I thought of one more thing to quick-add to that, actually, Nikr
You're missing another type of player. DumbassCasual Cause that's me I had 0 clue ricochets even existed in the game. If there was any indicator or tutorial for them - I completely glossed over it, even though I read all tutorials. And I've seen the "advanced info" window on someone's stream, but I've never opened up that menu myself.
And it's the "dumbass" type because I just try until I succeed, w/o changing the build, simply because I like it Why I fail? Because I'm not good enough. EZ as that.
I haven't watched Asmon's attempts of the next boss because I'm yet to fight it myself and I don't wanna spoil myself, but I know that he struggled with that one for 7h until he finally changed his build. My build is somewhat similar to his and he beat Balteus even faster than I did, so I imagine that I'll have issues with the next boss as well, so that's gonna be a test for how far I can take my approach (well, if that boss requires taking it further than my 8h against Sentinel).
So I think Asmon is also the dumbass casual who refuses to change their preference until they either break through the supposed ceiling or get a bit too frustrated and finally cave in.
Also, I tried to go back and attempt the boss again, but I think my hdd is dying even more than it was before and my game keeps crashing before I load into the lvl. And I don't have enough space on my ssd cause genshin+star rail+starfield took up all the space. I'll try to finish Starfield asap to go back to AC before they start changing the game again.
Though my playstyle there is, once again, "dumbass " so I dunno how long it'll take me. Got several rarest achievements in the game before progressing the MQ beyond, like, 30 minutes of progress 26h of gameplay btw
Well, you said it, not me (I hope you can take this lightheartedly).
It's not that I have any issue with the 'Dumbass Casual' player, it's moreso that just like games shouldn't be made for the UltraGymLords, it shouldn't be made for the 'Dumbass Casual' either.
It's the same situation. You could get a bunch of people going 'why the hell do you need a DPS meter for Armored Core, you're just trying to make the game easier or tell other people what to do', while never knowing that there are Ricochets.
I think it can be harder for the 'Dumbass Casual' to see why someone else has to care about the data. My bigger concern, always, is that they are also often the type to cause a meta, and without your level of openmindedness, it's normally a dismissive meta.
But I 'have to know how Ricochets work' because I don't use missiles, even for Baltheus. And while I'm lucky enough to be able to fight and track approximate Ricochet percentage at the same time, and I know enough to not only know how it is different from previous, but also how it nerfs things that should intuitively work...
It's not that I have any issue with the 'Dumbass Casual' player, it's moreso that just like games shouldn't be made for the UltraGymLords, it shouldn't be made for the 'Dumbass Casual' either.
Which brings us to the toxic middle of "I pretend I do not see it". The dumbasses will just do their dumb things, while ultragyms will just analyze the shit out of everything they need/want w/o really pushing it onto others.
Btw, I did manage to launch AC. 5 tries on the boss, with 2 of the non-win tries ending up at ~10% of his hp cause I got a bit too greedy and overconfident. I changed my build to the one I had before, so I assume I did acquire skill in beating this boss after those first 20 tries. Obviously rockets probably hit me less as well, but I feel like they weren't too much of a problem on my initial runs either way (well, on the later half of those attempts).
Still a shit score, cause I managed to die fucking twice on the penultimate mob
Yeah I am not a fan of DPS meters. I think it's one of those things that players think they want but don't.
When WoW introduced cross server everything they essentially destroyed the community of the game. Just pointing out that sometimes things feel good but undermine what the game actually is.
I think best case scenario we let the settle for a while and see if they are needed. The DPS meter will just pressure performance over innovation or utility. Everyone needs to remember that you won't care as much about DPS when people who are speced for PVP come.
Best comprise I can think of is training Dummies that provide some feedback. Maybe an NPC you talk to will provide information back to you. This way it works like more of a training area and it keeps it out of the raid and the negative side effects that comes with it
AC6 has simplified all this down, especially at the start of the game, presumably for similar reasons to Steven's decision. Depending on your preferences, it makes the game better. Or, of course, alternately, makes the game worse. But I can definitely say that overall, the 'PvE is not as good'.
Btw, what would be the best representative single player game for pve that kinda requires you to figure out and analyze its combat and all the details related to it? MHW? Smth else? Is there even such a solo player game?
AC6 has simplified all this down, especially at the start of the game, presumably for similar reasons to Steven's decision. Depending on your preferences, it makes the game better. Or, of course, alternately, makes the game worse. But I can definitely say that overall, the 'PvE is not as good'.
Btw, what would be the best representative single player game for pve that kinda requires you to figure out and analyze its combat and all the details related to it? MHW? Smth else? Is there even such a solo player game?
Until 6, I'd have answered "Armored Core" personally.
Since 6 is simplified, I'd have to explain a lot about the differences between 3 or 4, and 6. Hopefully there will be a remaster with a more modern control scheme.
That's what AC6 makes me wish for. AC3.
You'll get to a certain Balam mission in Chapter 3 that embodies it toward the end of the mission. But I can't say if I just think so because I happen to not use whatever is simplest to just counter it.
Either way, the consensus from my group has been 'This only starts being like any older Armored Core game after Chapter 2'.
every game is "advanced math" it is a matter of how far the math will be calculated by players, which directly correlates to how big the player base is.
