I don't actually need a tracker most of the time because my group leader is borderline superhuman. That's what all the anti-tracker people want. For the 'superhumans' to win. That's fine, I've got mine.
Pretty much I'm all for superhumans winning over normal players. And I don't even consider myself one of such superhumans. I might get up to their skill lvl through endless repetition, while they'd be up there by default, but it's exactly because of that that I want every player to play their role as they would play it w/o omniscient knowledge of what and where to do.
In other words, let gods be gods. If everyone is a god - no one is.
^not everyone can be winners, makes the world more interesting when people figure things out until the guides release everywhere.
@NiKr This is where the topic leads of them trying to force trackers regardless of TOS (granted based on gameplay they may not be as effective).
So if devs are making "hard content" for the 1% with people using trackers they have to take in account trackers and up the difficulty to extreme measures based on the tracker information players use. And then it gets in a loop cycle of content around trackers. This is the end game kind of content where they are arguing you need trackers else you are at a disadvantage for this kind of content.
That honestly just sounds like a bad direction of content to me rather than people dealing with difficulty and solving puzzles without having the power of a tracker to tell them everything. The same people want hard pve content yet are actually ruining the content for themselves to begin with by removing difficulty yet asking for difficulty at the same time.
Though AoC isn't like a 15+ year old mmorpg and Steven knows what he wants with no trackers so it is up to them to design the game in a effective way that doesn't rely on people using trackers even if people will break ToS. I'm curious how they will approach it, and imo if people ruin content for themselves along the way that is up to them if worst case scenario trackers are still effective enough.
I would like to point out that this is the exact type of language/attitude that the "meters bring toxic behavior" crowd is talking about. (ie: your doing your rotation wrong)
Meters that track EVERYTHING as being described are a double edged sword. They can be used for good, as you want them to be. But as tools become more widespread, they can also be used for more...petty reasons.
If you and I are in a group that has specific requirements, and you are not meeting those requirements and so I politely inform you of this but you refuse - who is the toxic one, me or you?
If you refuse to meet the requirements of the content, that means that I as group leader have no option other than to not take you on that content - but that was your decision, not mine. I have my group to think about, not your feelings.
I think most of the players advocating for no tracker want to play a game that's fun, social, and engaging...where wacky/memorable situations happen somewhat regularly. Not knowing every small detail that happens in a fight can leads to these situations. In these players' eyes, trackers push the game in the direction of a "job", where analyzing data becomes more important that playing the GAME.
So, this is all a bad take on things.
In any game, it is less than 0.1% of players that analyze things. Most players just play the game, get pointers from those of us that do analyze the game and then just carry on about their day.
The notion that combat trackers means everyone will need to start analyzing is just a flat out bad read. Even as one of those people that analyzed EQ2 more than all but maybe 4 or 5 players, I still spent less than 5% of my time involved with the game actually analyzing - the other 95% was playing.
I think the main feeling of "toxicity" happens when the mindset of "people are wrong/bad" starts spreading to the majority of the player base. When people can compare themselves to others in DPS tracking (live or on log websites), most interactions/conversations tend to be around "being on top of the meter", instead of anything else going on.
A competition to be on top of the meter isn't inherently bad. If it were, we would all be saying the same thing about arena leaderboards.
I mean, Ashes intends to have PvE leaderboards anyway, so if things like this are the cause of toxicity, then we can't really point to trackers and say they will increase the toxicity in Ashes.
I totally understand your concerns around this hot topic, but it feels like you are not taking the time to understand the other side of the argument.
I truly believe there is a middle ground with this, and I wish the discussion could be around compromises instead of a constant back and forth of each side being "wrong".
I agree, there is a middle ground.
That middle ground is Intrepid implementing a tracker in to the game client itself, setting it up as a guild perk that is optional, and limiting it to only track players within your guild.
This is the resolution to the tracker situation that I have been arguing for since 2019.
No, it's exactly because trackers push the content beyond reasonable design is what leading me to have issues with them.
What is reasonable design?
If by "reasonable design" you mean that having trackers in the game would mean that someone in the guild would need to know how to use them in order to take on the top 2 or 3 encounters in the game, then yeah.
If you mean anything else, then I disagree.
The manual gives you all the information that relates to the "encounter" and then it's on you to figure out what and how to do in order to succeed at completing said encounter.
If anything, a combat tracker would be more akin to a spec sheet, or a circuit diagram for an electronic device. It isn't a manual, because it doesn't tell you how to do anything at all. All it tells you is how things are - and you need to figure out what to do from there.
The dev hid a small attack feint in-between two big abilities that sometimes goes off and triggers a third ability? W/o a tracker at least one player during the raid would have to be observant enough to notice that little feint movement. With a tracker you'd just get a read out:
"During fight 1 the boss used two abilities. These were their cast times, this was the delay between the casts."
"During fight 2 the boss used 3 abilities. These were their cast times, this was the delay between the casts."
You'd see that the delay between the first two abilities in fight 2 was different from the first fight and would know to pay attention there and would be already better prepared for that change in your 3rd fight. That is even in case the tracker doesn't literally just tell you that boss used the ability "feint" there.
Something as minor as that isn't something that people are going to use a tracker to find. It really doesn't matter in the context of the fight as a whole.
While I know you were using it as an example, I am pointing out to you that it doesn't matter as an example as well.
The only way a raid guild would concern themselves with that attack is if it had an effect that wiped the raid if it connected. If that were the case, and if the developers were developing with an assumption of no trackers, they would add in narration around the attack.
Your comment that the developers can make content as complex as they want is actually false - they can only make content as complex as players can cope with - just as IKEA can only create furniture as complex as people can assemble.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Your comment that the developers can make content as complex as they want is actually false - they can only make content as complex as players can cope with - just as IKEA can only create furniture as complex as people can assemble.
But if the example I gave did in fact lead to a wipe mechanic, with the hint being the little feint that boss does w/o any audio cues - wouldn't that be a good "difficult" mechanic that still doesn't require you to have a tracker, but instead just pay attention?
That's my whole point. I understand that you're so used to having trackers for your pve, but I'm giving you a directly opposite pov. To me, that kind of mechanic would be fair. The hint is still there, but you gotta notice it to use it. The fight didn't suddenly become easier because the hint was there.
In other words, I want developers to do better. Which, afaik, is your wish as well. It's just that you want them to make encounters that would push the tracker-based difficulty, while I want them to design fights that would be as difficult as tracker-based content, but with subtle hints that require players to pay attention to different things during the encounter and learn to recognize patterns within the fight.
That small example was just the most basic one I could come up with. I'm sure there's countless ways to design a fight that's still really difficult, but has several hints to what you need to do to beat it.
