DPS Meter Megathread

13468974

Comments

  • @damokles Yeah I realised my analogy was slightly weak, so I changed it in my reply above yours. Adding to that slightly, I doubt an Army Captain needs to know how many bullets each of his soldiers has shot, how many they hit and how many they missed. There is a thing called information overload and I've known raid leaders in the past that tried to know everything and micro-manage everything that was happening in a fight. it never worked and usually just caused more problems and confusion

    I dont want to know everything as a raid leader, but i want to know who fucked up, who does not use his full class potential, who does take the most damage and from what he takes damage (is it avoidable, is it a soak mechanic, is it unavoidable), i just want to know where the cog does not turn in the right direction without taking the whole thing apart and put it together again...
    KkvMmA5.png
  • NoaaniNoaani Member
    I doubt an Army Captain needs to know how many bullets each of his soldiers has shot, how many they hit and how many they missed. There is a thing called information overload and I've known raid leaders in the past that tried to know everything and micro-manage everything that was happening in a fight. it never worked and usually just caused more problems and confusion.
    This is again absolutely true, however...

    A captain absolutely does need to know what weapons are being used against them. Ideally, they would want to know that before going in to a situation - and that is all a part of the objective information they should have access to.

    Sure, some people will try to micro-manage, but you can't blame a combat tracker for that. Someone that is going to micro-manage is going to micro-manage with or without a combat tracker, and is going to fail with or without a combat tracker.

    In this particular situation, the combat tracker is a non-factor - the outcome will always be the same with or without it.
  • @Damokles thats why u go in to the raid and find get to know mechanics, you make up strategies in case something happens. You ever done arenas in WoW? You have to constantly inform ur team of ccs and everything to finally create good synergy.

    You should also be pointing out whether ure talking about low or high end raiding. Obviously incapable players should not be doing high end raiding and instead practice in easier raids or dungs that have already been figured out.
    The idea of any game is not to throw starting player to the wolves, but let them practice on their own pace and with their own goals. The ones who want to go for high end PvE content will join appropriate guilds, others will improve on their own and build reputation if they deserve it.

    @noaani The information ure pointing out to be equal to ACT is actually equal to paying focus on the environment.
    You're seeking perfection, but your disillusions are leading to destruction.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member
    @noaani The information ure pointing out to be equal to ACT is actually equal to paying focus on the environment.
    The information I am pointing out is simply me pointing out that objective data is important. With the examples given, it is not a perfect comparison to MMO raiding, so a perfect comparison can not be made.

    What can be made in terms of a direct comparison though is the need for objective data as well as information from people doing the actual "thing" in question so that is the comparison I made.

    As I said two posts ago, information from players in your raid is important - but so to is objective data.

  • You can get enough of objective data can be learning boss mechanics, the environment boss exists in and how to abuse it.
    That's all that's necessary and I think the army example seems to fit quite well as the goals and the composition of groups are quite similar.
    You're seeking perfection, but your disillusions are leading to destruction.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member
    edited June 2019
    You can get enough of objective data can be learning boss mechanics, the environment boss exists in and how to abuse it.
    That's all that's necessary and I think the army example seems to fit quite well as the goals and the composition of groups are quite similar.
    That is subjective data.

    Radar, sonar, satellites, GPS. These are all things armed forces have developed specifically to get objective data out to the people doing the "thing" that is being done - and lets not even get in to the actual intelligence agencies that are devoted to collecting and both subjective and analyzing objective data (they prefer objective)...

    Generating objective data for the armed forces is a bigger business than selling them weapons.

    I mean, every smart weapon in existence is simply a weapon with objective data built in to it.
  • How is environment subjective data?
    You're seeking perfection, but your disillusions are leading to destruction.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member
    How is environment subjective data?
    It is subjective because you are observing it and trying to make sense of what it is you see. As such, what you see is only applicable from your perspective at that point in time.

    By perspective I don't mean in terms of vision (although that is a factor), but in terms of many different factors that can make us think we saw something when in fact we saw something slightly different.
  • Yet the actual reality is in no way affected by our opinions but is definite.
    Boss mechanics or environment dont care about our opinions.
    You're seeking perfection, but your disillusions are leading to destruction.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member
    Yet the actual reality is in no way affected by our opinions but is definite.
    Boss mechanics or environment dont care about our opinions.

    Exactly, that is why objective data - data that simply is what it is - is important.

    Objective data is data without the opinion. Subjective data always has opinions associated with it.

    Both are of value, both should exist, both should be used.

    The trick is in knowing when to use each.
  • The actual topic is that we can bare without objective data from an ACT.
    Playing without ACT doesnt mean we cant improve our dps, min/max our chars or find flaws in groups.

