Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Comments
The reason id bring that up or shooters or any other game is because you can give less meaning or power from trackers through skill based gameplay. Compared to trackers on a game like EQ that removes skill as you don't need to worry about landing hits, prediction, dodging etc.
That was the whole point of me saying that people are going to figure it out regardless. You can figure out your basic dps potential through manual calculations of damage and hit rate, and apply that to figure out specific enemy interactions and modifiers through trial and error, regardless of whether you have an immediate tool or not. I do not wish for enemy data tracking to happen, I simply wish to have a reference point for making build comparisons in a vacuum
In any system that is implemented that involves variablity in results yeilded, people will abuse testing and calculations/third party tools to reveal that info.
All you are doing is making it tougher on the people who arent going to look up enemy data, who want to theory craft- in an attempt to stop enemy tracking which will likely happen regardless. I am not suggesting you "give" them the info. I am saying that they will get that info regardless, and that you can still mitigate the acquisition of said info by withholding feedback for enemy-specific modifiers, while supporting theory crafters who are only interested in optimizing their builds in a vacuum- which will further support the community through allowing them to compete with people who are tracking enemy data.
If you are meta gaming on DnD i feel sorry for you.
@Ace1234
Depends entirely on execution of the variability and interactions. If it's intuitive you don't need a tracker anyway to figure out the general result of some encounter, and it's a more immersive game.
This is the answer given by a person who does not understand Frame Data. And that's fine. If you actually understand it, you have done a good job of staying ambiguous about that understanding.
But it isn't really my question. I'm asking if you think a person should be able to look at a move in the game and say 'That move has 4 Active Frames, not 5' without anything in the game telling them this, just like, visual skill/ability.
Seen and played enough a player can tell that the window is smaller/ larger. Sometimes it's just speculation but at least a person improves by playing the more difficult character/ playstyle -> then eventually can reliably tell.
Maybe you should learn more about Islanders crossing hundred mile ocean gaps to other islands with nothing but overcast, by laying on the bottom of their canoes (yes canoes) and feeling the ocean currents.
This just comes down to skill difference, what I'm saying should be pretty clear if you play a lot of fighting games and have talent. You should be aware of the speed of your moves by playing and fighting other characters with their fast moves counting as measurements for you.
If all you can do is look at data you aren't going to improve as a player, it wont make you better when you are trying to fight the more upper tier of players. Knowing your moves should be instinctive. Maybe stop reading and watching so much and play more and you will understand. Try to get to the very top of players and see how you do or if you can reach that height.
No one has need of talking about frame data says that well they are well aware of the frame data instinctively from experience.
Unless you are Mag7's alt, please assume I will address your perceptions separately. I have no indication that you have played any of these games (but I don't read all your posts). If you do, please give me some GENERAL idea of what series you played so that I can ask the appropriate questions based on the data models for that game series.
Again, I can agree with this, I'm asking you if you think a person can or should need to do this for something that is ONE frame difference in speed in an Active Frame. You seem to be saying 'yes, if you were truly skilled, you would be able to do this just visually', but I'm not sure.
You could also be saying 'You should be able to work it out from ingame experience', but for differences of 1 frame in Active Frames, this isn't consistently possible, and for some moves it is explicitly impossible. The question would then be 'is there a point in the game where it is impossible to tell, but knowing would make a difference'.
I want to make sure I'm interpreting your response right, I'm currently at 'if you were truly skilled you would be able to do this just visually'. Let me know.
Tribesman is good enough. Along with all other examples of human extraordinary ability. It's fuckin' basic.
Only playing the game makes a difference.
I'm sorry, I'm unfamiliar with any fighting games by that name. Perhaps it doesn't translate well? If it is a Japanese game, could you give the Japanese name of the game?
real life.
Understood. Thank you for clarifying.
Speed runners train months and years to manage to achieve runs at frame-rate perfection. One frame can make a difference to be able to beat a speed record. But often those records are beaten by discovering new glitches and techniques.
This is my perception too, but I don't want to go too far into context of why I engage with Mag in this specific way, as it is an unnecessary 'personal attack' that doesn't add to the discussion.
I'm trying to keep my posts short and focused on clarifying perceptions, for now. Hopefully it is making it easier for others like yourself to keep track of this without additional bloat to the conversation.
I am not sure who you are hoping to convince with your act. Who is the target?
Why don't you just admit that you are wrong?
You misunderstand my goal. I 'represent' a group of 6 people who would like to play this game but do not have the patience for certain conversations.
My efforts are entirely towards making it as clear as possible to those people, the perspectives of others on the forum who make certain claims, so that they do not extend threads unnecessarily, waste their time, or get angry.
I post so that they do not have to. Anyone else who benefits from any knowledge I have is welcome to rely on me similarly. I am the one most practiced at dealing with this sort of conversation without making personal attacks or being toxic in a way that risks forum bans.
It is preferable that all the people I know who have strong negative opinions of certain behaviours, do not post here, and can remain silent knowing that I will handle it.
But if you would like to simplify this response to 'within the scope of your question':
"Six people who do not post in this thread."