But if the example I gave did in fact lead to a wipe mechanic, with the hint being the little faint that boss does w/o any audio cues - wouldn't that be a good "difficult" mechanic that still doesn't require you to have a tracker, but instead just pay attention?
Yeah, but it is still a simple mechanic. It is still the encounter essentially telling you what is happening, rather than you having to figure it out. It is just an animation rather than text.
Which is the problem.
Take that fight, but make it so that players don't see that feint. Now, after a days raiding, they need to go back through the logs, look at what happened, try and work out WHY the thing they know happened actually happened, come up with a plan for it, and then attempt to execute it the following day. Realistically though, by the time they have worked out what actually happened, and come up with a theory as to why it happened, it is probably a week or two later, not just the next day.
Whereas with your suggestion - you kill the mob on the second pull.
It's funny, people say trackers make it so players breeze through content faster - that is only if developers develop easy content. If developers develop content that requires trackers, it slows down the pace at which players get through content massively.
I want them to design fights that would be as difficult as tracker-based content, but with subtle hints that require players to pay attention to different things during the encounter and learn to recognize patterns within the fight.
Perhaps what you are not realizing is that exactly this happens in games with trackers.
If you attempt to look at a combat tracker after a days raiding and you have no clue at all what happened in the encounter, you will spend a few hours staring at numbers and graphs, and still have no idea. You need to recognize patterns in combat, you need to have an eye out to see what - if anything - is going on around you, you need to pay attention. And then you confirm what you think you saw in a tracker.
If the developers are good, they will find a way where you need to recognize that pattern or what ever, but then they subvert your expectation in some manner. This way, the encounter requires you to first see the thing that is going on, but then require you to look in to it more closely, and only then - after both observing and analyzing - can you get a true picture of what is happening.
Yeah, but it is still a simple mechanic. It is still the encounter essentially telling you what is happening, rather than you having to figure it out. It is just an animation rather than text.
Which is the problem.
You do realize that you just said "make mechanics only visible to those who use trackers", right?
Me seeing what I need to do during the fight is the same as you reading the tracker that shows you the same thing, except your does so in unreasonable detail, while I can only infer whether what I saw is actually the hint for what I need to do.
Again, that example was the very basic one. You could have misdirections, double or tripple triggered mechanics, ability pattern based mechanics (that would only show up if a particular string of abilities happened within the rng use of boss abilities), class combo mechanics (at which point every single raid would have their own mechanics and might never see different ones, if they don't change their raid setup). And of course you could have the combination of all of the above and more.
Again, what I'm asking for is "make the game that anyone could solve by just playing it, rather than looking at an external tool that gives you all the info about the fight. Make it still very hard and complex, but not to a point where you literally don't see mechanics that you're meant to solve".
That Azherae example of how agro worked in ff11 is great example of this. Devs made a completely hidden design mechanic, yet expected people to figure out how it worked w/o external tools. And if I'm recalling the explanation correctly, people could only figure it out after pretty much doing a hardcore parse of the whole system. In other words, they used a "tracker" to solve the problem.
To me that's just bad design from devs. Now I don't know which methods the players used before that hardcore parsing, nor am I saying that I could've somehow magically understood how the mechanic worked, but I'm assuming they've tried all kinds of stuff, so if there was ever any kind of hint as to how the system might've worked - they would've found it. But they didn't, so I'm assuming there was no hint and it was just a hidden mechanic for the sake of making the game more difficult. Which in turn pushed people to use trackers.
I want the game to just present us with our classes/gear/party combinations and say "you've got everything you need to beat anything in the game - go do it". And then base the difficulty off of those "tools", instead of giving us god powers and expecting us not to beat everything within a few months.
Perhaps what you are not realizing is that exactly this happens in games with trackers.
If you attempt to look at a combat tracker after a days raiding and you have no clue at all what happened in the encounter, you will spend a few hours staring at numbers and graphs, and still have no idea. You need to recognize patterns in combat, you need to have an eye out to see what - if anything - is going on around you, you need to pay attention. And then you confirm what you think you saw in a tracker.
If the developers are good, they will find a way where you need to recognize that pattern or what ever, but then they subvert your expectation in some manner. This way, the encounter requires you to first see the thing that is going on, but then require you to look in to it more closely, and only then - after both observing and analyzing - can you get a true picture of what is happening.
I guess my approach is just different. I want to see that and then apply what I thought I saw in the next fight. And then the next and the next and so on, iterating on my gameplay until I win. But do all of that with just the info that I and my raidmates see, instead of what the omniscient tracker sees.
Either way, we're back to running in circles w/o really changing anyone's mind. We comes from too different of a backgrounds to truly see each other's points. So I might as well just let Mag call trackers cheating and all the hardcore pvers toxic, even if I only semi-agree with one of those points
Yeah, but it is still a simple mechanic. It is still the encounter essentially telling you what is happening, rather than you having to figure it out. It is just an animation rather than text.
Which is the problem.
You do realize that you just said "make mechanics only visible to those who use trackers", right?
Yep, in a game where you design content based on the assumption that players will use trackers, you design content based on the assumption that players will use trackers.
Since this is describing literally every game with even half decent PvE content, I don't see it as an issue.
I will say that I think some people misjudge just how deeply combat tracker usage has penetrated the PvE population.
The FFXIV example given was actually a situation where the developers didn't want players to understand the system, not one where they expected players to work it out.
Again, that example was the very basic one. You could have misdirections, double or tripple triggered mechanics, ability pattern based mechanics (that would only show up if a particular string of abilities happened within the rng use of boss abilities), class combo mechanics (at which point every single raid would have their own mechanics and might never see different ones, if they don't change their raid setup). And of course you could have the combination of all of the above and more.
Indeed you could.
And you could also have all of that be required observation, in conjunction with needing a tracker.
Then when you have a raid, they need someone like you keeping an eye out for things, and someone like me that goes through the logs to make sense of it all, and everyone's a winner.
What you're saying is that you want your part to be the only part - I am saying that both parts can and should exist.
Now I don't know which methods the players used before that hardcore parsing, nor am I saying that I could've somehow magically understood how the mechanic worked, but I'm assuming they've tried all kinds of stuff, so if there was ever any kind of hint as to how the system might've worked - they would've found it.
You would have understood how mechanics worked before parsing in it's current state came to be - because encounters back then were designed so that people could understand them without parsing as it is now.
It reminds me of a quote from Batman Begins;
We start carrying semi-automatics, they buy automatics. We start wearing Kevlar, they buy armor piercing rounds.