    We can get enough objective data to overcome and encounter even without ACT.
    You're seeking perfection, but your disillusions are leading to destruction.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member
    edited June 2019
    The actual topic is that we can bare without objective data from an ACT.
    Playing without ACT doesnt mean we cant improve our dps, min/max our chars or find flaws in groups.

    We can get enough objective data to overcome and encounter even without ACT.
    Well, technically yes.

    A combat tracker doesn't actually give us any data itself. All it does is take the data the game gives us and organizes it.

    Edit to add; organization is good.
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds
    Damokles wrote: »
    @blackhearted
    1. No, the downside is not a lessered social aspect. People can still play their own specs, but they just cant enter a damn raid, because raids are supposed to have standards, and if they bring nothing else but lol or subpar dps to the table, then they cant raid.
    2. Yes, it supports cookiecutter builds, that actually do what they are supposed to do (dps), not that other builds would not deal the modicum of dps required, but those other builds would in turn bring other things like buffs or superior cc cabilities to the group.
    3. No, a raid leader cant instantly see the culprit(which would be impossible without a combat logger), he wont be able to find the fault in the second or even third try. He would have to see every player over his/her shoulder, watch what they are doing, while doing his own job (which could lead to easy deaths if he was a tank or healer...) That would to lead to endless unnecessary wipes and a demoralized raid, which in turn would lead to a witch hunt for who ever does not pull his own weight.
    4. I would like to watch you try organize a raid, give commands to boss mechanics, do you own role and controll every player through his (if it is even implemented) standard combat log.
    1: Raids are not supposed to have standards - which is one of the reasons Steven plans to make raid encounters significantly more dynamic than we traditionally see in MMORPGs. Certainly, LOLs are not going to win a combat encounter, but there should be many viable ways to win the encounter besides one rote strategy that is relies on DPS.
    Steven wants to bring the RP back into MMORPG. As I said earlier, people should n't be telling me I need to switch my Ice Wizard spec to Repel Wizard spec just because a meter determines that Repel Wizard has higher DPS. Rather, we should figure how to maximize the strengths the Ice Wizard spec.
    There should be more than one way to skin that cat.

    2: Especially in Ashes, where people will have secondary archetypes, it should be possible for teammates to shore up whatever deficiencies some elitist thinks an individual character build should have. We shouldn't need to look at a combat tracker to tell some individual their DPS is subpar. Rather, we should be able to ask for more heals or more snares or more fireworks - and the people who have those abilities/augments help out.

    3: Analyzing raid performance would probably be up to several people rather than just one raid leader.
    I think Steven is anticipating several wipes.
    Wiping isn't demoralizing for those of us who care more about the social aspects of the raid.
    I'm an Explorer/Socializer. Having fun with people I like is more important than killing everything.
    It's the meters and cookie-cutter builds that lead to scapegoating, demoralization and kicking people from groups. In my experience, groups are always capable... it's just a matter of time devising a winning strategy.
    Elitists aren't interested in taking that time - they just want the fastest, most efficient strategy.
    And are most likely Achiever/Killers or KAs rather than Explorer/Socializers or SEs.
    I group with people first and foremost because I enjoy hanging out with them; not because they are tools to help me defeat content. More important for me to figure out to use to best advantage the abilities they like to use - especially due to RP - than it is to defeat the content. And, we've always been able to devise a winning strategy. Might take a bunch more wipes than elitists seem to have patience for.

    We actually should more often face encounters that force us to consider how we're going to change our tactics. Maybe we have to leave for hours or days and return with something else. Maybe one raid is not enough and we'll have to leave and grab more people. Or maybe we will have to destroy something in some other region in order to make the boss killable in its lair.

    People interact less with meters because everyone in the raid is either supposed to know the cookie-cutter strategy or blindly follow the instructions of the raid leader - rather than having conversations about how to defeat the challenge with everyone playing the way they like to play... as in the cookie-cutter strategy says Wizards should use Repel abilities, but our Wizards RP as Ice Wizards, so we have discussions to figure out how to make Ice abilities work rather than kicking them and replacing them with Repel Wizards who know the cookie-cutter strategy. People don't have to share ideas about what's going on because everyone already knows the route and what they are expected to do. Typically, it's just the "leader" barking orders about where to go and what to do...if there happens to be some people along who don't yet know the cookie-cutter strategy.
    Cookie-cutter builds are only thought to be absolute by elitists.
    Designers don't design towards cookie-cutter strategies. There will be more than one viable way to defeat and boss/dungeon/raid. And, from what Steven says, the Ashes devs will be designing their boss encounters to be even more dynamic - again, not just one way to skin that cat.
    Damokles wrote: »
    A raidleader (no matter the skilllevel) will never be able to see the misstakes of other players without a good combat logger. Do you know why wow classic was so much harder from a raid perspective? Because a raid leader didn't have the awesome combat loggers from today. A typical wow classic raid had at least 5 people that did nothing and were never found out because a raid leader cant do anything about it.
    I find it difficult to believe that a typical raid in classic WoW had 5 people standing around doing nothing - and nobody noticed until there were awesome combat loggers. Video or it didn't happen.
    But, even if that were true, it would indicate that Classic WoW raids were beatable even with 5 players doing nothing - harder, but not impossible. Harder without combat loggers is acceptable.