I'm sure Noaani would disagree with that
I actually agree in principle.
As I've said, trackers do have multiple effects.
In conversation with you, I've mostly been talking about the impact they have on what content developers can make.
However, they also open up a games meta - this is something I've talked in this thread about as well (mostly with Mag and Dygz).
If players don't have access to objective data, they will just take what other people say at face value, at least to start. If a build is said to be good, people will use that build and if more people say it's good, it starts to become required. In this scenario, if no one has access to objective data to prove there is a better build (either outright better or situational better) no one will dare if you think you have found one, they will want you using the known good build.
Give people a combat tracker though, and everyone has access to data to prove their build is good or not, there are more people posting good builds on forums and such, more people using more different builds, and thus more acceptance of a greater variety of builds.
It is worth noting that all of the above can only happen if the class kits are designed in a way where there are several equally good but different builds. If they are designed in a way where there is one clear winner, that is what people will expect, and that build will probably be obvious with or without a combat tracker. If this is what the class balance ends up being though, with combat trackers us players can put together essentially a report and tell Steven why he fucked up class design, leaving no real choice for players and we can use objective data to do so - but only if we are allowed to talk about objective combat data.
This is why I consider the FFXIV path to be cowardly. It is essentially preventing players pointing out flaws in the combat system, class design or encounter design to developers, with risk of getting banned if they do.
what if a build has low numbers but not because the build is bad, but because whoever posted it first sucks at playing it. now people probably wont even try it.
by giving me what im looking for, you are preventing me from discovering what i wasnt looking for.
Personally, I found meters very helpful when tweaking builds and rotations on practice dummies. Discovering where/when my spikes are, how big they are, sustain damage, etc.
If not damage meters at least have some kind of practice dummy that can help us be more knowledgeable about what we are doing. Also, the ability to tweak builds easily would be great. Part of the fun in these games is the discovery.
what if a build has low numbers but not because the build is bad, but because whoever posted it first sucks at playing it. now people probably wont even try it.
by giving me what im looking for, you are preventing me from discovering what i wasnt looking for.
I mean, you are really grasping at straws here.
To answer this question though, first, people tend to not post builds if they think they are bad.
Second, in a game with easy access to objective data, and the freedom to discuss that data, people tend to build and iterate on the work of others. If a build is posted, someone is going to look at it and try to improve it. If they come up with actual improvements on the build (as in, do a better job of what the build in question is trying to do), then they would likely post it in that same thread, and if the OP is a reasonable person they would update the first post to include the new information.
If the OP isn't reasonable, the likely thing that would happen is that the improved build would be posted in a new thread, and the builds master thread that most such games sticky at the top of each classes forum section would be amended to include the new and improved version.
This is how improvements to builds has worked in every MMO I've played other than Archeage.
hey ive seen terrible builds posted online. also fun to play builds that arent meta. not only top builds get posted.
i wouldnt say data from a dps meter is objective, its subjective. it comes from different players. 2 players with the same character and the same build will have different numbers because they have different execution prowess.
still, even if "the top build" is posted, people will play this and try to improve it, but they will be missing out on experimentation and potentially discovering a better build. maybe someone will eventually discover it, probably some youtuber trying to make content making something different.
again, if you give me what im looking for, you are denying me the opportunity to discover what im not looking for.
hey ive seen terrible builds posted online. also fun to play builds that arent meta. not only top builds get posted.
So have I.
As I'm sure you could imagine, if I see a terrible build posted of a class I play, in a game with accepted combat tracker use, I point out the flaws in it and provide fixes.
Builds that are just for fun (and labeled as being just for fun) are their own thing. There is no point in trying to improve on them, as they are obviously just for fun (making use of a fun mechanic or ability or what ever). However, such builds shouldn't be used for pickup content or anything where people have a reasonable expectation that you would be trying to perform well. They are great for just hanging around with friends and such.
i wouldnt say data from a dps meter is objective, its subjective.
Data from a combat tracker is by definition objective. Subjective is a viewpoint or opinion, objective is a hard fact. Data from a tracker is just that, it is a hard fact of the performance you just put out.
If you and I are on a raid together, and the combat tracker says I do 500dps for the duration of the raid and you do 400dps, it is on objective fact that I did 500dps, and an objective fact that you did 400dps. Attempting to come to a conclusion based on that may well be subjective - but the numbers the two of us put up are objective data. Perhaps you were only present for half the raid and thus your dps while we were both present was actually higher than mine (though all of that data is still contained within the objective data that a combat tracker collects - you just need to look deeper to find it and as an example of how deep most people look in to the functionality of a combat tracker, look no further than the title of the thread).
still, even if "the top build" is posted, people will play this and try to improve it, but they will be missing out on experimentation and potentially discovering a better build. maybe someone will eventually discover it, probably some youtuber trying to make content making something different.
If a game with Ashes class system has a single best build, the developers really screwed up. Blizzard games have a best build, but that is because Blizzard want players to think they have choice, when really they kind of dont (this has been the case since at least Warcraft 3, possibly earlier - Blizzard are masters at giving players the illusion of choice).