As trackers become more effective, content is raised to match. As content is raised, trackers are made more effective.
Now, your first thought with this is probably something along the lines of "why even bother starting then?", and I can understand that sentiment.
However, this is why the best option here is to have the developer of the game also be the developer of the combat tracker. If the developer develops both, they can control both. If the developer only develops one, the developer only controls one - yet both will exist.
Perhaps what you are not realizing is that exactly this happens in games with trackers.
If you attempt to look at a combat tracker after a days raiding and you have no clue at all what happened in the encounter, you will spend a few hours staring at numbers and graphs, and still have no idea. You need to recognize patterns in combat, you need to have an eye out to see what - if anything - is going on around you, you need to pay attention. And then you confirm what you think you saw in a tracker.
If the developers are good, they will find a way where you need to recognize that pattern or what ever, but then they subvert your expectation in some manner. This way, the encounter requires you to first see the thing that is going on, but then require you to look in to it more closely, and only then - after both observing and analyzing - can you get a true picture of what is happening.
I guess my approach is just different. I want to see that and then apply what I thought I saw in the next fight. And then the next and the next and so on, iterating on my gameplay until I win. But do all of that with just the info that I and my raidmates see, instead of what the omniscient tracker sees.
If you think about this statement, you should be able to understand why raiding where combat trackers are factored in is far better (more challenging, more complex, more chaotic) than raiding without trackers being factored in.
In raids created without trackers, players can only deal with what they can observe. In raids created with trackers in mind, the raid has that omniscient tracker that sees everything, and thus the raid is able to deal with more.
The raid being able to deal with more obviously means the developers can add more to the encounter - more than a raid without a tracker would ever hope to be able to observe.
This is how you end up with actual frantic, chaotic fights - the more you have to deal with, the more chaotic it is able to get.
However, this is why the best option here is to have the developer of the game also be the developer of the combat tracker. If the developer develops both, they can control both. If the developer only develops one, the developer only controls one - yet both will exist.
I think that's called "create a problem and sell the solution", except in a more consumer-friendly way, where instead of selling, the creator of the problem just gives you the solution
If you think about this statement, you should be able to understand why raiding where combat trackers are factored in is far better (more challenging, more complex, more chaotic) than raiding without trackers being factored in.
Nah, I'm just too far on the other side of the spectrum. I don't see invisible mechanics as fun, nor invisible puzzles as interesting.
However, this is why the best option here is to have the developer of the game also be the developer of the combat tracker. If the developer develops both, they can control both. If the developer only develops one, the developer only controls one - yet both will exist.
I think that's called "create a problem and sell the solution", except in a more consumer-friendly way, where instead of selling, the creator of the problem just gives you the solution
Perhaps.
But if you assume trackers will exist, and as such future content will have to be created with them in mind - is this not the best option?
But if you assume trackers will exist, and as such future content will have to be created with them in mind - is this not the best option?
I mean, if you are trying to appeal to the audience that will make and use them - yes. So the only thing remaining to be figured out is whether Intrepid is trying to do that. Which brings us back to the discussion of promises and alleged design choices And that's a neverending story until we see alpha2, at the very least.
I mean, if you are trying to appeal to the audience that will make and use them - yes.
You develop a content type to the people that are using that content type.
Even if Intrepid don't inherently design with trackers in mind, they will design top end content based on how easily people got through the existing top end content. If it was blown through faster than expected, the next cycle will be made harder.
As such, the only way top end content in Ashes won't eventually be designed based on trackers is if people like me leave the game and those left don't have a specific drive to be the best they can be - which is obviously possible.
Nah, I'm just too far on the other side of the spectrum. I don't see invisible mechanics as fun, nor invisible puzzles as interesting.
They aren't invisible, they just require being looked at from a different angle.
Essentially, you are saying you only want content served to you in one specific way. I am saying there are many different ways content can be served if trackers are implemented - including that one specific way you want.
If you and I are in a group that has specific requirements, and you are not meeting those requirements and so I politely inform you of this but you refuse - who is the toxic one, me or you?
If you refuse to meet the requirements of the content, that means that I as group leader have no option other than to not take you on that content - but that was your decision, not mine. I have my group to think about, not your feelings.
Do what I say with my exact rotation or be booted is all I see with this post. Fairly certain this goes beyond just recommending a few skills to use if I'm thinking in a elitists way. It means use these weapons, this build, this set up and rotations or be booted. He will see this with the tracker and remove you if needed pretty much that is the mind set.
Leads us right back to being toxic and this is the guy that says he has never seen anything toxic. That is because he views things different with his own bias and nothing is toxic to him cause he is the one doing it lmfao.
Gameplay does not need to be made around trackers, it does not make the game better. You are just worried without trackers you aren't even a competitive players anymore at this point and would be no different than any other players. I'm sure you've developed your skill set with trackers is reading it effectively and quickly but you are so reliant on that you can't do it on your own.
Honestly if you are playing EQ2 and relying on trackers (older games have less memory for things so less things to read meaning people needed to use other tools for the lack of technology at that point) I can't really say you are a good players or really a top end raiding by skill alone.
@NiKr What we need is not giving trackers to everyone, dev's can simply just give a log of everything the boss does and timing and there everyone can understand what the boss is doing easily rather than gate keeping to people that want to stomach using trackers in its strongest form. Sarcasm obviously but pretty much what I take it as with a tracker, you meet the dps check and you gain more data as you do it more and understand it as you go over it.
If he is actually going a week over data, that is most likely because devs had trackers as a part of the combat and tried to make it convoluted so it wasn't easy for them to read.
I expect a lot more modern mmo mechanics in AoC with the use of movement and interesting design but I won't know till I see it. Though as a PvPer I'm fine with good pve which i agree is needed but my focus will still be PvP. PvE doesn't need to be designed around trackers and in a arms battle to make things more convoluted since people are using trackers.
A competition to be on top of the meter isn't inherently bad. If it were, we would all be saying the same thing about arena leaderboards.
I mean, Ashes intends to have PvE leaderboards anyway, so if things like this are the cause of toxicity, then we can't really point to trackers and say they will increase the toxicity in Ashes.
I want to try and explain to you that "toxic" behavior is a very broad subject and is different for each player. You seem to be stuck on this example of kicking players from parties, but I would argue that is the least of my worries. I will try to provide examples of what I mean, and what makes me personally not enjoy PvE content as much when meters are heavily involved.
* Note: the term "toxic" is very much subjective and it not the same for every individual *
When meters become part of the average player's UI, it tends to be something they end up fixating on. Examples of how the average player can feel "toxic":
- They look more at the meters more than the fight's mechanics, leading to wipes
- They only talk to others about how much damage they did, compared to others. leading to repetitive and stale conversations. It becomes not enjoyable to do content with that player.
