IMO when you choose to exclude someone due to their performance or build (which happens often, not always) you are choosing the easiest path to success. This path is more easily available to groups that parse combat data through dps meters.
The desire to obfuscate (or make less prevalent by not offering this feature) so that groups are encouraged to grow together and help one another become better by more old school/organic methods of trial and error, efforts in watching other people during the raid, by failing repeatedly until success is possible. Now, could people use meters to aid in this task? Yes, but in my experience it isn’t used in this way..more often it is an exclusionary tool designed to separate players.
You choose your build for for a strategy that is often part of a team effort to down a boss. DPS meters just give us a opportunity to see what is happening. Are we taking too much dmg? are we doing too little dmg? I understand why casual players root DPS meters to elitism and not being good enough. That is often from a inexperienced leader who does not know how to read one. A support character obviously is not going to do as much dmg as a full on dps class. Knowing the difference is huge and knowing what the class brings to the table is part of the leaders job. i think creating easy to use and transparent meters would be the better option.
A community can grow together with dps meters. it will be a more educated community and understand how to play their class better. They will literally grow their skills and knowledge of the game together. it gives a leader a tool to actually help a player that is struggling to succeed with meeting his personal goals vs running around thinking hes doing great when he is the one holding us back or for a good player to not know what he is bringing to the table is horrible. Who plays a support and has near no idea how big of a impact they are having on their group? That is the joy of playing a support class. Drop that wind fury totem and twist totems and watch as your buddy reaches a new personal best or we miss the dps meter by a second and knowing your support to the raid could have been the exact counter measure that allowed us to get that kill. This will likely cause more elitism. PVE guilds will have no choice but to be extremely selective and go back to leadership tactics i disliked very much with a super elitist raid leader who gives close to 0 chances and is extra elitist on simple things that likely do not matter. From my experience its a lack of knowledge that causes elitist mentalities not more information. I know we have all suffered from pugging or joining a small or below average guild who didn't know each classes strengths and weaknesses and just wanted to see output on his inaccurate dps meter. I assure you i understand as healing meters are extremely hard to read for even experienced raid leaders.
another point to put out there, when we enter a new raid as a top end raiding guild, we do not spec or wear optimal gear. we put on HP, shields, bring more healers, have people spec for more defensive capabilities, etc, so that we can see the fight and focus on mechanics and testing the content. The meters are being labeled "DPS meters" however its everything you can think of being looked at. I look at damage taken alot, deaths, healing vs over healing, and interrupts more than i do dmg. Dmg is the absolute last thing i typically care about when in a new raid. People from the outside looking in definitely only pay attention to our dps meters but the reality is we are more than a dps meter. We are a team that grew together with a similar mind set. We care about so many aspects more than we do dps. Meters should include everything so the raid leader can properly diagnose the issues instead of kicking a guy from the raid because i think he is doing something he isn't or is doing. Flying blind is bad for the entire community.
It needs to be remembered, Stevens MMO experience is not that of a high end PvE player - the games he has spent most of his time in don't even have a high end PvE.
This is why he absolutely should be listening to his staff in regards to high end PvE - or even better yet, handing control of it over to someone else completely.
I personally like to use DPS meters or any kind of data in general to improve my play style and to get better at finding a good rotation or a skill setup in general. I like to test a lot of combinations of skills, classes etc. The DPS meter doesn't need to show all people, just stats for myself would be fine as well. Something like a combat log would also help - e.g what kind of damage you took e.g physical, poison, bleed etc. For those who do not like this kind of UI and want to immerse into the world there should be an option to turn it on or off.
If you are in a raid tho there should be some kind of data for the leader to determine why a raid wasn't successful. Did the raid lack defensive, offensive or supportive capabilities? Without some kind of stats it's very hard to improve. You can try out all kinds of things tho to get through the raid but this might take a while and could lead to frustration if you tried the same boss 30 times.
I do not beleive a game with dodge (insert piccolo tfs yell here) mechanics and action rpg elements has a need for dps meters. I personally will be fine if they didn't add them into the game, specially since the roles will be finely stirred in a mix of blurriness.
I do not beleive a game with dodge (insert piccolo tfs yell here) mechanics and action rpg elements has a need for dps meters. I personally will be fine if they didn't add them into the game, specially since the roles will be finely stirred in a mix of blurriness.
Could you share why you believe that? Because I have actually polar opposite conclusion to your train of thought, however I have no problem to create an ingame "licence" that is required for you to use them (the licence being a guild perk is popular solution in this thread)
Mostly dps meters are effective only if your in stagnate combat with very little movement and relies majorly on roations. Which works fine for purely tab target games, but this game don't have 100% tab target, so unless the pve targets do nothing but stand still which goes against action rpg elements, it will be harder to gauge player skill with just numbers.