If there is no scope left to discover a good build, that is not the fault of combat trackers. If anything, combat trackers are the tool that will allow you to do that. If players are able to accept or reject players from content, in the absence of objective data, players will simply reject people of any classes they are not familiar with. Thus, if you think you have the best class in the game for your archetype, you have no way of proving that to others. If a combat tracker is common, people will come to expect others to experiment, and will be more willing to accept non-standard classes. That said, they are likely still going to expect a minimum level of performance - if your build meets that performance, then great!
again, if you give me what im looking for, you are denying me the opportunity to discover what im not looking for.
If you want to discover it yourself, don't go to places where people that may have already found it are telling others about it.
It isn't like people with combat trackers are going around shoving builds in peoples faces.
when you refer to subjective like that, yes you are right. but what i mean is, which i think i said, you do more dps than me because you press your buttons faster or have better micro, etc. it doesnt necessarily mean that your build is better.
you can also have builds that are just too hard to play. they do top damage, but only in the right hands, so a dps meter stats from multiple players might indicate that this is a bad build, but in reality players are bad, not the build.
its like what happens in league. you have champions that are really hard to play but they are really rreally good. if you check win rates, these champions do not have a high win rate ecause many noobs pick them trying ot learn them and just sink the win rate.
or you have champions with high win rate among low ranks that cant really perform well at top elo.
so you when you look at numbers, you might think that x is goo dand y is bad, but its because of the players, not the actual x or y.
maybe subjective isnt the word, blame it on limited english. what would be the correct term in this case?
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
what if a build has low numbers but not because the build is bad, but because whoever posted it first sucks at playing it. now people probably wont even try it.
by giving me what im looking for, you are preventing me from discovering what i wasnt looking for.
You should make your own builds, rather than using builds other people posted.
Especially in Ashes, success should depend less on individual build and more on how well each player synergizes their Active Skills and Augments with others in the group.
So... DPS meters should mostly be useless in any case, because it's not about the DPS of an individual player, rather success should be the result of how the players stacked their damage with other players in the group and how they shored up the weaknesses of the other players in the group.
Adjustments based on a specific boss encounter should be through trial and error.
Also, by design, boss encounters change significantly after each time the boss is killed, so, again, posting builds should mostly be irrelevant.
Same with damage tracking on practice dummies.
Group combat should be more about learning to stack your damage and synergizing your abilities with the abilities of other people in your group, rather than hitting personal rotations as fast as possible.
when you refer to subjective like that, yes you are right. but what i mean is, which i think i said, you do more dps than me because you press your buttons faster or have better micro, etc. it doesnt necessarily mean that your build is better.
Yeah, the pure DPS data from a combat tracker shouldn't in itself be used to come to a conclusion. All it is telling you is that in the above situation, I am doing more damage than you.
In our above scenario, it may be that my gear is just better than yours. It may be that my group is giving me better buffs than yours. It may be that my rotation and/or ability priority is better than yours. It may be that I am getting in place faster than you after performing what ever the encounter mechanics dictate. It may also be that my build is better than yours.
The thing is, if we go in depth on the combat tracker, past pure DPS data, it should become obvious which of the above is the case.
If abilities that you and I have that are the same are hitting for more damage when I use them than when you use them, it is likely that either my gear is better than yours, or I am getting better buffs that increase my damage outright (context should tell us which).
If I am simply casting more abilities than you are, then it is likely that I have more casting speed increases than you, which again is probably gear or buffs (again, context will tell us which).
If we take our tracker and break it down to individual abilities, and lay your abilities, my abilities and the major attacks from the mob that require us to perform some action over each other on a chart, if I am consistantly getting damage in again before you are, then that tells us that I am getting back in position faster than you.
If we have a vastly different ratio of damage from each of our abilities (ie, the ability I deal the most damage with is only dealing the third most damage for you), then your rotation/priority needs work, or your build is sub-par (context should tell us which, though further experimentation may be required before pointing a finger at the build).
If you have periods where you are just not dealing any damage, then you are likely either dead, or distracted (have had guild members with somewhat disruptive children - it wasn't unusual for them to have to stop fighting mid fight to deal with an unrulely child). If you are dying often, then that could be gear, your build or the healer assigned to keeping you up (context should tell us which, and the tracker can tell us if it was the healer, and using this same process can help us work out why).
A combat tracker, if looked in depth, absolutely will give us the answer to these questions. That is actually what they are designed to do.
The problem is - again - most people don't even know a tracker can be that deep. Most people, even Creative Directors of in development MMORPG's, think of them as nothing more than something to measure DPS.
Edit to add; I should note that all of the above are real situations that I've been in. I'm not talking hypothetical here. You are right in that DPS in itself isn't going to give any conclusions, and definately not a specific conclusion. However, the deeper data absolutely can provide you with those conclusions.
Give people a combat tracker though, and everyone has access to data to prove their build is good or not, there are more people posting good builds on forums and such, more people using more different builds, and thus more acceptance of a greater variety of builds.
This still supports my issue of "game is cleared faster/easier".
Though it's obviously dependent on the pve design and we got no info on any of that, so it's hard to say how builds could be influenced by it.
what if a build has low numbers but not because the build is bad, but because whoever posted it first sucks at playing it. now people probably wont even try it.
by giving me what im looking for, you are preventing me from discovering what i wasnt looking for.
