Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!
For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.
You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.
Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!
For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.
You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.
Comments
All I will say as an answer to you, and to @Noaani is actually a partial agreement with what you said, here: "This is absolutely NOT TRUE! When the whole reward structure is based with loose factor and even scaling factor with how "well" you played then there is automatically a big drive for doing things that help you play better - meters being one of them." Of course it would be easier to have a meter for this. I 12000% agree. What I don't just disagree with, but am COMPLETELY AGAINST is the fact, that it HAS to be easier. Why? Let me figure it out on my own. What works and what doesn't. Let us all splash our hands around, facepalm ourselves, till we figure out what works for us the best way possible. I don't need or want any meters around to help me with that. It basically feels like a quest finder when questing. Where is the fun in that?
Yet you yourself are completely against a notification or aknowledgement of such a tool for the players to know who's requesting the tools usage or knowing who's doing it.
It's not your information. Period
You are quite literally a talking/typing paradox of double standards and hypocrisy of forcing your playstyle on others who are otherwise completely fine with the existence of a meter. Even if we are also fine with them not existing too, and prefer it.
You should take a real look at why you are being so aggressive here
If not then I am sorry to disappoint, but unless the release will contain gigantic balance change patch with public seeing it for the first time than on the release date you will have 100% best meta builds available - of course you don't need to go on the internet and use the guides, but you will be dipping in something that someone has already figured out.
Also if the game for you is to just be the explorer that can find the builds for the first time without any available guidence on the internet - then I am sorry, but AoC will not be for you, because it has open alpha and beta (unless they will change their mind)
Every base archetype will have the best recommended secondary archetype with a full build, and people will exclude you if you don't build one of the best meta builds - based on the balance ofc if they are comparable on the release!
― Plato
While it is possible in many games, one thing this relies upon to be true is for the nature of your intended targets to be static. That isn't the case in Ashes.
Look at WoW for example - even though it was considered top tier DPS back in the day, people now know that a fire mage is not the best DPS to take to Molten Core.
In Ashes, that means that if the state of nodes around you is such that you have a fire based raid that you are taking on, you will not want fire based DPS classes. On the other hand, if that node state changes and you no longer have that fire based raid, maybe that would be the best to take on. What is for sure though, is that it will change based on the content you are taking on, and the content that you are taking on will change.
Further, Ashes has the PvP element to it. Maybe you do have the best classes sorted out for the content you are about to run, all that means is that your raid is an easy target fpr a rival guild. They can just build counters to the classes you are running and demolish you. What you need to do now is to build some counter classes to the counters that they have, but that are still able to perform in the PvE content you are wanting to take on.
Basically, the "best build" to run is likely to be specific to each guild, and will be based on the specifics of the content they are trying to run at the time, as well as the general make up of the PvP they are expecting to encounter.
A combat tracker will help in finding these builds, but the specific build you actually run with will have to change often, as your targets will change often.
Of course, all of this will only ever happen if the game has a combat tracker. As Archeage has shown us (the game with the lowest amount of combat tracker use I have ever seen), without a combat tracker, there will be a meta created and people will be too scared to ever move on from it.
Even today, Archeage is using the same meta that was created during beta in Korea in 2012. That game is stuck in that meta, and the developer is in a situation where they are unable to alter the few classes that people play, because people will leave that game before coming up with a new class.
Add in the fact that Ashes rewards guilds based on how well they clear content, and without a tracker, guilds will be even more reluctant to let people run off builds. They will want to stick to what they know works, which is completely understandable.
To me, this would be the worst possible situation for Ashes to end up in - and I am assuming that you agree, based on your desire to want a meta that isn't just automatic.
There will always be that percentage of the population that wants a way to measure their own growth. Meters are an option, a means to quantify. Stil, too much information can also lead to toxic behavior as well so there's probably a balance or at least a "does the value justify the risk."
From the other perspective, is min-maxing the perfect execution of some chain of skills really want the game is aiming for or is it rather the right skill in the right moment for the encounter. If the game design leans that way then dps meters further loose value.