- They view meters as required to do ALL content, and not just the hardest. Leading to flaming others for not using it, or gatekeeping.
Now the obvious rebuttal to this type of behavior is "just don't play with those people"....but the problem is that this behavior is MUCH more likely to show up in the average player when meters are easily accessible and/or accepted. And now it becomes more difficult for me to find a solid group of players to play with, that isn't tainted by one of these "toxic" players.
I hope this helps you understand where the other side is coming from. We are prioritizing the health of the masses, instead of the top 1%. And if this means the highest end PvE content needs to be slightly easier because of this...then so be it. I would rather have an enjoyable time with the people around me than an extreme challenge with people I don't particularly enjoy.
I believe Noaani has said this before, probably multiple times. If Trackers are causing toxicity in your game in a serious way, your game is designed wrong.
But the design that will lead to toxicity is what you seem to want.
Trackers will cause toxicity if DPS is essential to a fight. If people are failing fights because they aren't hitting DPS checks, they will become "toxic" towards people who they see are under performing on the meters.
If you think meters should be necessary for competitive pve, then i'd assume you think pve needs to have these dps checks as part of its challenge.
DPS checks are more of a gating mechanic than something that makes content difficult. There are plenty of none-dps related challenges that can be incorporated in pve to make it difficult.
How is that what I seem to want?
Trackers aren't primarily for DPS.
If Intrepid decided to hide the damage numbers in the log, I'll still need to write the same parser.
If Intrepid has a good design for Bard, the Bard will probably decide more about anyone's DPS than any other party member, and it's the Bard who will want to know that.
The whole 'people will be mistreated for underperforming in damage' is not a Tracker problem, it's a design problem. I have no more interest in DPS check bosses than any other kind.
What aspect of challenging PVE are they necessary for?
Challenging PvE doesnt tell you want is going on. You have to figure it out for yourself.
All the comments of "just dont stand in the telegraph" and things like that only work if the ability is telegraphed.
Often times, the thing that went wrong isnt obvious. One mob in particular would explode if your raid DPS on it got too high. No warning, no hint at what went wrong - just boom.
Literally the only way to work this out is to notice that it exploded a specific amount of time after your raid DPS hit a specific level. Without a tracker, that just isnt possible.
Now, the argument could be made that the developers should have given a hint as to what went wrong- bit I would ask, why?
If the game is giving you a hint, working it out becomes trivial. The encounter is literally telling you want to do.
If that same encounter had a line of text saying "you are doing too much damage, I'm exploding", then working it out after the first pull would be expected.
The way it went though, it took people actual hundreds of pulls over actual weeks to work out what the trigger for the explosion was. Some guilds took months (keeping in mind sharing info on top end mobs wasnt a thing).
Put simply, without combat trackers, the game has to tell players what is going on. With combat trackers, the game can leave it up to players to figure out.
It should then be obvious how one of these willbe inherently harder than the other.
I don't think trackers should be how you figure out mechanics. You should have to figure out these mechanics from the hints they give you in game.
I believe Noaani has said this before, probably multiple times. If Trackers are causing toxicity in your game in a serious way, your game is designed wrong.
But the design that will lead to toxicity is what you seem to want.
Trackers will cause toxicity if DPS is essential to a fight. If people are failing fights because they aren't hitting DPS checks, they will become "toxic" towards people who they see are under performing on the meters.
If you think meters should be necessary for competitive pve, then i'd assume you think pve needs to have these dps checks as part of its challenge.
DPS checks are more of a gating mechanic than something that makes content difficult. There are plenty of none-dps related challenges that can be incorporated in pve to make it difficult.
How is that what I seem to want?
Trackers aren't primarily for DPS.
If Intrepid decided to hide the damage numbers in the log, I'll still need to write the same parser.
If Intrepid has a good design for Bard, the Bard will probably decide more about anyone's DPS than any other party member, and it's the Bard who will want to know that.
The whole 'people will be mistreated for underperforming in damage' is not a Tracker problem, it's a design problem. I have no more interest in DPS check bosses than any other kind.
What aspect of challenging PVE are they necessary for?
I'm sorry but I'm really not going through the whole thing again.
It's been explained multiple times, and I feel like I don't communicate with you very well as a generality. All I can do is hope that others understand that despite not 'meeting your challenge', I am not explicitly interested in Trackers for the DPS aspect.
If you or they choose to take my 'silence' here as admission, then so it must be.
My apologies. I don't mean to cause any distress. Nothing is being won or lost here.
This is just a forum we talk about ideas.
I'll back off.
I thank you.
Perhaps we can have a meaningful discussion in the other way, though. What do you consider a PvE challenge in a game like Ashes that does not have a component in which you need to check 'numbers vs time'?
I can see how one could make a game where the question is moreso 'did you hit or not', 'did you defend or not', and 'did you activate the correct mechanic' than 'did you do enough damage' or 'did you mitigate enough damage'.
Let's assume that a team member is counting on me to heal them and I keep getting frozen/stunned/knocked back when I try to, the Tracker tells them 'during this period no healing happened'. The Combat Log parser often tells them WHY no healing happened.
The challenge for me there is 'avoid being CCed', right? The issue is that if you make a game like this, generally the response will be 'just bring more healers so that you don't have to worry about one being CCed'. I consider this less challenge, in the same way that fights which don't 'punish DPS players for just going all out' are less challenge. "Just bring more DPS so the enemy dies faster."
The result is that the boss normally has to be 'tuned' so that you 'will not succeed if you have too few or too many' but this is still going to be a 'numbers' result.
What do you see as a PvE challenge where you can't just throw more of X class at the problem to get around the mechanics preventing the effectiveness of any individual one?
I'd say avoidance and puzzle mechanics are not a direct numbers vs time check.
I think you need to force mechanics so they can't just dps through the challenge. Boss goes invulnerable until you do the mechanic. Also, have mechanics that require everyone in the area to do something so it's not just a small group doing it all.
If necessary, I think capping the dps a boss can take would be a way to limit the effect of a zerg.
If there is concern of people spamming healers, have mechanics that trigger based off classes in the area and make the healer one difficult to deal with. Also could have one that triggers based off healing being done in the area.
Besides that, the rewards encourages you to bring as few people as possible since the more people you bring, the more people you have to split items with and the less valuable the time will be. If you have to bring another healer for the CC mechanic, then that's a healer you are now competing with for loot.
So would this be 'limiting DPS per person', or Limiting DPS the boss takes at all?