You should make your own builds, rather than using builds other people posted.
Especially in Ashes, success should depend less on individual build and more on how well each player synergizes their Active Skills and Augments with others in the group.
So... DPS meters should mostly be useless in any case, because it's not about the DPS of an individual player, rather success should be the result of how the players stacked their damage with other players in the group and how they shored up the weaknesses of the other players in the group.
Adjustments based on a specific boss encounter should be through trial and error.
Also, by design, boss encounters change significantly after each time the boss is killed, so, again, posting builds should mostly be irrelevant.
Same with damage tracking on practice dummies.
Group combat should be more about learning to stack your damage and synergizing your abilities with the abilities of other people in your group, rather than hitting personal rotations as fast as possible.
when you refer to subjective like that, yes you are right. but what i mean is, which i think i said, you do more dps than me because you press your buttons faster or have better micro, etc. it doesnt necessarily mean that your build is better.
Yeah, the pure DPS data from a combat tracker shouldn't in itself be used to come to a conclusion. All it is telling you is that in the above situation, I am doing more damage than you.
In our above scenario, it may be that my gear is just better than yours. It may be that my group is giving me better buffs than yours. It may be that my rotation and/or ability priority is better than yours. It may be that I am getting in place faster than you after performing what ever the encounter mechanics dictate. It may also be that my build is better than yours.
The thing is, if we go in depth on the combat tracker, past pure DPS data, it should become obvious which of the above is the case.
If abilities that you and I have that are the same are hitting for more damage when I use them than when you use them, it is likely that either my gear is better than yours, or I am getting better buffs that increase my damage outright (context should tell us which).
If I am simply casting more abilities than you are, then it is likely that I have more casting speed increases than you, which again is probably gear or buffs (again, context will tell us which).
If we take our tracker and break it down to individual abilities, and lay your abilities, my abilities and the major attacks from the mob that require us to perform some action over each other on a chart, if I am consistantly getting damage in again before you are, then that tells us that I am getting back in position faster than you.
If we have a vastly different ratio of damage from each of our abilities (ie, the ability I deal the most damage with is only dealing the third most damage for you), then your rotation/priority needs work, or your build is sub-par (context should tell us which, though further experimentation may be required before pointing a finger at the build).
If you have periods where you are just not dealing any damage, then you are likely either dead, or distracted (have had guild members with somewhat disruptive children - it wasn't unusual for them to have to stop fighting mid fight to deal with an unrulely child). If you are dying often, then that could be gear, your build or the healer assigned to keeping you up (context should tell us which, and the tracker can tell us if it was the healer, and using this same process can help us work out why).
A combat tracker, if looked in depth, absolutely will give us the answer to these questions. That is actually what they are designed to do.
The problem is - again - most people don't even know a tracker can be that deep. Most people, even Creative Directors of in development MMORPG's, think of them as nothing more than something to measure DPS.
Edit to add; I should note that all of the above are real situations that I've been in. I'm not talking hypothetical here. You are right in that DPS in itself isn't going to give any conclusions, and definately not a specific conclusion. However, the deeper data absolutely can provide you with those conclusions.
i never said they are useless, and at a personal level they can be useful so you can see which build you are performing better with. maybe an easy to play build is better for me than a hard build with top dps because i cant play it right.
but its hard to say online, unless you have the info of all players, but then most players arent good players, only a small percentage of players is, so most people might have the right build but cant use it. and some builds can go unnoticed because they are too hard to play, even though they are good.
even tho trackers are good at a personal level (and you can also use a training dummy) they probably do more harm than good at a global level.
do people even bother analyzing all your fights to invite you to a party? or they just ask you for a screenshot of damage and build? i mean, i dont know any1 who would spend 2 hours analyzing meter data every time they invite a player to the party to do a boss. so invite 5 random players = spend 10 hours deciding wether to keep them or not... so people dont go that deep i guess..
since there wont be meters and trackers and things telling you aoe is coming, mechanic is coming, we will see who the top players truly are. hopefully is can detect and get rid of these programs.
You should make your own builds, rather than using builds other people posted.
Making builds is not something that everyone enjoys. For some people it is a stressful part of the game; they just want to play, knowing that their character is already balanced, and not stare at tree options for hours. If this wasn't the case, then people wouldn't be copying builds in the first place.
If you don't want people to look up builds then make very simple, balanced characters without all of these "options" that typically mean just picking something sub-optimal.
Especially in Ashes, success should depend less on individual build and more on how well each player synergizes their Active Skills and Augments with others in the group.
So... DPS meters should mostly be useless in any case, because it's not about the DPS of an individual player, rather success should be the result of how the players stacked their damage with other players in the group and how they shored up the weaknesses of the other players in the group.
This is a great idea, in theory. As long as we can change out our talents/builds to match out teams easily. Maybe there is a rogue talent that adds a poison which gives +20 frost damage, which they pick because their best friend and duo partner is a frost mage, etc. If that talent choice (build) comes at the expensive of a +20 shadow damage one, and suddenly they both join a 10 man raid group with 3 shadow damage characters, then the rogue should be able to quickly change that talent choice.
Maybe they do something like only 5/64 classes and augments have +shadow damage talents. Only 5/64 have +frost damage etc. Now we have the ability to build a diverse team and try to hit all of the main spots by talking to each other and synergizing builds.