Personally, I fall in the pool of enjoying competing with my own performance and that of others but I've enjoyed MMOs where I had no idea how much dmg I was doing vs. others as well and didn't miss the meter one bit. Without a meter, the measure becomes "were we successful?" and that feels like the healthiest way a community can approach success.
If your question as to being successful was always answered in the affirmative, then I'd agree that combat trackers are not needed. I'd also suggest that the content was too easy.
When you get to the stage where you are asking my question though, answers are only possible with objective data, which is only obtainable with a combat tracker.
No other game has 64 possible classes, with having all of the weapons playable by all of them. There won't be a meta, because of the countering. None of the builds will ever stand on top, because it will ALWAYS have a counter. That is a given, with this amount of possibilities. I also think that this was their aim all along and thus they thought they wouldn't need a DPS meters, because a lot of classes will be playable for the PvE content aswell. I still don't see a single reason for it to exist, sorry. So, no. Your assumption is wrong, again.
What I hope for aswell, is that the numbers in enemy health (all monsters, boss or non-boss, all of them) would just not be there. Make it a bar, yes. But without numbers. And since there is supposed to be a combat log, I hope they make the data in there appear in percentage, rather than (e.g.) "5508,98dmg in 3 sec."
But again, I have to agree with what you said while answering @Hakavay .
"The issue here is that if you are not successful, the obvious question to then ask is; why?"
And I say ABSOLUTELY! And that is exactly the whole damn point!
My thoughts would be: "Why did I fail? What can I do better? What are the options? Oh my, there is so many. Let me go and try them all, one by one and come up with the best solution using my skill, knowledge and common sense!"
Your thoughts would be: "Why did I fail? Better check the numbers, so I know right away and don't have to spend all my time doing something useless... like... enjoying the game content, blah." <<< that's how I see it.
Still not convinced, and never will be.
I get where you are coming from, but as I said (and you agreed to it), Ashes brings too much new and unexplored content to the table. I think it's VERY wise decision to NOT make any DPS or ADD-ons possible, when testing new stuff like this. You should get rid of this mindset that you have from other games, really. It just doesn't fit in. Genre is same, yes, but so is Gothic 1-2 and Gothic 3... And I wouldn't compare the first 2 to the third... For obvious reasons... Or if you are not familiar with that, try comparing Warcraft III and the remastered version. Again, genre is same... but what about the content within...? I think you get my point by now.
Since I've been reading a lot of the topics in the forums, the most scary thing is people coming from other MMO's with the same damn mindsets, being used to their cookie-cutter experience. That is not just scary, but sad aswell. Especially when you are dead-end focused on "absolutely neccessary" things, that might have no reason to be present in the game, because of the differences.
I'm untainted, non-corrupted, so I decided I'm going to buy access to Alpha 2 <, make vids about it, stream it up and etc. I'm even bulding a new pc set-up just because of this.
My point is, I am not just going to discuss things on the forum. I am going in the game and make sure that I've done all I could from my position as a mere player, to make this game succeed as a "casual player going hardcore, proving WoW-ism wrong", just this once. I'm going to prove you wrong! Hopefully.. xd
There are - realistically speaking - 8 classes each with 8 different paths to spec down. There may be 64 named classes, but that is about the same as considering that fire mage from earlier in the thread it's own class
Even so, with that many classes and all the possible builds that come with that, people are going to stick to a meta for fear of being less effective.
Those numbers only open up options to the few people that are more interested in creating a build than in using that build. A combat tracker doesn't hurt these people.
To the bulk of the playerbase, they will stick to a meta either for fear of being less effective, or for fear of being left out.
The only way to was those fears - and thus free people up to use non-meta builds, is to give people access to objective data.
Thus is not *my opinion*, either. This is what has happened in all examples of games with low combat tracker use - the meta becomes stagnant and stale as people are scared to leave it. I think you are over estimating what a combat tracker can do.
If/when I and my guild fail, a combat tracker isn't going to automatically tell us what we did wrong, nor how to fix it.