Because my first thought is the opposite. Bring more tanks. The moment you don't need the damage, that's what people do in my experience. They bring more tanks, they build more tanky. Since often, the utility of DPS, particularly on bosses, IS that they explicitly do more damage, taking that from them seems off?
There's also the fact that normally (for what I consider good design), 'damage' is the reward you get for 'not having to spend a lot of time recovering from or dealing with mechanics' or for 'taking a risk of attacking when a certain mechanic is possible'.
But honestly, it once again sounds like we just play different types of games. If Ashes manages what you're suggesting without it being a walkover for my group, I'll be glad. Been a while.
I was thinking of limiting the damage the boss the takes so it's capped at x damage a second.
Spamming tanks could be a safer option but you are still dividing loot amongst everyone. The fewer people you need to bring, the more profitable the run will be so taking tanks could be a group trading profit for safety.
If spamming tanks is seen as a problem, similar to what i said about healers, you could have mechanics/attacks that trigger based off archetypes in the area. The more tanks in the area, the frequency of powerful attacks goes up.
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Nah, I'm just too far on the other side of the spectrum. I don't see invisible mechanics as fun, nor invisible puzzles as interesting.
RPGs are intended to be focused on roleplay; not rollplay.
Combat trackers are all about focusing on rollplay.
look at every popular game that is thriving - every single one puts gameplay above roleplay
that doesn't mean you cant have roleplay, just not at the expense of gameplay
if some important game mechanics or abilities are only readable in certain situations only from a combat log then not having an approachable way to filter combat log (in other words a "combat tracker") is hurting gameplay
I believe Noaani has said this before, probably multiple times. If Trackers are causing toxicity in your game in a serious way, your game is designed wrong.
But the design that will lead to toxicity is what you seem to want.
Trackers will cause toxicity if DPS is essential to a fight. If people are failing fights because they aren't hitting DPS checks, they will become "toxic" towards people who they see are under performing on the meters.
If you think meters should be necessary for competitive pve, then i'd assume you think pve needs to have these dps checks as part of its challenge.
DPS checks are more of a gating mechanic than something that makes content difficult. There are plenty of none-dps related challenges that can be incorporated in pve to make it difficult.
How is that what I seem to want?
Trackers aren't primarily for DPS.
If Intrepid decided to hide the damage numbers in the log, I'll still need to write the same parser.
If Intrepid has a good design for Bard, the Bard will probably decide more about anyone's DPS than any other party member, and it's the Bard who will want to know that.
The whole 'people will be mistreated for underperforming in damage' is not a Tracker problem, it's a design problem. I have no more interest in DPS check bosses than any other kind.
What aspect of challenging PVE are they necessary for?
I'm sorry but I'm really not going through the whole thing again.
It's been explained multiple times, and I feel like I don't communicate with you very well as a generality. All I can do is hope that others understand that despite not 'meeting your challenge', I am not explicitly interested in Trackers for the DPS aspect.
If you or they choose to take my 'silence' here as admission, then so it must be.
My apologies. I don't mean to cause any distress. Nothing is being won or lost here.
This is just a forum we talk about ideas.
I'll back off.
I thank you.
Perhaps we can have a meaningful discussion in the other way, though. What do you consider a PvE challenge in a game like Ashes that does not have a component in which you need to check 'numbers vs time'?
I can see how one could make a game where the question is moreso 'did you hit or not', 'did you defend or not', and 'did you activate the correct mechanic' than 'did you do enough damage' or 'did you mitigate enough damage'.
Let's assume that a team member is counting on me to heal them and I keep getting frozen/stunned/knocked back when I try to, the Tracker tells them 'during this period no healing happened'. The Combat Log parser often tells them WHY no healing happened.
The challenge for me there is 'avoid being CCed', right? The issue is that if you make a game like this, generally the response will be 'just bring more healers so that you don't have to worry about one being CCed'. I consider this less challenge, in the same way that fights which don't 'punish DPS players for just going all out' are less challenge. "Just bring more DPS so the enemy dies faster."
The result is that the boss normally has to be 'tuned' so that you 'will not succeed if you have too few or too many' but this is still going to be a 'numbers' result.
What do you see as a PvE challenge where you can't just throw more of X class at the problem to get around the mechanics preventing the effectiveness of any individual one?
I'd say avoidance and puzzle mechanics are not a direct numbers vs time check.
I think you need to force mechanics so they can't just dps through the challenge. Boss goes invulnerable until you do the mechanic. Also, have mechanics that require everyone in the area to do something so it's not just a small group doing it all.
If necessary, I think capping the dps a boss can take would be a way to limit the effect of a zerg.
If there is concern of people spamming healers, have mechanics that trigger based off classes in the area and make the healer one difficult to deal with. Also could have one that triggers based off healing being done in the area.
Besides that, the rewards encourages you to bring as few people as possible since the more people you bring, the more people you have to split items with and the less valuable the time will be. If you have to bring another healer for the CC mechanic, then that's a healer you are now competing with for loot.
So would this be 'limiting DPS per person', or Limiting DPS the boss takes at all?
Because my first thought is the opposite. Bring more tanks. The moment you don't need the damage, that's what people do in my experience. They bring more tanks, they build more tanky. Since often, the utility of DPS, particularly on bosses, IS that they explicitly do more damage, taking that from them seems off?
There's also the fact that normally (for what I consider good design), 'damage' is the reward you get for 'not having to spend a lot of time recovering from or dealing with mechanics' or for 'taking a risk of attacking when a certain mechanic is possible'.
But honestly, it once again sounds like we just play different types of games. If Ashes manages what you're suggesting without it being a walkover for my group, I'll be glad. Been a while.
I was thinking of limiting the damage the boss the takes so it's capped at x damage a second.
Spamming tanks could be a safer option but you are still dividing loot amongst everyone. The fewer people you need to bring, the more profitable the run will be so taking tanks could be a group trading profit for safety.
If spamming tanks is seen as a problem, similar to what i said about healers, you could have mechanics/attacks that trigger based off archetypes in the area. The more tanks in the area, the frequency of powerful attacks goes up.
Nah, I'm just too far on the other side of the spectrum. I don't see invisible mechanics as fun, nor invisible puzzles as interesting.
RPGs are intended to be focused on roleplay; not rollplay.
Combat trackers are all about focusing on rollplay.
look at every popular game that is thriving - every single one puts gameplay above roleplay
that doesn't mean you cant have roleplay, just not at the expense of gameplay
if some important game mechanics or abilities are only readable in certain situations only from a combat log then not having an approachable way to filter combat log (in other words a "combat tracker") is hurting gameplay
That is not hurting gameplay, the game isn't being designed designed for a combat tracker. Gameplay is not about looking at a screen of data and knowing what you need to do from it. Gameplay is game play in the game, reacting, learning and improving.