    I would probably have people streaming or recording the battle, so we would be able to review from several vantage points. It wouldn't just be up to the raid leader to see what transpired. Might even just have at least one person in each party/sub-raid record if we really cared that much about what individuals are doing.

    Although, a lot of what I'm getting from hardcore raiders is a paranoia about people "not pulling their weight" or "not doing what they're supposed to do" or "doing nothing". I don't have that mindset. Only thing I want the people I group with to do is have fun roleplaying the characters they've built - using the abilities they like to use while we adventure together. "Pulling weight" is not a factor for me. I couldn't care less about that.
    I'm sure everyone I group with will participate in some fashion. And that will always be good enough for me.
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds
    edited June 2019
    seaber wrote: »
    Dygz wrote: »
    When I soloed group dungeons in NWO, I still had to deal with timers - make sure that I killed the mini-bosses and bosses within a set window of time before certain actions were triggered, but that wasn't about damage per second. That was about damage within a range of minutes.

    There are 60 seconds in 1 minute so to find the dpm (damage per minute) from dps you just have to multiply dps by 60.
    Dps or dpm, it doesn't matter. It's the same thing. Damage per timestep.
    I said damage within a range of minutes - not damage per minute.
    By that I mean, there were times where I had to kill a mini-boss or boss within 5 or 10 minutes before the popped back up to full health. But, that wasn't about Damage per Second and really not about Damage per Minute. I just needed to be able to deplete the main boss' HP to 0 within 10 or 15 minutes or whatever that window was before they popped back up to max HP.
    DPS and DPM wasn't really critical.
  • Dygz wrote: »
    1: Raids are not supposed to have standards - which is one of the reasons Steven plans to make raid encounters significantly more dynamic than we traditionally see in MMORPGs. Certainly, LOLs are not going to win a combat encounter, but there should be many viable ways to win the encounter besides one rote strategy that is relies on DPS.
    Steven wants to bring the RP back into MMORPG. As I said earlier, people should n't be telling me I need to switch my Ice Wizard spec to Repel Wizard spec just because a meter determines that Repel Wizard has higher DPS. Rather, we should figure how to maximize the strengths the Ice Wizard spec.
    There should be more than one way to skin that cat.

    Oh really? Raids should not have standards? Did you really get that from any of Stevens coments about raiding?

    Because this: "There will be some in-depth raiding that has multiple stages that will be extremely difficult and... It would definitely be in the single digits of population that will be capable of defeating certain content... It doesn't mean that there won't be content available for the larger percentages as well... There should be a tiered level of content that players can constantly strive to accomplish. If there is no ladder of progression and everything is flat and all content can be experienced, then there is no drive to excel." is from one of his intervievs... This sounds like the fact that raids should have standards.

    I agree that A Combat Log should not be able to determine what content you are supposedly able to play, but there comes in the fact that IS will have to balance the damage of the classes in the way that they are all at least equal, if they focus only on dps.
    Dygz wrote: »
    2: Especially in Ashes, where people will have secondary archetypes, it should be possible for teammates to shore up whatever deficiencies some elitist thinks an individual character build should have. We shouldn't need to look at a combat tracker to tell some individual their DPS is subpar. Rather, we should be able to ask for more heals or more snares or more fireworks - and the people who have those abilities/augments help out.

    Again, look above. I always (at least most of the time) said that dps/damage meters should only be important for classes that FOCUS ON DPS, classes/specs that focus on other spects (like buffing, superior cc etc) should be exempt.
    Dygz wrote: »
    3: Analyzing raid performance would probably be up to several people rather than just one raid leader.
    I think Steven is anticipating several wipes.
    Wiping isn't demoralizing for those of us who care more about the social aspects of the raid.
    I'm an Explorer/Socializer. Having fun with people I like is more important than killing everything.
    It's the meters and cookie-cutter builds that lead to scapegoating, demoralization and kicking people from groups. In my experience, groups are always capable... it's just a matter of time devising a winning strategy.