We can look through the data and find some possibilities of what went wrong, but that is about it.
In order to fix it, we still need to go through that same process you do of looking at what options we have, figuring out which options seem like they would work, and then they them out. It is only after actually trying them out that we are able to get data from the combat tracker as to how effective the build is.
The process is basically identical to the process without a tracker, the difference is we have objective data, you have guesses and assumptions.
I am all for skill being a deciding factor in every aspect of a game, including class and raid builds.
The thing is, skill in this regard only exists in the presence of objective data. Decisions like this made without objective data are just guesses, and I don't consider guess based gameplay to be a good indicator of skill.
Basically, you and I want the same thing - a game where player skill is key.
You seem to think that combat trackers will remove player skill (likely due to experiences in WoW, with combat assistants rather than combat trackers). I think that objective data is essential to skill based gameplay, and objective data is literally the only thing a combat tracker provides.
I feel it worth adding - it takes more skill to accurately read a combat tracker than it does to play the game the combat tracker is tracking. There are also fewer people in most games that can properly read a combat tracker than there are people that kill the top end content of the game.
It is my honest opinion that this is a big part of the issue. People don't understand combat trackers, and so make assumptions about what they are doing.
Combat trackers have nothing at all to do with macros. I'm quite unsure how you could correlate the two.
This just goes further to my point that many people straight up do not understand them at all.
Oh, so you do not understand, as I suspected.
You will be pushing buttons with no objective knowledge as to how effective you are. I will push buttons knowing how effective I am.
There is no "justfication" involved in that at all, just knowledge and facts.
I am aware that in some parts of the world, and to some groups of people, facts are kind of going out of fashion. I, however, still place more value in facts than I do in anything else.
If you do not, that is fine. I fully support the ability for you to play Ashes in a way where you will not come in to contact with a combat tracker - something that can only be done if combat trackers are built in to the game.
Fantastic addition to the thread.
I shall meander around and ponder this thought and the implications it implies for a period, and come back in time with an adequate response.
Seriously though, if you want to discuss the topic, discuss it. I'm here willing to discuss this topic with literally anyone that wants to join in.
If you do not want to discuss this topic, why are you posting in this thread? To share your insights about how you think combat trackers and macros are connected?
― Plato
If you go through my posts in this discussion then you will clearly the evolution of my thinking, because my stance on people not using meters WAS just that they are bad players making excuses on why they don't improve.
I can see now that there is a legitimate concern to protect players from the possible misuse and abuse of meters. Even though I have never encountered that (must have been in guilds that did not do that) I can see that this is possible to happen and I can rally behind the idea to limit this abuse and misuse.
However I disagree with the idea that you need to remove something just because it can be abused to do wrong
― Plato
That is easily the worst argument for trackers. The issue with a given meta, that makes it feel oppressive, is that it is too firm. A subjective system is, at the end of the day, still wobbly though, because it's all just vague assumptions. It's like guessing the length of a tree at the end of a field. A popular opinion may establish over time, but at the end it can always be challenged, even if it is correct.
If you replace that guessing with a math formula, for one, you take out the human element. You present the cold, hard facts, and everything that doesn't agree with you is not just probably wrong, but provably incorrect. There can be no second opinion, only more facts. You've taken a tapemeasure to the tree and determined it to be exactly 12 meters tall. All who dare guess a number not exactly 12 are wrong and dismissed, forever, because the measurement is correct, and only one correct answer can exist at a time.
That, to me, is the most rigid a meta can possibly be. To be mathematical.
The human element is still in coming up with a build that may do what you want.
The combat trackers role in that is to provide you with objective data that your build should be able to perform as you expect it to, before you put yourself in harms way.
With your tree analogy, it would be like people first having to figure out if the measurement they want is to the highest substantial branch off the ground, the highest insubstantial twig off the ground, the highest leaf off the ground, the farthest leaf from the root system, the farthest insubstantial twig from the root system, or the farthest substantial branch from the root system.