Adjustments based on a specific boss encounter should be through trial and error.
Also, by design, boss encounters change significantly after each time the boss is killed, so, again, posting builds should mostly be irrelevant.
Same with damage tracking on practice dummies.
Group combat should be more about learning to stack your damage and synergizing your abilities with the abilities of other people in your group, rather than hitting personal rotations as fast as possible.
I mean, we could still have practice dummies with teams practising on them before the boss fights... I don't see why we must ONLY learn how well we are synergizing by wiping on a boss and not even knowing that synergy was the problem to begin with. In almost every game I have ever played, I have gotten better by practising and experimenting in situations that weren't "performance" objectives.
Also, regardless of DPS meters, people are going to be posting builds online because it makes for good "content" and "content creators" are going to be talking about them. Meters just mean you either get to know how good you and your team are doing or you don't get to know. I don't see how the arguments for lack of this knowledge make the game more enjoyable.
Most of the arguments are basically about teams rejecting people because of dps checks etc. I mean people can still reject you for not being high enough level, or not having pre-quest completion, or not having resistances, or being too far away in world, or any number of things... People get rejected, its something they gotta learn to cope with.
Any information that is client side and not server side will get hacked and the resulting information will only be available to addons/hackers and not regular unassuming players. In my opinion, developers should make games where the UI does as much as possible that addons/hackers would do anyways, and do it better. Then ban the rest of the game breaking hacks and have ops that are active.
If they want to hide real world game data behind server side information then go ahead. But i still like the idea of having some practice dummies for teams to test and tweak their synergy ideas on.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Making builds is not something that everyone enjoys. For some people it is a stressful part of the game; they just want to play, knowing that their character is already balanced, and not stare at tree options for hours. If this wasn't the case, then people wouldn't be copying builds in the first place.
In Ashes, "balanced" is meaningless because encounters are dynamic, rather than static.
Also, again, individual build is not as important as how well the build works with the other people in your group against specific mobs in a specific loacation during a specific Season.
People copy builds when the gameplay is static. When you can also post the static combat behaviors of individual mobs.
If you don't want people to look up builds then make very simple, balanced characters without all of these "options" that typically mean just picking something sub-optimal.
People can post and look up builds all they wish.
Ashes is not designed in a way for that to be useful.
This is a great idea, in theory. As long as we can change out our talents/builds to match out teams easily. Maybe there is a rogue talent that adds a poison which gives +20 frost damage, which they pick because their best friend and duo partner is a frost mage, etc. If that talent choice (build) comes at the expensive of a +20 shadow damage one, and suddenly they both join a 10 man raid group with 3 shadow damage characters, then the rogue should be able to quickly change that talent choice.
Players can swap acquired Active Skills and Augments fairly easily. Might have to leave the Dungeon/Raid first, but I don't think you have to return to town.
Can't swap in the middle of combat, of course.
Maybe they do something like only 5/64 classes and augments have +shadow damage talents. Only 5/64 have +frost damage etc. Now we have the ability to build a diverse team and try to hit all of the main spots by talking to each other and synergizing builds.
Most likely it will be at least 8 out of 64 classes have access to the Shadow School of Augments.
Similarly, at least 8/64 classes will have access to the Elemental School of Augments.
That much will be based on choice of Secondary Archetype.
Social Org or Religion progression might also include Shadow or Elemental Augments.
I mean, we could still have practice dummies with teams practising on them before the boss fights... I don't see why we must ONLY learn how well we are synergizing by wiping on a boss and not even knowing that synergy was the problem to begin with. In almost every game I have ever played, I have gotten better by practising and experimenting in situations that weren't "performance" objectives.
You could try to practice on dummies.
Doesn't mean what you learn will be particularly useful during the actual encounter because boss encounters are dynamic, rather than static.
Ashes is not designed like previous, static games.
In Ashes, "balanced" is meaningless because encounters are dynamic, rather than static.
Also, again, individual build is not as important as how well the build works with the other people in your group against specific mobs in a specific loacation during a specific Season.
People copy builds when the gameplay is static. When you can also post the static combat behaviors of individual mobs.
But there will still be times where you are solo playing, won't there? I should be able to log my char in and go grind some mobs/farm some nodes without having to wait for a team before leaving town.
You keep saying that Ashes is "dynamic, not static", but by this do you mean that it is going to be like a diablo style randomized selection of resistances/abilities for every monster/boss? Like you go into a forest and the first "Grey Spider" is frost resistance with a web attack and the second "Grey Spider" is fire resistance with a ranged poison spit? How dynamic are you talking about here? During the fight itself they start switching modifiers around? Are all the monsters picking from a randomized table of modifiers every time they spawn? Or just the bosses? The devil is in the details here.
You keep saying that Ashes is "dynamic, not static", but by this do you mean that it is going to be like a diablo style randomized selection of resistances/abilities for every monster/boss? Like you go into a forest and the first "Grey Spider" is frost resistance and the second "Grey Spider" is fire resistance? How dynamic are you talking about here? Are all the monsters picking from a randomized table of modifiers every time they spawn? Or just the bosses? The devil is in the details here.