    All raid leaders anticipate wipes, but we want to prevent them if we can. And a combat log allows us to prevent unnecessary wipes from idiots that cant or dont know how to do. their. jobs.
    People got kicked from raids before dps meters where not existent. I would kick you from the group even if you where my best friend, if it helped the group. Infact, i once did. Because one person can sink a ship. If you want to have fun, then go have fun. Raids are NORMALLY something for the best of the best, that want to push themselves further. That want harder fights, that want a challenge. That dont want to babysitt someone who wants to take it easy. We all want to explore. We want to challenge ourselves with enemies while crawling through ancient tombs and overgrown dense jungles.
    Dygz wrote: »
    Elitists aren't interested in taking that time - they just want the fastest, most efficient strategy.

    What is the problem with that? I also want to have the most efficient way to do stuff. I planned the ultimate leveling strategy for a human warrior once, before i even started him.
    Dygz wrote: »
    And are most likely Achiever/Killers or KAs rather than Explorer/Socializers or SEs.
    I group with people first and foremost because I enjoy hanging out with them; not because they are tools to help me defeat content. More important for me to figure out to use to best advantage the abilities they like to use - especially due to RP - than it is to defeat the content. And, we've always been able to devise a winning strategy. Might take a bunch more wipes than elitists seem to have patience for.

    It is fine and good that you primarely go with a group of friends and want to socialize with them. But you are not the most important thing in the world. You can just turn off the combat logger. No one would force you to use it. I played with tons of people who didnt have a combat logger and still did their part. That is not the problem for me. My problem with your argument is that you want to impose you "No Combat logs ever" whish, on those that actually want them. We want to push ourselves and who are you to tell us that we should not be able to?
    Dygz wrote: »
    We actually should more often face encounters that force us to consider how we're going to change our tactics. Maybe we have to leave for hours or days and return with something else. Maybe one raid is not enough and we'll have to leave and grab more people. Or maybe we will have to destroy something in some other region in order to make the boss killable in its lair.

    Yes, and IS will implement something like that. All abilities will be randomly cast, and all abilities will only be telegraphed by animations, leading to the evolution of raids to a more adaptable stile of gaming. Steven said that every time you enter a raid again, that the raid will change a bit. One mob could have tuned into a group of adds. The boss could be in another position entirely. That is good. That is something to strive for.
    Dygz wrote: »
    People interact less with meters because everyone in the raid is either supposed to know the cookie-cutter strategy or blindly follow the instructions of the raid leader - rather than having conversations about how to defeat the challenge with everyone playing the way they like to play... as in the cookie-cutter strategy says Wizards should use Repel abilities, but our Wizards RP as Ice Wizards, so we have discussions to figure out how to make Ice abilities work rather than kicking them and replacing them with Repel Wizards who know the cookie-cutter strategy. People don't have to share ideas about what's going on because everyone already knows the route and what they are expected to do. Typically, it's just the "leader" barking orders about where to go and what to do...if there happens to be some people along who don't yet know the cookie-cutter strategy.

    I always encurage my raid members to read the boss notes. But do you know what happens 90% of the time? They. Dont. Do you know why? Because they are lazy. Humans are lazy. That is in our nature. If we were not lazy, then we would not have had the drive to develop mashines. We would not have developed tools to make something easier. We would not have learned to ride a horse, or to make a car. We would not have learned to farm food, if we were not so lazy that we worked to make the future easier for us. I know that is a bit contradictory at first but think a bit about it.
    Dygz wrote: »
    Cookie-cutter builds are only thought to be absolute by elitists.
    Designers don't design towards cookie-cutter strategies. There will be more than one viable way to defeat and boss/dungeon/raid. And, from what Steven says, the Ashes devs will be designing their boss encounters to be even more dynamic - again, not just one way to skin that cat.

    Yes, Designers and Developers dont (normally *cough* wow *cough*) design a class to be a cookiecutter build. At least they should not. But humans like to make something simple (look above). We like to make things easier for us. That is why meta in games exists. Something is strong? Then we play that character/class. Because the human normally takes the path of least resistance. Because, You guessed it: We are lazy.
    Dygz wrote: »
    Damokles wrote: »
    A raidleader (no matter the skilllevel) will never be able to see the misstakes of other players without a good combat logger. Do you know why wow classic was so much harder from a raid perspective? Because a raid leader didn't have the awesome combat loggers from today. A typical wow classic raid had at least 5 people that did nothing and were never found out because a raid leader cant do anything about it.
    I find it difficult to believe that a typical raid in classic WoW had 5 people standing around doing nothing - and nobody noticed until there were awesome combat loggers. Video or it didn't happen.
    But, even if that were true, it would indicate that Classic WoW raids were beatable even with 5 players doing nothing - harder, but not impossible. Harder without combat loggers is acceptable.