If gameplay is outside of the game and that is how you need to know what to do. Then devs need to just make it fair and give everyone a page of what the boss does, timing, damage, etc so everyone has the same cheat sheet. And slowly gameplay can regress back into pen and paper.
look at every popular game that is thriving - every single one puts gameplay above roleplay
that doesn't mean you cant have roleplay, just not at the expense of gameplay
if some important game mechanics or abilities are only readable in certain situations only from a combat log then not having an approachable way to filter combat log (in other words a "combat tracker") is hurting gameplay
Except FFXIV
Popular doesn't mean good. There's a reason why so many people are waiting on Ashes to release.
And it's not because people want MMORPGs to have combat trackers.
An RPG that puts "gameplay" above roleplay cannot be a good RPG.
(I'm not referring to voice acting.)
if some important game mechanics or abilities are only readable in certain situations only from a combat log
This is assuming the game is being designed with these random, cryptic, "invisible" mechanics in the first place. I don't think anyone is advocating for these types of mechanics to exist without a way to understand them. Rather, they want the game designed in a way that doesn't require tools to parse combat logs; those "invisible" mechanics should be visible some way outside of the combat logs.
I'm not trying to say which design is right/wrong, but this is the design being advocated for by people against the trackers. It it totally fine to disagree, or prefer a different design choice, but don't try and paint the other side as something it isn't.
Top .25% of raids be like this content is too easy it can't keep up with my tracker devs add harder content.
Devs - add content Giving a invisible debuff based on player placement they need to debuff in order else everyone wipes. Then you have to remember the amounts and make it even as mobs spawn that can only be hit with people with that previous debuff and if anyone else attacks them they die instantly. Then boss uses a wave ability instantly as soon as last mob die that kills everyone unless they were standing in their original position.
Devs : Ok maybe the trackers won't beat this content in the first day.
I hope this helps you understand where the other side is coming from.
You should have read all of my previous post.
I understand where you guys are coming from (other than wanting to limit game features based on whether players will talk about them or not - that is just stupid).
That is why I have put forward the proposal for combat trackers that only work within your guild.
I've even addressed the notion of people looking at their tracker in game before - such people are using it wrong, there is literally nothing at all to be gained from looking at a tracker during a fight. I've even previously added to the suggestion of the guild tracker that any data not be made available to players using it until after the encounter has finished (whether win or lose) - just to appease those who think this is an issue
As such, if you join a guild of like minded players, you will have a tracker if that is what you wish, and you will not have a tracker if that is what you wish.
Likewise, since this tracker would only work on those players that are in your guild, it will not become a standard assumed requirement to use during any content that is able to be run in a pick up group - I mean, it literally can't be used in such a group.
If you put some thought in to how this would work, most of the guilds that would pick a tracker as a guild perk would likely mostly group within their guild (I can't remember the last time I ran a pick up group on my main, probably within the first three months of me playing MMO's).
As such, the people that are running pick up groups are people that do not have access to a tracker, because their guild either isn't high enough level, or they picked something that they thought was more useful to the guild than a tracker that was of no use during pick up content.
With this, trackers don't become conversation pieces, they don't become thought of as required.
Find the issue with a tracker that is built by Intrepid, added to the game as a guild perk (where guilds have other valuable options and can only pick the one they think is most useful to the guild), the tracker only works on players in the guild, that are in the same group or raid, doesn't show any data until after combat has finished, and is able to be accessed on the games companion app or website, should a player wish to look over it later on.
Before answering this, you need to consider who is going to pick this tracker, and how likely they are to join pick up groups in a game like Ashes. What reasonable objections are left with this suggestion?
Now, keep in mind, the only other option that is available to us is for people like me to just have a tracker anyway, as they already exist for this game.
Comments
In other words, let gods be gods. If everyone is a god - no one is.
@NiKr This is where the topic leads of them trying to force trackers regardless of TOS (granted based on gameplay they may not be as effective).
So if devs are making "hard content" for the 1% with people using trackers they have to take in account trackers and up the difficulty to extreme measures based on the tracker information players use. And then it gets in a loop cycle of content around trackers. This is the end game kind of content where they are arguing you need trackers else you are at a disadvantage for this kind of content.
That honestly just sounds like a bad direction of content to me rather than people dealing with difficulty and solving puzzles without having the power of a tracker to tell them everything. The same people want hard pve content yet are actually ruining the content for themselves to begin with by removing difficulty yet asking for difficulty at the same time.
Though AoC isn't like a 15+ year old mmorpg and Steven knows what he wants with no trackers so it is up to them to design the game in a effective way that doesn't rely on people using trackers even if people will break ToS. I'm curious how they will approach it, and imo if people ruin content for themselves along the way that is up to them if worst case scenario trackers are still effective enough.
If you refuse to meet the requirements of the content, that means that I as group leader have no option other than to not take you on that content - but that was your decision, not mine. I have my group to think about, not your feelings.
So, this is all a bad take on things.
In any game, it is less than 0.1% of players that analyze things. Most players just play the game, get pointers from those of us that do analyze the game and then just carry on about their day.
The notion that combat trackers means everyone will need to start analyzing is just a flat out bad read. Even as one of those people that analyzed EQ2 more than all but maybe 4 or 5 players, I still spent less than 5% of my time involved with the game actually analyzing - the other 95% was playing. A competition to be on top of the meter isn't inherently bad. If it were, we would all be saying the same thing about arena leaderboards.
I mean, Ashes intends to have PvE leaderboards anyway, so if things like this are the cause of toxicity, then we can't really point to trackers and say they will increase the toxicity in Ashes.
I agree, there is a middle ground.
That middle ground is Intrepid implementing a tracker in to the game client itself, setting it up as a guild perk that is optional, and limiting it to only track players within your guild.
This is the resolution to the tracker situation that I have been arguing for since 2019.
If by "reasonable design" you mean that having trackers in the game would mean that someone in the guild would need to know how to use them in order to take on the top 2 or 3 encounters in the game, then yeah.
If you mean anything else, then I disagree. If anything, a combat tracker would be more akin to a spec sheet, or a circuit diagram for an electronic device. It isn't a manual, because it doesn't tell you how to do anything at all. All it tells you is how things are - and you need to figure out what to do from there. Something as minor as that isn't something that people are going to use a tracker to find. It really doesn't matter in the context of the fight as a whole.
While I know you were using it as an example, I am pointing out to you that it doesn't matter as an example as well.