We got no clue Dygz just goes off what Steven promised years ago and keeps alleging, but we've yet to see/hear how exactly varied the encounters will be.
Comments
Well, you said it, not me (I hope you can take this lightheartedly).
It's not that I have any issue with the 'Dumbass Casual' player, it's moreso that just like games shouldn't be made for the UltraGymLords, it shouldn't be made for the 'Dumbass Casual' either.
It's the same situation. You could get a bunch of people going 'why the hell do you need a DPS meter for Armored Core, you're just trying to make the game easier or tell other people what to do', while never knowing that there are Ricochets.
I think it can be harder for the 'Dumbass Casual' to see why someone else has to care about the data. My bigger concern, always, is that they are also often the type to cause a meta, and without your level of openmindedness, it's normally a dismissive meta.
But I 'have to know how Ricochets work' because I don't use missiles, even for Baltheus. And while I'm lucky enough to be able to fight and track approximate Ricochet percentage at the same time, and I know enough to not only know how it is different from previous, but also how it nerfs things that should intuitively work...
Other people are not so lucky.
Or I guess I should say... 'For everyone else, there's missiles'.
Btw, I did manage to launch AC. 5 tries on the boss, with 2 of the non-win tries ending up at ~10% of his hp cause I got a bit too greedy and overconfident. I changed my build to the one I had before, so I assume I did acquire skill in beating this boss after those first 20 tries. Obviously rockets probably hit me less as well, but I feel like they weren't too much of a problem on my initial runs either way (well, on the later half of those attempts).
Still a shit score, cause I managed to die fucking twice on the penultimate mob
Got a B with a Better build now
Meters are inevitable so we just gotta take this thread to 200 pages for the hell of it
When WoW introduced cross server everything they essentially destroyed the community of the game. Just pointing out that sometimes things feel good but undermine what the game actually is.
I think best case scenario we let the settle for a while and see if they are needed. The DPS meter will just pressure performance over innovation or utility. Everyone needs to remember that you won't care as much about DPS when people who are speced for PVP come.
Best comprise I can think of is training Dummies that provide some feedback. Maybe an NPC you talk to will provide information back to you. This way it works like more of a training area and it keeps it out of the raid and the negative side effects that comes with it
Until 6, I'd have answered "Armored Core" personally.
Since 6 is simplified, I'd have to explain a lot about the differences between 3 or 4, and 6. Hopefully there will be a remaster with a more modern control scheme.
That's what AC6 makes me wish for. AC3.
You'll get to a certain Balam mission in Chapter 3 that embodies it toward the end of the mission. But I can't say if I just think so because I happen to not use whatever is simplest to just counter it.
Either way, the consensus from my group has been 'This only starts being like any older Armored Core game after Chapter 2'.
It's fine, we're discussing a True Hybrid Combat game with No DPS Meters now. NiKr's head has seen to that. Also giant robots.
Any attempts to rekindle the cinders will surely just ricochet off.
I actually agree in principle.
As I've said, trackers do have multiple effects.
In conversation with you, I've mostly been talking about the impact they have on what content developers can make.
However, they also open up a games meta - this is something I've talked in this thread about as well (mostly with Mag and Dygz).
If players don't have access to objective data, they will just take what other people say at face value, at least to start. If a build is said to be good, people will use that build and if more people say it's good, it starts to become required. In this scenario, if no one has access to objective data to prove there is a better build (either outright better or situational better) no one will dare if you think you have found one, they will want you using the known good build.
Give people a combat tracker though, and everyone has access to data to prove their build is good or not, there are more people posting good builds on forums and such, more people using more different builds, and thus more acceptance of a greater variety of builds.
It is worth noting that all of the above can only happen if the class kits are designed in a way where there are several equally good but different builds. If they are designed in a way where there is one clear winner, that is what people will expect, and that build will probably be obvious with or without a combat tracker. If this is what the class balance ends up being though, with combat trackers us players can put together essentially a report and tell Steven why he fucked up class design, leaving no real choice for players and we can use objective data to do so - but only if we are allowed to talk about objective combat data.
This is why I consider the FFXIV path to be cowardly. It is essentially preventing players pointing out flaws in the combat system, class design or encounter design to developers, with risk of getting banned if they do.
That isn't to anyone's benefit.
by giving me what im looking for, you are preventing me from discovering what i wasnt looking for.
If not damage meters at least have some kind of practice dummy that can help us be more knowledgeable about what we are doing. Also, the ability to tweak builds easily would be great. Part of the fun in these games is the discovery.
I mean, you are really grasping at straws here.
To answer this question though, first, people tend to not post builds if they think they are bad.
Second, in a game with easy access to objective data, and the freedom to discuss that data, people tend to build and iterate on the work of others. If a build is posted, someone is going to look at it and try to improve it. If they come up with actual improvements on the build (as in, do a better job of what the build in question is trying to do), then they would likely post it in that same thread, and if the OP is a reasonable person they would update the first post to include the new information.
If the OP isn't reasonable, the likely thing that would happen is that the improved build would be posted in a new thread, and the builds master thread that most such games sticky at the top of each classes forum section would be amended to include the new and improved version.