The human element comes in knowing what you need to measure and why you need to measure it. The human element should never be a part of the actual measurement though, as that is an objective thing that does only have one answer - once you know which question to ask.
"A facet of game design I truly dislike (and many modern games have embraced it) is the trend of hiding statistical performance.
It doesn't lower frustration levels. It raises them and obfuscates the source of the frustration."
I've seen many people posting that they can figure out flaws and deficiencies without them, but that's just nonsense. You might, eventually and with tremendous effort be able to arrive at some real numbers without, but again that just goes back to the point of meters making things easier to identify as opposed to without.
The simple truth is, if you're really against this type of feature, you simply don't care to know about your performance. And that can be ok, to each their own. But what really isn't ok is imposing that mindset on everyone else, especially when it can be a totally optional thing.
I think we just have very different thresholds for what makes a good build.
To me, if a build works, it's good. If it can take on dangerous stuff, it's very good.
It seems to me that, to you, a build isn't good until it is understood and proven to not be built on false assumptions.
I know those types well from rpg forums like dnd or pathfinder, where the math is open by definition of the game and players spend weeks theorycrafting "optimal" builds for this and that. It usually begins with the sentence "You start out with a variant human" lol.
I do think that's a way to enjoy games that's totally legitimate, but at the same time, it hogs a LOT of space. Min/Maxers play dreadfully with people who are not, and vice versa, because the goals are so terribly mismatched it leads to constant accusatory fighting (see thread) with no real solution besides splitting up and sticking with players with aligning goals.
Specifically, I think Steven doesn't want the game to be all that inviting to min/maxing. Which, by the way, i find to be a completely legitimate business and design decision. Eve is a game directly targeted towards min/maxers, it's a great game but it's dreadfully dry to anyone who detests all the laid bare graphs and numbers. It even allows multiboxing to allow players, individually, to further this quest for efficiency even more. In eve, if you don't min/max, you will fall into obscurity, since you're willfully ignoring a huge toolbox of data meant to be optimized
The lack of a damage meter in Ashes, as I see it, is meant to specifically keep the toolbox empty. The toolbox is supposed to be empty to curb min/maxing and give non-maxers more breathing room to enjoy the game.
If you argue "well it's gonna happen anyway", i know, i get that. But them keeping it hidden and amongst themselves is probably the only way to keep these incompatible groups from annoying the everloving crap out of each other.
Min/maxers took over wow, and now classic is what it is. Not every game needs to cater to that philosophy.
In the scenario that they are optional in public groups: it's very simple if you introduce them "optional" you will end up enforcing them as a player on others. That is how "optional" works, there is no way around it. You will immediately exclude a part of the player base and put a barrier for players that join late. This is not WoW where the only activity is doing dungeons, raids, and PVP. there is going to be a learning curve and in this scenario having them "optional" is saying they will become a standard as people will enforce it on each other. No matter if they are personal or not, since there is no queue system you will get LFG Class X , XDPS min. and there goes your new player joining after a year ... being excluded.
In the scenario that they are guild, only the "optional" can be controlled but this would then also mean that there are a lot of restrictions in place. Such as guilds would have to pick this as a guild perk aka not able to increase size or get passive buffs, they should only be able to see the information from the guild members in a group. not the 3th party player aka the pug. + "Optional" should then also mean that only the guild leader and it's officers (limit number allowed) can see this information this makes it a unique feature with limited access. It would allow guilds to mentor their members.
As a response to The simple truth is, if you're really against this type of feature, you simply don't care to know about your performance. And that can be ok, to each their own. But what really isn't ok is imposing that mindset on everyone else, especially when it can be a totally optional thing
There are 4 players, 2 have a meter and 2 don't who is to say that any of these players do or do not care about their performance? The simple truth is that either group can be players that do not care. the 2 players that use/have it could be using it just to flash a number but actually know nothing about the mechanics and want to point a finger to hide the fact that they are not skilled enough. yet the 2 that do not use it might not have that big number to show off but could be part of the encounter without making a single mistake.