If they do as advertised and make this game an action rpg with some tab targeting, then the boss would be more actively moving then in say bosses in WoW, meaning your strikes, if they have cool-downs, can miss simply because the boss moved out of the way, or the npc humanoid dodge rolled out of the way.
Edit: It's also harder to create rotations if the target is on constant move like in most action rpg's. I think it'd be best to wait to see how mobs works in game before we can declare we need meters.
Everything you've written here tells me that there will be a big need for meters.
What you are writing about is the fact that with action combat skills there comes a player skill component that can further decrease the effectiveness of builds. Which I actually take as a pro meter argument, because if you cannot reliably hit things on the boss then the meter can tell you if it is worth to switch to more stable and consistent spec.
If in raid I miss a slow traveling projectile that gives critical debuff on the boss, because the boss is moving then I would want the raid leader to know that from a log or a meter that it missed, because I want to fully focus on playing correctly without mechanical errors and not be focused on watching that slow projectile to hit the boss.
Players that would use the increased performance volatility to discriminate players that misplayed have no real place in raiding and are always pushed away where their only island of safe existence are pickup public raids where people do not know them.
In all raiding I have done is going through meters taken as an act to improve the players that the guild has. You know willing raiders that want to improve are a really rare commodity in MMO's and even if you are really a slow bad learner then you will still have a pretty high chance to be raiding in a really great guild, because raid leaders value the most the players that want to improve. They don't care that you made mistakes, they care if you want to improve to not do them and practice not doing them.
Taking meters away is hurting guilds trying to teach their players to play better.
Everything you've written here tells me that there will be a big need for meters.
What you are writing about is the fact that with action combat skills there comes a player skill component that can further decrease the effectiveness of builds. Which I actually take as a pro meter argument, because if you cannot reliably hit things on the boss then the meter can tell you if it is worth to switch to more stable and consistent spec.
If in raid I miss a slow traveling projectile that gives critical debuff on the boss, because the boss is moving then I would want the raid leader to know that from a log or a meter that it missed, because I want to fully focus on playing correctly without mechanical errors and not be focused on watching that slow projectile to hit the boss.
Players that would use the increased performance volatility to discriminate players that misplayed have no real place in raiding and are always pushed away where their only island of safe existence are pickup public raids where people do not know them.
In all raiding I have done is going through meters taken as an act to improve the players that the guild has. You know willing raiders that want to improve are a really rare commodity in MMO's and even if you are really a slow bad learner then you will still have a pretty high chance to be raiding in a really great guild, because raid leaders value the most the players that want to improve. They don't care that you made mistakes, they care if you want to improve to not do them and practice not doing them.
Taking meters away is hurting guilds trying to teach their players to play better.
So you want a meta in a game being designed to avoid meta's?
I feel like I'm very late to the party on this, but this could have a considerable, detrimental impact on the game so I wanted to take and defend a stance that DPS Meters shouldn't be in Ashes of Creation.
There are variety of reasons that interweave with each other, being bad for the health of the game and the positive relationships in the community. Gamers are encouraged, in Ashes of Creation, to make their own path and play their character, in whichever content, as they desire and a DPS meter is at direct odds with that.
First, and somewhat foremost, is the long-term effects; obviously having access to this tool would allow players an easier time of min/maxing, optimizing DPS and a few other logistics for PvE. The other side of that coin is the experience of players who don't want to play the most optimal builds trying to get into group content and are either denied access because they're playing their own build or they aren't putting satisfactory numbers on the DPS meter. Even though damage output is a one dimensional evaluation of a player's contribution, the DPS meter will allow them to take the role of a scapegoat and be blamed for the group's failure and diminish their enjoyment of the game. It may also allow the community to set on the rails of a game that is focused on optimizated progress rather than community and exploring ways to play and progress.
Another point that ties directly into the previous point is how that demand for min/maxing, cookie cutter builds affects the class system. There are, essentially, 64(I think, my brain is fried after work) classes/combinations in this game in addition to the Schools of Augmentation for another layer of personalized character progress and builds. If a standard is set where one class and combination is dominant in one category, it will shoehorn players into that build, probably often times pushing them away from a build they would have naturally gravitated towards and tailored to their own liking. There are additional costs to a problem like this; in particular the time and commitment in progressing your character. If you have a character well half way or at max level and are unable to participate and have to reroll to be more involved in the community and content, that will feel like a tremendous amount of time wasted and CAN be a negative experience (sometimes starting fresh is as fun as it gets, I'll concede to that).