    I would probably have people streaming or recording the battle, so we would be able to review from several vantage points. It wouldn't just be up to the raid leader to see what transpired. Might even just have at least one person in each party/sub-raid record if we really cared that much about what individuals are doing.

    And there we have it, a manual variation of a combat log. It could be easier, to do it with a part of easily programmed software. But no, you actually want to put more work into it, which is extremely commentable. But why? A combat log could do what you just proposed instantly. Without having to sift through the footage, where you are still lacking the most vital part: the amount of damage each player did.

    And about the wow classic raids being easier. Yes, they were. They had extremely simple mechanics (at least for our time), simple dot mechanics, simple dps mechanics and simple tank mechanics. Do you know why Blizzard could implement harder boss mechanics? Because we had combat logs. Because we could throw out the dead weight and concentrate our forces better. Subpar players could not enter raids anymore, because if they did, then the whole raid would suffer. I had people step out voluntarily, after realizing that their damage was not enough. They even thanked me to still bring them to the third boss, when other raids would have kicked them after the first wipe.
    Dygz wrote: »
    Although, a lot of what I'm getting from hardcore raiders is a paranoia about people "not pulling their weight" or "not doing what they're supposed to do" or "doing nothing". I don't have that mindset. Only thing I want the people I group with to do is have fun roleplaying the characters they've built - using the abilities they like to use while we adventure together. "Pulling weight" is not a factor for me. I couldn't care less about that.
    I'm sure everyone I group with will participate in some fashion. And that will always be good enough for me.

    It is good that you dont have that mindset, it measn that you are a nice guy. It means that you will be able to enjoy the game to its fullest without any responsibility. But that also means that you could never lead a raid. Because raidleaders have to do the hard decisions of kicking out nice people, that just dont do their supposed work.
    KkvMmA5.png
  • AzryilAzryil Member, Leader of Men, Early Alpha One Tester
    This game has attracted players with a large variety of play styles, which is all things considered a really good thing, but for the players that don't want to put in the work to get the most out of their role their should be no expectation of completing all the end game content. A casual "I just want to have fun with my friends" player will be restricted on what they are able to do.

    Personally I'm not concerned about dps meters used in a guild that is focused on raid progression, in general many of the members will understand how to use them correctly to determine why someone isn't pulling their weight. The problem I've seen in the past is pugs that only look at the list order and claim that the person on the bottom isn't contributing regardless of the reason, or the person on the top is super awesome and amazing despite the fact that he's padding on adds.
    k2U15J3.png
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds
    Damokles wrote: »
    Oh really? Raids should not have standards? Did you really get that from any of Stevens coments about raiding?

    Because this: "There will be some in-depth raiding that has multiple stages that will be extremely difficult and... It would definitely be in the single digits of population that will be capable of defeating certain content... It doesn't mean that there won't be content available for the larger percentages as well... There should be a tiered level of content that players can constantly strive to accomplish. If there is no ladder of progression and everything is flat and all content can be experienced, then there is no drive to excel." is from one of his intervievs... This sounds like the fact that raids should have standards.
    That says nothing about standards.
    That is about difficulty. Not at all the same thing as standards.
    It may only be that the top strategists can devise ways to defeat the content. That doesn't mean that one of those ways will become a standard or that becoming a standard strategy is even possible.
    Damokles wrote: »
    I agree that A Combat Log should not be able to determine what content you are supposedly able to play, but there comes in the fact that IS will have to balance the damage of the classes in the way that they are all at least equal, if they focus only on dps.
    I am missing your point.
    1: We know that the devs are not balancing classes to be equal.
    2: The devs will try to ensure that all of the primary archetypes are useful.
    3: Hopefully, what that means is that we will strive to find ways to synergize with and support the ability/augment combos individual teammates like to use rather than trying to force others into cookie-cutter builds.
    4: What Steven's quote means to me is that people in general will have to get used to the idea that there will be encounters they will have to leave for others to defeat. I hope that is the case. Completely clearing a dungeon or raid doesn't necessarily have to be the sole objective or motivation every time.
    Damokles wrote: »
    Again, look above. I always (at least most of the time) said that dps/damage meters should only be important for classes that FOCUS ON DPS, classes/specs that focus on other spects (like buffing, superior cc etc) should be exempt.
    They shouldn't be important at all. Even if we have them, they should just be icing on the cake.
    My point is that saying that the other classes should be exempt from DPS meters puts too much emphasis on DPS. Which is why I've said that if we're going to have a DPS meter, it should really be a combat tracker that tracks the participation of every archetype/role. But, even then, that should be icing...actually maybe DPS meters/combat trackers should just be considered to be the sprinkles.
    Damokles wrote: »
    All raid leaders anticipate wipes, but we want to prevent them if we can. And a combat log allows us to prevent unnecessary wipes from idiots that cant or dont know how to do. their. jobs.
    People got kicked from raids before dps meters were existent. I would kick you from the group even if you where my best friend, if it helped the group. In fact, I once did. Because one person can sink a ship. If you want to have fun, then go have fun. Raids are NORMALLY something for the best of the best, that want to push themselves further. That want harder fights, that want a challenge. That dont want to babysitt someone who wants to take it easy. We all want to explore. We want to challenge ourselves with enemies while crawling through ancient tombs and overgrown dense jungles.
    Again... to me the issue is that the raiders in this thread - and in general - seem to intrinsically have the concept of players being "idiots" and who "don't know how to do their job" and "babysitting" and people "who want to take it easy." I think the people who want combat trackers tend to have these negative attitudes.
    I don't bring those concepts into playing RPGs.
    Which is precisely why those of us who don't want DPS meters don't want them - because they end up being a tool to facilitate scapegoating and witch hunts.