This is how improvements to builds has worked in every MMO I've played other than Archeage.
i wouldnt say data from a dps meter is objective, its subjective. it comes from different players. 2 players with the same character and the same build will have different numbers because they have different execution prowess.
still, even if "the top build" is posted, people will play this and try to improve it, but they will be missing out on experimentation and potentially discovering a better build. maybe someone will eventually discover it, probably some youtuber trying to make content making something different.
again, if you give me what im looking for, you are denying me the opportunity to discover what im not looking for.
So have I.
As I'm sure you could imagine, if I see a terrible build posted of a class I play, in a game with accepted combat tracker use, I point out the flaws in it and provide fixes.
Builds that are just for fun (and labeled as being just for fun) are their own thing. There is no point in trying to improve on them, as they are obviously just for fun (making use of a fun mechanic or ability or what ever). However, such builds shouldn't be used for pickup content or anything where people have a reasonable expectation that you would be trying to perform well. They are great for just hanging around with friends and such.
Data from a combat tracker is by definition objective. Subjective is a viewpoint or opinion, objective is a hard fact. Data from a tracker is just that, it is a hard fact of the performance you just put out.
If you and I are on a raid together, and the combat tracker says I do 500dps for the duration of the raid and you do 400dps, it is on objective fact that I did 500dps, and an objective fact that you did 400dps. Attempting to come to a conclusion based on that may well be subjective - but the numbers the two of us put up are objective data. Perhaps you were only present for half the raid and thus your dps while we were both present was actually higher than mine (though all of that data is still contained within the objective data that a combat tracker collects - you just need to look deeper to find it and as an example of how deep most people look in to the functionality of a combat tracker, look no further than the title of the thread). If a game with Ashes class system has a single best build, the developers really screwed up. Blizzard games have a best build, but that is because Blizzard want players to think they have choice, when really they kind of dont (this has been the case since at least Warcraft 3, possibly earlier - Blizzard are masters at giving players the illusion of choice).
If there is no scope left to discover a good build, that is not the fault of combat trackers. If anything, combat trackers are the tool that will allow you to do that. If players are able to accept or reject players from content, in the absence of objective data, players will simply reject people of any classes they are not familiar with. Thus, if you think you have the best class in the game for your archetype, you have no way of proving that to others. If a combat tracker is common, people will come to expect others to experiment, and will be more willing to accept non-standard classes. That said, they are likely still going to expect a minimum level of performance - if your build meets that performance, then great!
If you want to discover it yourself, don't go to places where people that may have already found it are telling others about it.
It isn't like people with combat trackers are going around shoving builds in peoples faces.
you can also have builds that are just too hard to play. they do top damage, but only in the right hands, so a dps meter stats from multiple players might indicate that this is a bad build, but in reality players are bad, not the build.
its like what happens in league. you have champions that are really hard to play but they are really rreally good. if you check win rates, these champions do not have a high win rate ecause many noobs pick them trying ot learn them and just sink the win rate.
or you have champions with high win rate among low ranks that cant really perform well at top elo.
so you when you look at numbers, you might think that x is goo dand y is bad, but its because of the players, not the actual x or y.
maybe subjective isnt the word, blame it on limited english. what would be the correct term in this case?
Especially in Ashes, success should depend less on individual build and more on how well each player synergizes their Active Skills and Augments with others in the group.
So... DPS meters should mostly be useless in any case, because it's not about the DPS of an individual player, rather success should be the result of how the players stacked their damage with other players in the group and how they shored up the weaknesses of the other players in the group.
Adjustments based on a specific boss encounter should be through trial and error.
Also, by design, boss encounters change significantly after each time the boss is killed, so, again, posting builds should mostly be irrelevant.
Same with damage tracking on practice dummies.
Group combat should be more about learning to stack your damage and synergizing your abilities with the abilities of other people in your group, rather than hitting personal rotations as fast as possible.
Yeah, the pure DPS data from a combat tracker shouldn't in itself be used to come to a conclusion. All it is telling you is that in the above situation, I am doing more damage than you.
In our above scenario, it may be that my gear is just better than yours. It may be that my group is giving me better buffs than yours. It may be that my rotation and/or ability priority is better than yours. It may be that I am getting in place faster than you after performing what ever the encounter mechanics dictate. It may also be that my build is better than yours.
The thing is, if we go in depth on the combat tracker, past pure DPS data, it should become obvious which of the above is the case.
If abilities that you and I have that are the same are hitting for more damage when I use them than when you use them, it is likely that either my gear is better than yours, or I am getting better buffs that increase my damage outright (context should tell us which).
If I am simply casting more abilities than you are, then it is likely that I have more casting speed increases than you, which again is probably gear or buffs (again, context will tell us which).
If we take our tracker and break it down to individual abilities, and lay your abilities, my abilities and the major attacks from the mob that require us to perform some action over each other on a chart, if I am consistantly getting damage in again before you are, then that tells us that I am getting back in position faster than you.
If we have a vastly different ratio of damage from each of our abilities (ie, the ability I deal the most damage with is only dealing the third most damage for you), then your rotation/priority needs work, or your build is sub-par (context should tell us which, though further experimentation may be required before pointing a finger at the build).