The only way a raid guild would concern themselves with that attack is if it had an effect that wiped the raid if it connected. If that were the case, and if the developers were developing with an assumption of no trackers, they would add in narration around the attack.
Your comment that the developers can make content as complex as they want is actually false - they can only make content as complex as players can cope with - just as IKEA can only create furniture as complex as people can assemble.
If they are causing toxicity, it is because the game is designed wrong.
That's my whole point. I understand that you're so used to having trackers for your pve, but I'm giving you a directly opposite pov. To me, that kind of mechanic would be fair. The hint is still there, but you gotta notice it to use it. The fight didn't suddenly become easier because the hint was there.
In other words, I want developers to do better. Which, afaik, is your wish as well. It's just that you want them to make encounters that would push the tracker-based difficulty, while I want them to design fights that would be as difficult as tracker-based content, but with subtle hints that require players to pay attention to different things during the encounter and learn to recognize patterns within the fight.
That small example was just the most basic one I could come up with. I'm sure there's countless ways to design a fight that's still really difficult, but has several hints to what you need to do to beat it.
Which is the problem.
Take that fight, but make it so that players don't see that feint. Now, after a days raiding, they need to go back through the logs, look at what happened, try and work out WHY the thing they know happened actually happened, come up with a plan for it, and then attempt to execute it the following day. Realistically though, by the time they have worked out what actually happened, and come up with a theory as to why it happened, it is probably a week or two later, not just the next day.
Whereas with your suggestion - you kill the mob on the second pull.
It's funny, people say trackers make it so players breeze through content faster - that is only if developers develop easy content. If developers develop content that requires trackers, it slows down the pace at which players get through content massively.
Perhaps what you are not realizing is that exactly this happens in games with trackers.
If you attempt to look at a combat tracker after a days raiding and you have no clue at all what happened in the encounter, you will spend a few hours staring at numbers and graphs, and still have no idea. You need to recognize patterns in combat, you need to have an eye out to see what - if anything - is going on around you, you need to pay attention. And then you confirm what you think you saw in a tracker.
If the developers are good, they will find a way where you need to recognize that pattern or what ever, but then they subvert your expectation in some manner. This way, the encounter requires you to first see the thing that is going on, but then require you to look in to it more closely, and only then - after both observing and analyzing - can you get a true picture of what is happening.
Me seeing what I need to do during the fight is the same as you reading the tracker that shows you the same thing, except your does so in unreasonable detail, while I can only infer whether what I saw is actually the hint for what I need to do.
Again, that example was the very basic one. You could have misdirections, double or tripple triggered mechanics, ability pattern based mechanics (that would only show up if a particular string of abilities happened within the rng use of boss abilities), class combo mechanics (at which point every single raid would have their own mechanics and might never see different ones, if they don't change their raid setup). And of course you could have the combination of all of the above and more.
Again, what I'm asking for is "make the game that anyone could solve by just playing it, rather than looking at an external tool that gives you all the info about the fight. Make it still very hard and complex, but not to a point where you literally don't see mechanics that you're meant to solve".
That Azherae example of how agro worked in ff11 is great example of this. Devs made a completely hidden design mechanic, yet expected people to figure out how it worked w/o external tools. And if I'm recalling the explanation correctly, people could only figure it out after pretty much doing a hardcore parse of the whole system. In other words, they used a "tracker" to solve the problem.
To me that's just bad design from devs. Now I don't know which methods the players used before that hardcore parsing, nor am I saying that I could've somehow magically understood how the mechanic worked, but I'm assuming they've tried all kinds of stuff, so if there was ever any kind of hint as to how the system might've worked - they would've found it. But they didn't, so I'm assuming there was no hint and it was just a hidden mechanic for the sake of making the game more difficult. Which in turn pushed people to use trackers.
I want the game to just present us with our classes/gear/party combinations and say "you've got everything you need to beat anything in the game - go do it". And then base the difficulty off of those "tools", instead of giving us god powers and expecting us not to beat everything within a few months.
Either way, we're back to running in circles w/o really changing anyone's mind. We comes from too different of a backgrounds to truly see each other's points. So I might as well just let Mag call trackers cheating and all the hardcore pvers toxic, even if I only semi-agree with one of those points
Since this is describing literally every game with even half decent PvE content, I don't see it as an issue.
I will say that I think some people misjudge just how deeply combat tracker usage has penetrated the PvE population.
The FFXIV example given was actually a situation where the developers didn't want players to understand the system, not one where they expected players to work it out.
Indeed you could.
And you could also have all of that be required observation, in conjunction with needing a tracker.
Then when you have a raid, they need someone like you keeping an eye out for things, and someone like me that goes through the logs to make sense of it all, and everyone's a winner.
What you're saying is that you want your part to be the only part - I am saying that both parts can and should exist. You would have understood how mechanics worked before parsing in it's current state came to be - because encounters back then were designed so that people could understand them without parsing as it is now.
It reminds me of a quote from Batman Begins; As trackers become more effective, content is raised to match. As content is raised, trackers are made more effective.
Now, your first thought with this is probably something along the lines of "why even bother starting then?", and I can understand that sentiment.
However, this is why the best option here is to have the developer of the game also be the developer of the combat tracker. If the developer develops both, they can control both. If the developer only develops one, the developer only controls one - yet both will exist.
In raids created without trackers, players can only deal with what they can observe. In raids created with trackers in mind, the raid has that omniscient tracker that sees everything, and thus the raid is able to deal with more.
The raid being able to deal with more obviously means the developers can add more to the encounter - more than a raid without a tracker would ever hope to be able to observe.
This is how you end up with actual frantic, chaotic fights - the more you have to deal with, the more chaotic it is able to get.
But if you assume trackers will exist, and as such future content will have to be created with them in mind - is this not the best option?
Even if Intrepid don't inherently design with trackers in mind, they will design top end content based on how easily people got through the existing top end content. If it was blown through faster than expected, the next cycle will be made harder.
As such, the only way top end content in Ashes won't eventually be designed based on trackers is if people like me leave the game and those left don't have a specific drive to be the best they can be - which is obviously possible. They aren't invisible, they just require being looked at from a different angle.
Essentially, you are saying you only want content served to you in one specific way. I am saying there are many different ways content can be served if trackers are implemented - including that one specific way you want.
Do what I say with my exact rotation or be booted is all I see with this post. Fairly certain this goes beyond just recommending a few skills to use if I'm thinking in a elitists way. It means use these weapons, this build, this set up and rotations or be booted. He will see this with the tracker and remove you if needed pretty much that is the mind set.
Leads us right back to being toxic and this is the guy that says he has never seen anything toxic. That is because he views things different with his own bias and nothing is toxic to him cause he is the one doing it lmfao.