    Damokles wrote: »
    What is the problem with that? I also want to have the most efficient way to do stuff. I planned the ultimate leveling strategy for a human warrior once, before i even started him.
    The problem is that you would kick your best friend from the group rather than finding a way to play with him.
    And that DPS meters make it easier for people to decide to do that.
    Damokles wrote: »
    It is fine and good that you primarily go with a group of friends and want to socialize with them. But you are not the most important thing in the world. You can just turn off the combat logger. No one would force you to use it. I played with tons of people who didnt have a combat logger and still did their part. That is not the problem for me. My problem with your argument is that you want to impose you "No Combat logs ever" whish, on those that actually want them. We want to push ourselves and who are you to tell us that we should not be able to?
    It doesn't matter that I can turn off the combat logger. What matters is how other people would use it.
    I'm not really telling you what you should not be able to do - it's not up to me.
    I'm explaining to you why the devs are probably not going to support DPS meters and why people who don't want them don't want them.
    Whether or not the devs implement DPS meters or combat loggers is up to the devs and their gameplay philosophies.
    Damokles wrote: »
    Dygz wrote: »
    We actually should more often face encounters that force us to consider how we're going to change our tactics. Maybe we have to leave for hours or days and return with something else. Maybe one raid is not enough and we'll have to leave and grab more people. Or maybe we will have to destroy something in some other region in order to make the boss killable in its lair.

    Yes, and IS will implement something like that. All abilities will be randomly cast, and all abilities will only be telegraphed by animations, leading to the evolution of raids to a more adaptable stile of gaming. Steven said that every time you enter a raid again, that the raid will change a bit. One mob could have tuned into a group of adds. The boss could be in another position entirely. That is good. That is something to strive for.
    ;)