Why would I not want to split hairs when I am affected by it. If you can accomplish a specific goal of mitigating enemy data tracking without indirectly affecting other people then that is a better option, unless you just don't care, in which case that is why I said you would only be advocating for this out of spite for other's preferences, which isn't a good reason. Figure out a way to do it is what im saying, idc if its splitting hairs.
That still doesn't address the fact that databases could potentially still be created through manual calculations and testing and third party tools, in which case how does your idea prevent that from happening 100%, and if it doesn't how is that fair for those trying to do it through skill-based methods, like theory crafting and experiential learning?
This next point is just to backtrack as to why I want build feedback to begin with. Following this train of thought is what leads us to the above divergence in how to allow for feedback while mitigating enemy data tracking. This is in no reference to game systems that are supposed to be designed to reward rythm and pacing.
I have given several examples already but you still seem stuck on it being 100% reliant on skill to maximize your efficiency/effectiveness. Me and you do not disagree on whether skill should be prioritized, we disagree on whether skill can be solely relied upon without introducing additional tools for further skill-expression and less rng.
No matter how intuitive it is you will never be able to get exactness in a complex system without direct feedback, hense my "biologically impossible" reference. It just becomes to much data at a certain point where it is just not feasible for humans to accurately measure it through feeling, and some .0000000001% population example who could is not good enough imo, but even that is not the case once you reach certain levels of complexities.
Why are you talking about skill and options.
The game provides options. That is the other expression. That is player choice. Player agency as you say.
Trackers are so far from what you're saying. You don't get great at a game by just precision, and human precision can be very good if you are experienced.
Just play the game instead of looking for a boost.
EDIT:
If you are looking to craft from your mind, why don't you try designing a class to be deeper and less like the others?
suspicious
six people want classes to be shallow so they have a chance of being good at the game. . . amazin'
Wiki say So if according to Steven, players will know this, then of course they will not take 6 tanks if only 5 are needed, isn't it?
But then is this true for all kind of tanks?
Why do we have 64 classes? Is the secondary archetype important?
Did Steven came up first with 64 classes and then realized that with help from trackers players will be able to tell that for example Guardian-Bard and Guardian-Rogue are less useful than the others? And therefore decided no trackers are allowed?
Or did he decided first against trackers and added 64 classes to cause more confusion, even if trackers are used?
A worthwhile spinoff, I think!
(A lot of the time this thread absorbs 'high-spirited' opinions about things that are ignorable by most people, but sometimes it hits a topic that should be discussed more outside itself, this might be one of them)
Therefore I won't give any opinions on this here, but it seems like the sort of thing that might be better discussed 'not in this thread' even with its connection to Combat Trackers?
I think you are misunderstanding what I mean. I am not looking for a boost. I explained already that I am looking to reward both theory crafting and combat mastery skills and that you can have both. Those skills are fun to me.
In the context of what we are talking about-
If you don't have enough feedback for achieving a goal, then you have no reference point to compare alternative choices.
This means your skill of overall attempting to achieve said goal will be undermined by having increased rng based results and reduce the skill gap because of said rng being a more relevant factor.
-Its simply about having feedback on whether you are achieving a specific goal- in the context of theory crafting this would be through a reference point to compare builds. In the context of combat it would be through killing the enemy to compare combat skill level. Those are the feedback within each system to show you whether your skill is yielding better results and improvements are being made. Yes you can kill the enemy without knowing the exact numbers of your builds efficiency/effectiveness, but the point is that you are watering down the skill required to optimize the "numbers part" of the "overall combat equation" (not in relation to enemy data, because the acqusition of said data is part of the combat skill, there is some overlap between the data structuring and combat skill in that regard). There should always be clear feedback for when goals are achieved when testing player skill.
-If goal feedback requires specific granular measurements outside of human capability it should be supplemented by tools to aid in rewarding skilled decision making.
-Win conditions exist. You have clear factors that determine whether you beat the other player such as depleting health. The skill comes through having player-driven conditional requirements to meet said requirements. I advocate for said condional requirements to be skill-based, less rng. There does not have to be one conditional requirement (such as combat mastery). "Data structuring" could be part of the condional requirments as well. For "data structuring" to be skill based, you need feedback when comparing builds to reward theory crafting skill of comparing options. The problem is that your idea would reduce the feedback of that conditional requirement and decrease the skill gap in that particular context. The only time this would ever make things more simple is amd boil down to "number crunching" is if using monotonous number comsarisons and trial and error was more efficient than skill-based means of achieving said goal, hense reducing the skill gao of said conditional requirment of achieving the win-condition. (which is the totality of this train of thought presented in my initial post)
I think you are puting too much emphasis on the data structuring as a conditional requirement for achievinf win conditions. I don't advocate for having that as the sole skill-check. I think combat skill should have equal if not more weight as a conditional requirement for achieving win-conditions. If combat is designed to require enough skill, then this would allow for that dynamic situational gameplay that we both want prioritized to be a conditional requirement for achieving the win condition.
