely not design issue.
"Which of our abilities enhance types of abilities in the other classes. Which of my abilities enhance the damage of other abilities, which of my abilities add a debuff to the mob(s) in and simultaneously enhance the damage of abilities from a different class. Do I have roots and snares that will add to the damage dealt by a Summoners minions? Does my aggro ability enhance the damage of a teammate attacking from stealth?
Those are the types of strategies we should be learning and looking for - rather than relying on combat trackers."
Believe me, the persons who want ACT do not want to remove these options. Actually they really want to use them, but they would like to see that it worth for that fight. Once we can use one ability. I have to chose to attack or I use an ability what increase my teammate's damage. My attack deal 100 damage. My other ability increase my team mate's damage with 25%. If that guy/guys deal damage of 500 with my skill it is indifferent to use. If he do more than 500, it is a good idea to use that skill. If it is less, we should not use, it does not worth. This is what we would like to know. Of course you can make a few try blindly and see what happened, but if we just have the total team's dps, we will not know if that helped or some other thing happened.
"Sometimes, it's just not possible to win with the group you are with,..Combat trackers do not inherently result in a winning strategy."
I know that not always possible to with with a group, and I also know that the combat trackers will not mean winning strategy, but the combat tracker help to find out if it worth to continue with that team or not. It also helps to find out how we should change. It saves lot of time.
The individual players on your raid have the responsibility to the other 39 people present to know how to play their class, and the raid leader has the responsibility to know what to reasonably expect from that class under the situation they are in.
No raid leader worth their spot on a raid would think that a healer is under performing if they are doing the most healing on the raid. I'm not even going to touch "When the group decides that more healing is needed", as that is not something I can talk about without using "all that tells me is - once again - that this is a player that doesn't know what they are talking about, yet continues to talk regardless".
No raid leader worth their spot on a raid would think that a Necromancer is under performing without taking in to account whether they are or are not able to do a group summons. The raid leader either knows they can or knows they can't do a group summons. Any assessment of their performance will take that in to account. However, if a player is in a substantially below par situation for their class, chances are the raid leader won't even look at how well they are doing (raids don't take substantially below par setups to challenging content).
---
You are looking at this whole thing from the perspective of amateur raiding, Friday Night Warriors, rather than from the perspective of people that know what they are doing.
Given how well you have proven your understanding of the topic, that is more than fair to expect from you. What you should be thinking to yourself is that raiders - REAL raiders - spend far longer thinking about this kind of thing than you do, and so know all the pitfalls and benefits that you could ever possibly think up.
If you want to make an argument that a combat tracker should be kept out of the hands of people that don't know how to use it, that's fine. Not only do I agree with that sentiment, I've actually gone one better and proposed a method for how that could work.
However, if you want to argue that a combat tracker should not be present at all, you would do well to explain why people that know how to make full use of such a tool should not be allowed access to one.
To truly know how problematic that would be in Ashes, we would need to know what the specific skills are and which augments and which weapon abilities might compensate for not using "spell-like skills".
Maybe the Tank considers Impale and Righteous Fury to be "spell-like skills", so instead of using the skills from the primary archetype to launch "magic spears", the Guardian attaches the augment versions to Shield Bash or Shield Might. There should be plenty of augments from the available melee secondary archetypes that compensate for the Tank not using "spell-like skills". And even more among the augments from racial, social organization and Node augments. Especially from among the arsenal of Military Node augments.
The devs don't have to think of every situation where a player doesn't want to use a "useful" skill.
People can figure out whether that significantly increases damage without relying on DPS meters or combat trackers. It either does or doesn't. And it will be evident by the effects on the targets' healthbar.
People who really want to use those tactics will know what they are before reaching max level.
For some people combat trackers help to find out whether it's worth it to continue with that team.
That is why the people against them are against them. Also, likely that the people who are against them don't really care about that kind of saved time.
DPS meters and combat trackers facilitating the drive to quickest, most efficient run is precisely what those in the anti camp want to avoid.
Everyone on the raid should be striving to use their abilities to help each other defeat the challenges in the raid. It's not just up to the raid leader to what to reasonably expect from the class.
Again, this is especially true in Ashes, where each class has at least 15 different permutations - plus the variations resulting from racial, religious, social and Node augments and the weapon abilities on individual weapons.
I didn't say anything about the healer doing the most healing on the raid. The example of a High Priest under-performing assumes that would be the specific High Priest on the raid who is under-performing, in comparison to the other High Priests or Cleric primary archetypes on the raid.
I expect a raid to have more than one High Priest or Cleric primary archetype.
But, thank you, Oh Mighty Pot.
If the majority of group and raid leaders were that idyllic, the devs might be supportive of DPS meters and combat trackers.
No one is talking about substantially below par setups, as far as I know. Although, what constitutes a substantially subpar setup could be subjective.
Although, not taking someone along on a raid is a luxury we might not often have in Ashes.
Riiiight. That's not at all an elitist perspective.