Honestly if you are playing EQ2 and relying on trackers (older games have less memory for things so less things to read meaning people needed to use other tools for the lack of technology at that point) I can't really say you are a good players or really a top end raiding by skill alone.
@NiKr What we need is not giving trackers to everyone, dev's can simply just give a log of everything the boss does and timing and there everyone can understand what the boss is doing easily rather than gate keeping to people that want to stomach using trackers in its strongest form. Sarcasm obviously but pretty much what I take it as with a tracker, you meet the dps check and you gain more data as you do it more and understand it as you go over it.
If he is actually going a week over data, that is most likely because devs had trackers as a part of the combat and tried to make it convoluted so it wasn't easy for them to read.
I expect a lot more modern mmo mechanics in AoC with the use of movement and interesting design but I won't know till I see it. Though as a PvPer I'm fine with good pve which i agree is needed but my focus will still be PvP. PvE doesn't need to be designed around trackers and in a arms battle to make things more convoluted since people are using trackers.
I want to try and explain to you that "toxic" behavior is a very broad subject and is different for each player. You seem to be stuck on this example of kicking players from parties, but I would argue that is the least of my worries. I will try to provide examples of what I mean, and what makes me personally not enjoy PvE content as much when meters are heavily involved.
* Note: the term "toxic" is very much subjective and it not the same for every individual *
When meters become part of the average player's UI, it tends to be something they end up fixating on. Examples of how the average player can feel "toxic":
- They look more at the meters more than the fight's mechanics, leading to wipes
- They only talk to others about how much damage they did, compared to others. leading to repetitive and stale conversations. It becomes not enjoyable to do content with that player.
- They view meters as required to do ALL content, and not just the hardest. Leading to flaming others for not using it, or gatekeeping.
Now the obvious rebuttal to this type of behavior is "just don't play with those people"....but the problem is that this behavior is MUCH more likely to show up in the average player when meters are easily accessible and/or accepted. And now it becomes more difficult for me to find a solid group of players to play with, that isn't tainted by one of these "toxic" players.
I hope this helps you understand where the other side is coming from. We are prioritizing the health of the masses, instead of the top 1%. And if this means the highest end PvE content needs to be slightly easier because of this...then so be it. I would rather have an enjoyable time with the people around me than an extreme challenge with people I don't particularly enjoy.
"all mechanics/abilities are clearly visible and no combination of those compromise their recognizability"
― Plato
I was thinking of limiting the damage the boss the takes so it's capped at x damage a second.
Spamming tanks could be a safer option but you are still dividing loot amongst everyone. The fewer people you need to bring, the more profitable the run will be so taking tanks could be a group trading profit for safety.
If spamming tanks is seen as a problem, similar to what i said about healers, you could have mechanics/attacks that trigger based off archetypes in the area. The more tanks in the area, the frequency of powerful attacks goes up.
Combat trackers are all about focusing on rollplay.
look at every popular game that is thriving - every single one puts gameplay above roleplay
that doesn't mean you cant have roleplay, just not at the expense of gameplay
if some important game mechanics or abilities are only readable in certain situations only from a combat log then not having an approachable way to filter combat log (in other words a "combat tracker") is hurting gameplay
― Plato
Alright.
That is not hurting gameplay, the game isn't being designed designed for a combat tracker. Gameplay is not about looking at a screen of data and knowing what you need to do from it. Gameplay is game play in the game, reacting, learning and improving.
If gameplay is outside of the game and that is how you need to know what to do. Then devs need to just make it fair and give everyone a page of what the boss does, timing, damage, etc so everyone has the same cheat sheet. And slowly gameplay can regress back into pen and paper.
Popular doesn't mean good. There's a reason why so many people are waiting on Ashes to release.
And it's not because people want MMORPGs to have combat trackers.
An RPG that puts "gameplay" above roleplay cannot be a good RPG.
(I'm not referring to voice acting.)
This is assuming the game is being designed with these random, cryptic, "invisible" mechanics in the first place. I don't think anyone is advocating for these types of mechanics to exist without a way to understand them. Rather, they want the game designed in a way that doesn't require tools to parse combat logs; those "invisible" mechanics should be visible some way outside of the combat logs.
I'm not trying to say which design is right/wrong, but this is the design being advocated for by people against the trackers. It it totally fine to disagree, or prefer a different design choice, but don't try and paint the other side as something it isn't.
Devs - add content Giving a invisible debuff based on player placement they need to debuff in order else everyone wipes. Then you have to remember the amounts and make it even as mobs spawn that can only be hit with people with that previous debuff and if anyone else attacks them they die instantly. Then boss uses a wave ability instantly as soon as last mob die that kills everyone unless they were standing in their original position.
Devs : Ok maybe the trackers won't beat this content in the first day.
I understand where you guys are coming from (other than wanting to limit game features based on whether players will talk about them or not - that is just stupid).
That is why I have put forward the proposal for combat trackers that only work within your guild.
I've even addressed the notion of people looking at their tracker in game before - such people are using it wrong, there is literally nothing at all to be gained from looking at a tracker during a fight. I've even previously added to the suggestion of the guild tracker that any data not be made available to players using it until after the encounter has finished (whether win or lose) - just to appease those who think this is an issue
As such, if you join a guild of like minded players, you will have a tracker if that is what you wish, and you will not have a tracker if that is what you wish.
Likewise, since this tracker would only work on those players that are in your guild, it will not become a standard assumed requirement to use during any content that is able to be run in a pick up group - I mean, it literally can't be used in such a group.
If you put some thought in to how this would work, most of the guilds that would pick a tracker as a guild perk would likely mostly group within their guild (I can't remember the last time I ran a pick up group on my main, probably within the first three months of me playing MMO's).
As such, the people that are running pick up groups are people that do not have access to a tracker, because their guild either isn't high enough level, or they picked something that they thought was more useful to the guild than a tracker that was of no use during pick up content.
With this, trackers don't become conversation pieces, they don't become thought of as required.
Here is a direct challenge to you @MrPockets
Find the issue with a tracker that is built by Intrepid, added to the game as a guild perk (where guilds have other valuable options and can only pick the one they think is most useful to the guild), the tracker only works on players in the guild, that are in the same group or raid, doesn't show any data until after combat has finished, and is able to be accessed on the games companion app or website, should a player wish to look over it later on.
Before answering this, you need to consider who is going to pick this tracker, and how likely they are to join pick up groups in a game like Ashes. What reasonable objections are left with this suggestion?
Now, keep in mind, the only other option that is available to us is for people like me to just have a tracker anyway, as they already exist for this game.