    Damokles wrote: »
    I always encourage my raid members to read the boss notes. But do you know what happens 90% of the time? They. Dont. Do you know why? Because they are lazy. Humans are lazy. That is in our nature. If we were not lazy, then we would not have had the drive to develop machines. We would not have developed tools to make something easier. We would not have learned to ride a horse, or to make a car. We would not have learned to farm food, if we were not so lazy that we worked to make the future easier for us. I know that is a bit contradictory at first but think a bit about it.
    Again, this negative attitude towards people.
    Maybe they just want to actually play through the story and figure things out organically, rather than be spoiled by meta text.
    Damokles wrote: »
    Yes, Designers and Developers dont (normally *cough* wow *cough*) design a class to be a cookiecutter build. At least they should not. But humans like to make something simple (look above). We like to make things easier for us. That is why meta in games exists. Something is strong? Then we play that character/class. Because the human normally takes the path of least resistance. Because, You guessed it: We are lazy.
    OK. And maybe the devs want to get rid of that level of laziness.
    Here you seem to be saying the devs should be willing to support all the ways players might wish to be lazy in the game.
    I don't view this issue to be about laziness. Rather, the devs seem to wish to ensure that there are, in general, more viable paths to success than cookie-cutter builds and cookie-strategies.
    Which is why we have 64 sub-classes and several sets of augments (racial, religious, social, etc) rather than just 8 archetypes.
    The cookie-cutter approach is worse than me telling you what you should be be able to do. Because while I'm just explaining why people don't want DPS meters in the game and have no power to do anything about, when DPS meters are in the game, the people you use them actually do tell other people how to and how not to play and push other players to conform to their visions of class obligations.
    Damokles wrote: »
    And there we have it, a manual variation of a combat log. It could be easier, to do it with a part of easily programmed software. But no, you actually want to put more work into it, which is extremely commendable. But why? A combat log could do what you just proposed instantly. Without having to sift through the footage, where you are still lacking the most vital part: the amount of damage each player did.
    Because a video provides considerably more context. And people would see why someone's DPS or healing is low. It would be clear that people are not just standing around doing nothing. And it would be easier to demonstrate why an alternative tactic or strategy might be more effective. Or the group might be able to figure out how what an individual was attempting might be more effective rather than castigating the individual for not following the cookie-cutter expectation.
    It factors in the people aspect rather than just looking at numbers. Though that probably doesn't matter to someone who would kick their best friend from the group.
    Damokles wrote: »
    And about the wow classic raids being easier. Yes, they were. They had extremely simple mechanics (at least for our time), simple dot mechanics, simple dps mechanics and simple tank mechanics. Do you know why Blizzard could implement harder boss mechanics? Because we had combat logs. Because we could throw out the dead weight and concentrate our forces better. Subpar players could not enter raids anymore, because if they did, then the whole raid would suffer. I had people step out voluntarily, after realizing that their damage was not enough. They even thanked me to still bring them to the third boss, when other raids would have kicked them after the first wipe.
    Previously, you stated that classic WoW raids were harder until combat logger were implemented.
    Now you're saying that classic WoW raids were easier.
    "Subpar players" stepping out voluntarily probably points to poor boss/raid design.
    Damokles wrote: »
    It is good that you don't have that mindset, it means that you are a nice guy. It means that you will be able to enjoy the game to its fullest without any responsibility. But that also means that you could never lead a raid. Because raidleaders have to do the hard decisions of kicking out nice people, that just dont do their supposed work.
    Never is hyperbole.
    I don't attempt to "lead". I just help devise alternative strategies.
    The groups I participate in forming in have always been able to defeat the content eventually - without kicking anyone.
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds
    edited June 2019
    arzosah wrote: »
    This game has attracted players with a large variety of play styles, which is all things considered a really good thing, but for the players that don't want to put in the work to get the most out of their role their should be no expectation of completing all the end game content. A casual "I just want to have fun with my friends" player will be restricted on what they are able to do.
    In Ashes, it's not possible to complete all content in any case. Ashes is too dynamic for that.
    Also, Ashes doesn't have an endgame.

    Hopefully, it will be good that Ashes has attracted people with a large variety of playstyles.
    We will have to see how well we are all able to happily play with each other on the same server(s).
  • AzryilAzryil Member, Leader of Men, Early Alpha One Tester
    Dygz wrote: »
    Also, Ashes doesn't have an endgame.
    Raids, Castle Sieges, Node sieges, arena...etc these can all be considered end game. Content designed for max level players is end game content.

    k2U15J3.png
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds
    edited June 2019
    No. They can't.
    Raids, Castle Sieges, Node Sieges, arena are just general gameplay options - regardless of character level.
    Dynamic content continues even after reaching max character level - so, there is no endgame.
    Endgame is the repeatable content that max level characters to do while waiting for devs to implement new content.
  • @dygz
    No end game would mean that Ashes of Creation had no max level. All content at the level cap is end game content...
    KkvMmA5.png
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds
    edited June 2019
    Nope. Endgame content is the repeatable content that max level characters do while waiting for the devs to implement new content.
    In Ashes, the dynamic content does not end just because you've reached max character level.

    "Part of the whole experience with nodes is that there is no real end-game, in that the world is constantly shifting every day. Month one is going to be really different from month two; and that's for the level 50s and level 1s."
    – Jeffrey Bard

    "We don’t really have what I call an ‘endgame.’ Because the storyline can be constantly changing, there are new experiences at those higher levels that people get to participate in."
    – Steven Sharif
  • AzryilAzryil Member, Leader of Men, Early Alpha One Tester
    edited June 2019
    Dygz wrote: »
    No. They can't.
    Raids, Castle Sieges, Node Sieges, arena are just general gameplay options - regardless of character level.
    Dynamic content continues even after reaching max character level - so, there is no endgame.
    Endgame is the repeatable content that max level characters to do while waiting for devs to implement new content.

    You're just arguing semantics.
    Even if lower level player are present at a castle/node siege or a raid it doesn't mean they are actually able to contribute in any meaningful way, and I'm sure there will be arena brackets for lower level player, but max level players will almost certainly be placed in their own bracket to prevent lower level players from getting completely annihilated by the max level players.
    k2U15J3.png
  • DamoklesDamokles Member
    edited June 2019
    Dygz wrote: »
    Nope. Endgame content is the repeatable content that max level characters do while waiting for the devs to implement new content.
    In Ashes, the dynamic content does not end just because you've reached max character level.