On the other side of the same coin of players piling into a cookie cutter build for optimal DPS, I think there would be some serious issues of other classes/archetypes getting overlooked; namely something to the tune of a Bard (huehuehue). Traditionally the Bard class is a more support oriented role, and I would be surprised if there are other non-heal/tank classes besides that which aren't intended for high damage but instead take a buff/support/debuff benefit. Some players will see the value in these classes and what they offer. Others, directly as a result of the damage meter, will not and will boil the game down to a matter of damage output.
When these occur in a way that the devs can observe and identify as a legitimate problem, they will likely step in and attempt to rebalance classes and abilities a bit, right? This rebalance would affect a tremendous amount of players who decided to take on their classes by the min/maxxing meta alone. These players will be in a pickle, leaving them between chasing another class that they either enjoy, the new optimally performing build, or abandoning the game (even if only for a bit) feeling frustrated and a little bit alienated by the hypothetical changes (let's be honest, they'd be nerfs to that class and buffs to others).
My own experience with these points have come from the last couple years playing a few mainstream MMOs, and discrepancy between World of Warcraft and Final Fantasy XIV embody these issues very well. Both of these games use a iLvL gear check system. However, WoW allows use of add-ons while FFXIV does not. When examining how players engage in end game content, WoW playerbase is much more fickle and exclusive in how they form groups and raids. Even when a player has an iLvL that is appropiate for the content, they will be overlooked - openly, even, by the leader of the group - for another class that is often a less risk/higher reward selection. There is no consideration for how good that player is, and how/when they perform, what they can offer the group - only the theory-crafted base DPS numbers.
That is contrast to FFXIV where, in end game content, knowledge of encounter mechanics is your most valuable asset. Groups may directly use your iLvL to measure your worth to that of the content, however, I have never personally witnessed a player miss out on a invitation to a raid simply because of their class' projected potential. Knowledge of the game is the barrier to entry in FFXIV end game content. Not DPS Meter production, and (AT LEAST TO A LESSER EXTENT!) not the build you've chosen.
-Although, also, to be fair there is not really much variation in builds in FFXIV, just choices of class. I figure these are interchangable in this context.
I have seen support for DPS Meters making a claim that communities aren't elitist and this trend doesn't happen. It does happen. A lot. World of Warcraft is a prime example of how this happens. Individual players are judged based on their build, rather than their abilities/knowledge of their build and game.
Elitism can also take different forms. Often times when a group is failing, one of the first things scrutinized is the healer's performance, followed by looking at damage meters for the lowest output. Advice on how the lowest damage player can improve can feel immediately alienating and like they're being blamed. Although a damage meter can tell a greater story, it is almost exclusively used as a "big number vs. little number" metric. That lower damage player may have been quite productive outside of flat damage output. Most of us have been on either side of this situation in a game at one point or another. We know how it feels to be blamed for the group's shortcomings, and we know we usually feel like the good guy when we try to offer constructive feedback to who we have subconsciously labeled as the dead weight. Your intentions and actions may not always line up as perfectly as you believe they do.
The most important factor, to me, among all this is how a DPS Meter ties into the whole philosophies and design choice of Ashes of Creation. Ashes of Creation is not a PvE game. It is not a PvP game. It is not a RP experience. It is not a gathering/crafting simulator. It is all of these. It is not a one-dimensional PvE meta game. DPS Meters pushes the communities very heavily toward a PvE focus. Elitism is inevitable, even without damage meters, purely as function of players trying to achieve the best results in end-game possible. However, these DPS Meters exacerbate the problem and will narrow the ways we can interact with each other and enjoy the game.
P.S., Do Devs Still Read This Stuff, Or Did I Just Spend An Hour After Work Typing This Out To Pat Myself On The Back?
I was a bit concerned about not having a DPS meter but after listening to some more recent-ish interviews with Steven I understand that it's actually not a big deal and have switched sides to being ok with no DPS meter. The critical piece of information for me is that "bosses/dungeons/raids will become more difficult and give better loot the better you perform".
If this wasn't the case it would be frustrating to not have a DPS meter because you don't know why you can't down a boss perhaps, how to optimize your personal performance and figuring out who isn't pulling their weight. But if most groups can clear content and the better you are the harder the content, the difficulty of the content becomes the DPS meter for the group itself.
The lack of this formal DPS information will also allow for creative ways for more dedicated players to test and optimize their personal builds and ultimately the GROUP is tested in their DPS and performance by the content not the individual, and therefore it is very fitting that the difficulty of the content becomes a DPS meter litmus test for the group, not individuals.
I think that because of the design decisions to make the content difficulty work this way, Intrepid has made it very reasonable to leave out a DPS meter if they so choose.
I am opposed to both DPS meters and the ability to inspect someone to see their gear.
An armory style website is right out.
That's the player's information and you shouldn't have access to it unless they want you.
0
Options
TimeraiderMember, Phoenix Initiative, Hero of the People, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Not to much of a fan of dpsmeters even though i was kinda forced to use them in FFXIV.