Because the devs are not going to be trying to determine which players know how to "properly" use the tool and which don't. That's not rocket science.
The same is true of any tool that is banned. The people who feel they properly know how to use the tool while others don't are going to complain about the ban - of course.
The main argument given for them, at least over the last few pages/days is that it somehow "allows" developers to develop more challenging content. That is only true if developers do not believe their players can perform optimally with practice.
"Without some sort of tool to tell you what went right and what went wrong, that "being challenged, failing and trying again" is all about guesswork and luck, not rising to a challenge."
That's not true. That is only true for players that rely on ACT/DPS meters. It sounds like you are saying that without an ACT/DPS telling you that a certain boss monster was resistance to fire the whole time you would never be able to figure it out, or if someone suggested not using fire because they noticed their damage was reduced, it would be "guesswork or luck." You literally want to try a dungeon once, then be told what resistances, attacks, etc. the boss monster has, prepare for that, try again and be done.
[Yes, I am assuming that after playing some time players would know what to expect by said fire damage and be able to know when it was weaker. If there is no on screen determination of damage done when attacking (hp bar/dmg numbers/etc) then perhaps an ACT/DPS should be implemented]
Why not wait for someone to post how to defeat the boss monster, do what they say, and move on? That would be the best way to save time and find out what all the resistances and attacks are.
This response is telling me that at least some players relying on ACT/DPS meters don't believe in "practice makes perfect" and that somehow without a tracker people would be unable to tell if their character was performing on par with usual, over par, or under par.
If ACT/DPS meters will be used to determine mob/boss weaknesses and strengths after one attempt, than I would be against them. Again, at that point, just look it up on a wiki after someone that "tried, failed, tried again and succeeded" posted what they did.
I participated in many raids, even if we did the same, the boss's hp went down different way. From that it is very hard to find out what caused the difference. Sometimes I have a feeling that you never participated in a 25-40 persons raid.
I am OK, that you like to fight a combat where you do not have chance to win. I do not like it. (Unless I am with good friends, but as I do not have 25-40 good friends, I do not have the possibility participate with them in a raid.)
1. I do not really care about the quickest way or the most efficient run, I just want to avoid the dead end street.
2. If somebody use it for that, I do not care about it. I suggest you the same. If it exists, you have the possibility to not use it. If it not exists I do not have the possibility to use it.
To be honest, I do not know without tracker. It come to my mind when I was new in MMORPG. I cleared the dungeons with PUG. Mostly without wipes. After I felt that I am strong enough I started to raiding. I found a nice guild. They bring me with them. I worked hard to make lot of damage. We killed the bosses, because the others were overgeared. Sometimes later, I had the same level of gear and the guild wanted to go for a harder boss. They brought me with them. After a few try they told me that my damage is not high enough. I did not understand I did very hard. I did not even know how they know that I was the weak-spot. So that night I left the raid team. After that we speak lot about an ACT and about some skill rotation etc. As I had the tool to measure myself, I saw immediately that I do something wrong. I found a play-style what fits for me. So I practice lot and not much later, I was among the best in the guild.
So I really believe in the 'practice makes perfect', but I know that without tracker, I can't even estimate my performance.
And that's coming from an example of a (Beastmaster) Hunter not using an ability from the Survival Hunter spec.
So, in the case of an Ashes Tank, it would be like a Guardian choosing not to use Spellshield augments even though combat trackers indicate that Spellshield augments are better than Guardian augments.
But, even if a Tank chose not to use Shield Bash, Cover and/or Bulwark, we should be able to compensate with characters using Tank augments.
You don't have to be in a raid to determine whether a Necromancer's Zombies do more damage in a Shadow Caster's Shade. At max level, players should already be aware of that. And, it should be easy enough to see whether a hit did barely any damage or whether it did significant damage. We should expect to see synergies with the abilities of other players doing significant damage.
That's not going to change battle to battle even with boss dynamics in the Ashes design.
I don't know that it matters whether people like to fight a combat where they do not have a chance to win.
It's unlikely you will be able to win every battle. Especially in Ashes, there will be times when we can't win the battle and we will have to retreat, replan, and/or regroup as we figure out how to defeat the content.
Sometimes the best solution might be to "overgear".
In Ashes, it should be easier to find and make good friends to raid with since we will be defending our towns and cities from attacks alongside other citizens of the Node who are online when we're online... same for finding allies to help defend Node-related caravan runs.
Should also be easier to learn how to coordinate and complement the tactics they like to use with the abilities you like to use.
The Ashes devs are not including or supporting DPS meters or combat trackers, so... they will not officially exist.
The reason Im against ACT is because it makes it very easy to find optimal setups. When you have ACT everyone can figure the optimal setup with ease. Ditching ACTs means its a challenge to players to figure out what to do and an asset to guild to have experimental players.
When ure raiding without ACT youre looking for reliable and smart players instead of those who can push buttons in certain order.
You're bleeding for salvation, but you can't see that you are the damnation itself." -Norther