(hense my recommendation to focus on that aspect instead of the dps feedback).
This is of course with the disclaimer that some of your points are fully valid in relation to possible side effects associated with dps feedback such as enemy tracking. I fully recognize this and would be okay with discussing ways to mitigate this or put players in a fair position compared to those using the enemy tracking.
Oh, i recently got my character hugely rewarded after 3 month by DM because "to reward the quality of your roleplay" ...
also, where on my message i spoke about metagaming ?
Only analysis.
Analysis is metagaming ?
Except if looking at dice result is metagaming ? ...
I spoke about ennemies the other DM built himself, so i don't know before the fight, but all during the fight is enough to have most usefull information.
This is like... learning fight while playing in MMORPG no ? or no, you don't allow us to even watch the ennemy moves to understand ?
In turn base system, video game or not, analysis is easy, gathering data are easy.
Also we speak about dd5... You don't even have to do any effort to get answer...
the only thing i can't know if it is not said is vulnerability, resistance, and immunity... but a DM who keep it secret is a bad DM... a good DM will always describe if the hit does nothing, close to nothing, or far more than expected. or in our table, say strictly after the first hit of the character to allow the player to describe the hit himself)
In fact, you just don't want people to use theorical knowledge right ?
You can't just watch matches and expect to get better. You need to analyze matches and put what you learn to practice. Then you can expect to get better.
Same with a combat tracker. Just running one doesnt make you better. Analyzing the data from one and putting what you have learned in to practice may make you better though.
You are looking for a boost.
There is nothing fundamentally fun about what you call "theorycrafting" except to get the boost.
There are plenty of decisions available to you in-game. There is plenty of analysis you can try.
You simply do not want to play the game, to get the 'boost' for basically free.
Your 'tastes' are to get a boost through number optimizations that, if the game were designed a certain way, would not even really exist and would simply allow the game to be databased by those hoping to finally get their 'boost'.
So there is no point, only a drawback, and that is the bottom line of it.
"If you don't have enough feedback for achieving a goal, then you have no reference point to compare alternative choices."
Such feedback should be in-game. You choose Rogue? You're not DPS.
When you choose your class, that is feedback. Your choices are feedback.
And you will suffer your choice.
There is no "behind the curtains trial and error" it will simply be 'error' because you failed at something or didn't figure out how strong you were compared to other things with the copious, non-number feedback, or tried turning one thing into entirely another because the options provided to you are not significant to you.
If anything is 'out of place' then it will be discussed by the community because it affects everyone in some obvious way.
You would like to mutate everything as if it were clay but when a game (or anything) has backbone I'm sure you will suffer the fact that the 'secrets' are not meant to be figured out but simply discovered through experience, and nowhere near as consequential as you hope.
Stop trying to explain to me what you've said 100 times as if I have not read what you're typing and replied 100 times already.
You get to see how long it takes to kill something and damage done to objects. There's your basic feedback. That's it. Along with a rough estimate of your own health compared to others
(maybe not; besides side effects of low/ high health and visage; maybe just an extremely rough estimate like "Close to Death, OK, Very Healthy", maybe some wounds can be seen such as from slashing or a broken bone. Maybe that's all ya get)
5:02
I do not imagine this as a difficult 'enjoyment', and it is in the attempt to make the game easier.
I've no issue with mathematics and analysis is something I do often.
I even study wikis and have looked through databases for games.
Then I am bored and quit, after theorycrafting. Because I simply wanted the mental exercise and to connect number [magnitude, really] to the visual feedback and crunch some numbers.
I might play something for a while, look for "hidden" mechanics/ variables, maybe look them up or realize it's not easily available anywhere, look for glitches, improve a bit, et cetera.
Just for some challenge. Then I drop the game because I was never really interested in it.
What you and others want is not complicated and adds nothing to the game.
It is simply tedious and pointless, while having an obvious negative.
No game should be designed around boring and arbitrary number games. "Oh Green, Green! +5 stam +4 strength! Good damage!"
Done
If anything deviates from that it is a waste of time and will only cause problems while serving no one.
It is like you are trying to ruin your own experience of the game. LOL
And yeah people ruin their experience of all sorts of shit so I'm 100% sure you would ruin your experience of any MMO if it let you. and this DPS Meter, these Logs, are the way of allowing you to ruin your experience and allow people to ruin other's experience.
no databases
no metagame
just game
As not great as @Mag7spy and their arguments are, they are better than this argument. In fact, I would expect Mag to be able to look at your argument here and agree that it isnt a valid argument at all, even though they agree with the eventual point you want to make.
As to your suggestion that the game not be built on numbers - this is literally not possible. Numbers are essentially all computers understand. The game has to be built on numbers. Every game has to be built on numbers.
You could suggest that Intrepid obfuscate much of those numbers from players, but all that does is make the work people like myself perform and share even more valuable. I mean, we know that the game is built on numbers, if Intrepid don't present them, we assume they are hiding something and then go about working those numbers out for ourselves.
The thing that may shock you is that we do this because we enjoy doing it.