Of course in both groups, there can be people that have both the damage and the skill who is to say? you?
So why are you not happy with just having combat logs?
Any kind of tool shortens for many players their interest in a game, as they provide plenty of information that is pretty much a short cut to get to the top. This is with everything in life for a lot of people, if people can get something or achieve a goal very fast and master it they get bored.
As player retention is key within the MMO genre I do not see why not having a meter is imposing it others, it is an even playing field, while if you (if asking) for scenario 1 (optional for everyone) are the one really imposing it on others.
It should be allowed to be private insofar as it's available to everyone but not necessarily part of the default UI and not necessarily shared at all times. I don't think it's appropriate to try and combat elitism in the first place. There's very little reason to try and police people's behavior like that, in my opinion.
If people want to be elitist, i.e. look at DPS meters and distribute loot/invite people to groups accordingly, I think they should be able to. The choice matters. Making it less convenient for the choice YOU don't want isn't the right way to go about encouraging choice. The assertion that DPS meters are cheating is absurd, especially if the 3rd party meter we're talking about is simply comparing the built-in personal meters everyone would have.
That's akin to saying it's cheating to say "What was your DPS that fight? Mine was 500."
You're ignoring all the "options" out there in service of making your argument. There are bound to be groups ran by people who don't enforce meters. Nothing is forcing you to join public groups that choose to enforce them.
Again, nothing is forcing a person to be in a guild against their choice. Even if the choice could be made hard, it is still a choice.
That is not what my argument was. I said if you are against this feature, meaning here, on this thread. If your philosophy is that meters=bad, then you don't care about your performance. Because you're never going to KNOW what it is without a non-biased, strictly numbers based means of measuring it and comparing it.
That is just absolute nonsense. DPS meters has been a huge thing in WoW since almost the beginning, and people have been playing as long or longer than any other game out there in the genre. Meter's are not the end-all, they're just a tool to help you along the way. They don't actually kill the bosses for you, since everything still boils down to individual skill and reasoning ability.
Without a personal dps meter, you'll have to calculate your own dmg capabilities by testing on mobs. At the starting levels, you'll experiment with your limited abilities to get a sense of incremental dmg output, and by the time you're max level, you'll have a good idea of what your dmg output is even against different defenses.
In terms of raids, your field awareness will be challenged by keeping track of other party members' actions. Everyone is going to have to be more attentive and engaged to be successful, not just simply worrying about your own output.
Simply put, a tool is a means to an ease of life, but as helpful as it is, it takes away from developing personal expertise. Aoc is shaping up to be a hardcore strategical game with non-visible health bars and action-based combat, so the skills gained should reflect the game's level of difficulty.
There will be groups ran without one, never said that there wouldn't be. I am pointing out that by having one that is "optional public" you are automatically going to divide your player base. If the only game you played seriously is World Of Warcraft then you cannot understand this (no offense) it is pretty obvious that you are ignoring the behavior of a lot of players. So many have only used DPS meters because when they joined their MMO they were forced to in some way or the other as it is believed that it was required for content X.
If you are honest with yourself maybe it is the reason you started using them
The guild option is fair, why not make it a guild perk? the game is about making choices, so make a choice together with your guild in what you want to achieve and what you find most important in the game. Nobody is forcing you into a guild, there will be different ones from RP to PVP, Pve to Hardcore, ... pick the one with the perks you like and apply. Not sure if you read the "guild" part or maybe misunderstood it.
Never said DPS meters kill the boss for you, will also not claim that. I said it is a short cut and anyone that has used it will admit this. You even said it in your original post, it makes it easier to identify the numbers. With those numbers starts the process of aiming at the things you need to improve your char.
WoW is a bad example it had years to age and for many people, it was their first MMO, they compare everything to it. DPS meters in WoW have been a standard, it also has, in my opinion, the worst community (next to DC universe) in the end game.