If you have periods where you are just not dealing any damage, then you are likely either dead, or distracted (have had guild members with somewhat disruptive children - it wasn't unusual for them to have to stop fighting mid fight to deal with an unrulely child). If you are dying often, then that could be gear, your build or the healer assigned to keeping you up (context should tell us which, and the tracker can tell us if it was the healer, and using this same process can help us work out why).
A combat tracker, if looked in depth, absolutely will give us the answer to these questions. That is actually what they are designed to do.
The problem is - again - most people don't even know a tracker can be that deep. Most people, even Creative Directors of in development MMORPG's, think of them as nothing more than something to measure DPS.
Edit to add; I should note that all of the above are real situations that I've been in. I'm not talking hypothetical here. You are right in that DPS in itself isn't going to give any conclusions, and definately not a specific conclusion. However, the deeper data absolutely can provide you with those conclusions.
Though it's obviously dependent on the pve design and we got no info on any of that, so it's hard to say how builds could be influenced by it.
yeah i agree
i never said they are useless, and at a personal level they can be useful so you can see which build you are performing better with. maybe an easy to play build is better for me than a hard build with top dps because i cant play it right.
but its hard to say online, unless you have the info of all players, but then most players arent good players, only a small percentage of players is, so most people might have the right build but cant use it. and some builds can go unnoticed because they are too hard to play, even though they are good.
even tho trackers are good at a personal level (and you can also use a training dummy) they probably do more harm than good at a global level.
do people even bother analyzing all your fights to invite you to a party? or they just ask you for a screenshot of damage and build? i mean, i dont know any1 who would spend 2 hours analyzing meter data every time they invite a player to the party to do a boss. so invite 5 random players = spend 10 hours deciding wether to keep them or not... so people dont go that deep i guess..
since there wont be meters and trackers and things telling you aoe is coming, mechanic is coming, we will see who the top players truly are. hopefully is can detect and get rid of these programs.
Making builds is not something that everyone enjoys. For some people it is a stressful part of the game; they just want to play, knowing that their character is already balanced, and not stare at tree options for hours. If this wasn't the case, then people wouldn't be copying builds in the first place.
If you don't want people to look up builds then make very simple, balanced characters without all of these "options" that typically mean just picking something sub-optimal.
This is a great idea, in theory. As long as we can change out our talents/builds to match out teams easily. Maybe there is a rogue talent that adds a poison which gives +20 frost damage, which they pick because their best friend and duo partner is a frost mage, etc. If that talent choice (build) comes at the expensive of a +20 shadow damage one, and suddenly they both join a 10 man raid group with 3 shadow damage characters, then the rogue should be able to quickly change that talent choice.
Maybe they do something like only 5/64 classes and augments have +shadow damage talents. Only 5/64 have +frost damage etc. Now we have the ability to build a diverse team and try to hit all of the main spots by talking to each other and synergizing builds.
I mean, we could still have practice dummies with teams practising on them before the boss fights... I don't see why we must ONLY learn how well we are synergizing by wiping on a boss and not even knowing that synergy was the problem to begin with. In almost every game I have ever played, I have gotten better by practising and experimenting in situations that weren't "performance" objectives.
Most of the arguments are basically about teams rejecting people because of dps checks etc. I mean people can still reject you for not being high enough level, or not having pre-quest completion, or not having resistances, or being too far away in world, or any number of things... People get rejected, its something they gotta learn to cope with.
Any information that is client side and not server side will get hacked and the resulting information will only be available to addons/hackers and not regular unassuming players. In my opinion, developers should make games where the UI does as much as possible that addons/hackers would do anyways, and do it better. Then ban the rest of the game breaking hacks and have ops that are active.
If they want to hide real world game data behind server side information then go ahead. But i still like the idea of having some practice dummies for teams to test and tweak their synergy ideas on.
Also, again, individual build is not as important as how well the build works with the other people in your group against specific mobs in a specific loacation during a specific Season.
People copy builds when the gameplay is static. When you can also post the static combat behaviors of individual mobs.
People can post and look up builds all they wish.
Ashes is not designed in a way for that to be useful.
Players can swap acquired Active Skills and Augments fairly easily. Might have to leave the Dungeon/Raid first, but I don't think you have to return to town.
Can't swap in the middle of combat, of course.
Most likely it will be at least 8 out of 64 classes have access to the Shadow School of Augments.
Similarly, at least 8/64 classes will have access to the Elemental School of Augments.
That much will be based on choice of Secondary Archetype.
Social Org or Religion progression might also include Shadow or Elemental Augments.
You could try to practice on dummies.
Doesn't mean what you learn will be particularly useful during the actual encounter because boss encounters are dynamic, rather than static.
Ashes is not designed like previous, static games.
But there will still be times where you are solo playing, won't there? I should be able to log my char in and go grind some mobs/farm some nodes without having to wait for a team before leaving town.
You keep saying that Ashes is "dynamic, not static", but by this do you mean that it is going to be like a diablo style randomized selection of resistances/abilities for every monster/boss? Like you go into a forest and the first "Grey Spider" is frost resistance with a web attack and the second "Grey Spider" is fire resistance with a ranged poison spit? How dynamic are you talking about here? During the fight itself they start switching modifiers around? Are all the monsters picking from a randomized table of modifiers every time they spawn? Or just the bosses? The devil is in the details here.
I highly doubt it'll be completely different