    I would describe high difficulty dungeons, pvp arenas, openworld pvp and raids repeatable end game content...
    In my definition all of the dynamic content aimed for the max level characters would be endgame content.
    KkvMmA5.png
  • AzathothAzathoth Member, Braver of Worlds
    If castle sieges were limited to only max tiered players, or lower level players couldn't contribute much, that would be odd. I guess we shouldn't expect anyone to have a castle until a good number of their guild mates are max level? Odd.

    There is no content that is, as of now, unlocked only for max level characters. I suppose some dungeons could feel that way, but I don't know if they would have level-gates keeping out non-max leveled players. I don't think just because you hit max level and continue running around you are engaging in end game content.

    Also, I don't think DPS meters will be needed for any of the things mentioned here. But I do think some guilds, and likely some individuals, could personally benefit from them.
    57597603_387667588743769_477625458809110528_n.jpg?_nc_cat=105&_nc_ht=scontent-lax3-1.xx&oh=16e82247154b84484b7f627c0ac76fca&oe=5D448BDD
    +1 Skull & Crown metal coin
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds
    edited June 2019
    Damokles wrote: »
    Dygz wrote: »
    Nope. Endgame content is the repeatable content that max level characters do while waiting for the devs to implement new content.
    In Ashes, the dynamic content does not end just because you've reached max character level.

    I would describe high difficulty dungeons, pvp arenas, openworld pvp and raids repeatable end game content...
    In my definition all of the dynamic content aimed for the max level characters would be endgame content.
    Steven, Jeffrey and the rest of the devs don't describe that as endgame content.
    PvP arenas and open world PvP combat are not really repeatable content.
    Dungeon and raid content will only rarely be repeatable - for the most part, that content is designed to change session to session.
  • unknownsystemerrorunknownsystemerror Member, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty
    edited June 2019
    @azathoth They did say that the initial npc's inside the castles would be of a similar difficulty to defeat as the effort required to make a node into a metropolis. So if the npc foes are that tough it may indeed require many of your guild at max level. Though as you say, there will still be roles for those who haven't reached cap.

    @dygz Agree with the being able to farm dungeon and raid content. A lot of mentality I have seen in previous posts is from static themepark games where content is never removed or changed. We have been told repeatedly that terrain and content will change frequently. Those that think they are going to be farming the same instance in their node for months at a time with a particular boss or loot drop are going to be disappointed I think. Then again, until we see it in action it is all just speculation. Would have to go back and look but there was the one dungeon that started out with spiders at node level 3 and then had switched to undead at 4. Or I might have them switched.
    south-park-rabble-rabble-rabbl-53b58d315aa49.jpg
  • Dygz wrote: »
    PvP arenas and open world PvP combat are not really repeatable content.
    Dungeon and raid content will only rarely be repeatable - for the most part, that content is designed to change session to session.

    Well... can you repeatedly go into the world and find/pick fights with random enemy players? Yes, you can and that makes it a repeatable experience. The fights wont be the same but the concept remains.

    Can you go into different dungeons/raids again and again, no matter the difficulty (even though i could bet that there will be multiple raids and dungeons for max level people in differentiating difficulty)?
    Yes, yes you can making it: repeatable.
    I really mean repeatable in "repeatable end game content". It does not matter for me if they are not the same, what matters is if i can repeat the same principle multiple times. I dont care what they want to call it: Repeatable is repeatable.
    KkvMmA5.png
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds
    arzosah wrote: »
    Dygz wrote: »
    No. They can't.
    Raids, Castle Sieges, Node Sieges, arena are just general gameplay options - regardless of character level.
    Dynamic content continues even after reaching max character level - so, there is no endgame.
    Endgame is the repeatable content that max level characters to do while waiting for devs to implement new content.

    You're just arguing semantics.
    Even if lower level player are present at a castle/node siege or a raid it doesn't mean they are actually able to contribute in any meaningful way, and I'm sure there will be arena brackets for lower level player, but max level players will almost certainly be placed in their own bracket to prevent lower level players from getting completely annihilated by the max level players.
    It's not semantics.
    Max level content is not inherently synonymous with endgame content.
    The Ashes devs aren't going to beat players up for calling it endgame content - that much is true.
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds
    edited June 2019
    Damokles wrote: »
    Well... can you repeatedly go into the world and find/pick fights with random enemy players? Yes, you can and that makes it a repeatable experience. The fights wont be the same but the concept remains.

    Can you go into different dungeons/raids again and again, no matter the difficulty (even though i could bet that there will be multiple raids and dungeons for max level people in differentiating difficulty)?
    Yes, yes you can making it: repeatable.
    I really mean repeatable in "repeatable end game content". It does not matter for me if they are not the same, what matters is if i can repeat the same principle multiple times. I dont care what they want to call it: Repeatable is repeatable.
    You can call a girl a woman if you want to, sure.
Sign In or Register to comment.