It is clear that you are not willing to find a middle ground with people, you say that imposing our will on you is not ok. But when people offer you a guild perk you do the exact same thing. You impose your way of playing on everyone else, saying that it should be optional is just ridiculous, anyone that thinks about this for more than 2 minutes will know that it Optional --> will split the community and people will jump aboard one or the other group to be part of group X.
Again in my opinion: use the combat logs and be happy, or give an alternative such as the guild perk option
I agree with the base of your premise here, completely.
For the sake of argument, I'm going to assume no third party combat tracker exists - which I am able to do due to you knowing full well that this entire argument kind of dies the second one exists for Ashes. My argument here is that a combat tracker should be built in to the game, not that it shouold exist.
MIn/maxers in general do not play well with others. Most people that min/max simply can not understand how people could totally ignore the ability to play the game as efficiently as possible. Playing the game more efficiently means you are able to play more content in the same amount of time, and thus are able to enjoy more of the game, which is to say you will enjoy the game more.
To these people, the notion of ignoring objective facts is completely incompatible with being able to enjoy themselves. As such, they do not enjoy playing in groups with people that do ignore these basic objective facts.
However, this isn't a reason to keep these people out of a game - which is what not having a combat tracker will do.
Look at the family summons. It was first mentioned to us in an AMA iirc, and immediately people pointed out the obvious and disastrous exploits it opens up.
Rather than ripping it out of the game, Intrepid then finessed it. They talked about restrictions they can put on it if needed, in order to make it a tool that works for the intended purpose, but has minimal side effects outside of that.
This is the treatment a combat tracker should be getting.
There is no doubt that there are many players that could make use of a combat tracker in a way that benefits the game as a whole. There are also many people that will misuse it.
Instead of ripping it out because of those people that will misuse it, shape it just as the family summons is to be shaped. Make it work for those that will make good use of it, and not work for those that will make poor use of it.
This is - if nothing else - fair.
This is what the suggestion I have made in this thread for how to implement it is designed to accomplish.
Those min/maxers that can't understand why someone would ignore objective facts, they can simply only group up with people that are in guilds with combat trackers. They are the groups they would enjoy being in anyway, and the people not in such guilds are likely to not enjoy grouping with those people anyway - so surely that is a win/win situation.
Sure, it is segmenting the player base in a fashion - but no more segmenting it than developing a system where people that want to PvP more than PvE will join a more PvP oriented guild - in fact, it is literally exactly the same thing. I'm not sure if you have been on these forums long enough to know my stance on WoW.
Basically, it is a very well polished game, but underneath that polish it essentially got nothing at all right - including the way they handled their API (which is what led to the addons that WoW has).
Based on that complete disdain for that game, it is safe to say that I do not want to see anything at all from WoW in Ashes - including the general attitude of that games players.
However, if you have a system whereby only some players have access to a combat tracker - while others opted to take a different perk in it's place - then you have a system in which players can not simply assume others have access to that same level of data.
People in WoW are able to assume all other players are on the same page because all other players in WoW have no reason at all to not have a combat tracker. Give people a reason (a valid reason - not just because they don't want to) and that assumption dies.
To me, this would put the game in the best possible situation.
People that want to play efficiently are able to do so, and people that do not want to are able to not do so, with no one complaining about them not doing so as they do not have access to the data needed to play efficiently.
Edit to add; long reply, sorry. What I will say though, is that it is posts like yours that are why I am doing what I can to keep this thread alive. After 15 months and 1.7k posts, there are still worthwhile points to bring up and conversations to be had.
To the people that wonder why this thread is still a thing - my question is, why did you bother looking at it?
With a combat tracker, you test out your builds on mobs.
I don't see the different in that regard.
A combat tracker does not deminish the need to be attentive in combat. A combat assistant does, but not a combat tracker.
I'm assuming you are getting mixed up with "DPS meter" to include all addons that were popular in WoW, as that is the only real way your comments made sense.
AoC is shaping up to be a fairly casual game, with a high end of PvE content that is on par mid range WoW content at best.
I would be totally ok with no meters if the combat log would have extended functionality. I just don't see that they are willing to implement that nor the meters
― Plato