Lets be honest though, people want to know whether they lost dps by missing skills, miscalculating things or forgetting things without having to pay attention to them.
Well.. thats kinda the thing right.
Not having dps meters makes you have to focus on whats happening and what your skills are doing.
As much as i like FFXIV, after a while it becomes simply running a basic routine with dps meters....you just do the exact same walk and button press combinations every single time. You dont even know what youre casting anymore, just that casting spell A after 4 steps is the most efficient to get the highest number. What spell A is or does becomes irrelevant at that point.
And if the number is lower than last time, next time you walk slightly later left for those extra 100 deeps
Just throwing my opinion out there
A being can not judge light if he has never seen it, neither can he judge darkness if he never has been it
This is not to mention you'd have to build your character with both pvp/pve in mind, after all you need to defend your home node or your player house vanishes into the either until you find a new node.
I'm against damage meters. I'm not going to say they're altogether bad because they can be used to coach. But, it really takes away form the immersive-ness of the game and in my experience; in general people know how much damage they and their party members can do if they know the game they're playing.
I feel like I'm very late to the party on this, but this could have a considerable, detrimental impact on the game so I wanted to take and defend a stance that DPS Meters shouldn't be in Ashes of Creation.
There are variety of reasons that interweave with each other, being bad for the health of the game and the positive relationships in the community. Gamers are encouraged, in Ashes of Creation, to make their own path and play their character, in whichever content, as they desire and a DPS meter is at direct odds with that.
First, and somewhat foremost, is the long-term effects; obviously having access to this tool would allow players an easier time of min/maxing, optimizing DPS and a few other logistics for PvE. The other side of that coin is the experience of players who don't want to play the most optimal builds trying to get into group content and are either denied access because they're playing their own build or they aren't putting satisfactory numbers on the DPS meter. Even though damage output is a one dimensional evaluation of a player's contribution, the DPS meter will allow them to take the role of a scapegoat and be blamed for the group's failure and diminish their enjoyment of the game. It may also allow the community to set on the rails of a game that is focused on optimizated progress rather than community and exploring ways to play and progress.
Another point that ties directly into the previous point is how that demand for min/maxing, cookie cutter builds affects the class system. There are, essentially, 64(I think, my brain is fried after work) classes/combinations in this game in addition to the Schools of Augmentation for another layer of personalized character progress and builds. If a standard is set where one class and combination is dominant in one category, it will shoehorn players into that build, probably often times pushing them away from a build they would have naturally gravitated towards and tailored to their own liking. There are additional costs to a problem like this; in particular the time and commitment in progressing your character. If you have a character well half way or at max level and are unable to participate and have to reroll to be more involved in the community and content, that will feel like a tremendous amount of time wasted and CAN be a negative experience (sometimes starting fresh is as fun as it gets, I'll concede to that).
On the other side of the same coin of players piling into a cookie cutter build for optimal DPS, I think there would be some serious issues of other classes/archetypes getting overlooked; namely something to the tune of a Bard (huehuehue). Traditionally the Bard class is a more support oriented role, and I would be surprised if there are other non-heal/tank classes besides that which aren't intended for high damage but instead take a buff/support/debuff benefit. Some players will see the value in these classes and what they offer. Others, directly as a result of the damage meter, will not and will boil the game down to a matter of damage output.
When these occur in a way that the devs can observe and identify as a legitimate problem, they will likely step in and attempt to rebalance classes and abilities a bit, right? This rebalance would affect a tremendous amount of players who decided to take on their classes by the min/maxxing meta alone. These players will be in a pickle, leaving them between chasing another class that they either enjoy, the new optimally performing build, or abandoning the game (even if only for a bit) feeling frustrated and a little bit alienated by the hypothetical changes (let's be honest, they'd be nerfs to that class and buffs to others).
My own experience with these points have come from the last couple years playing a few mainstream MMOs, and discrepancy between World of Warcraft and Final Fantasy XIV embody these issues very well. Both of these games use a iLvL gear check system. However, WoW allows use of add-ons while FFXIV does not. When examining how players engage in end game content, WoW playerbase is much more fickle and exclusive in how they form groups and raids. Even when a player has an iLvL that is appropiate for the content, they will be overlooked - openly, even, by the leader of the group - for another class that is often a less risk/higher reward selection. There is no consideration for how good that player is, and how/when they perform, what they can offer the group - only the theory-crafted base DPS numbers.
That is contrast to FFXIV where, in end game content, knowledge of encounter mechanics is your most valuable asset. Groups may directly use your iLvL to measure your worth to that of the content, however, I have never personally witnessed a player miss out on a invitation to a raid simply because of their class' projected potential. Knowledge of the game is the barrier to entry in FFXIV end game content. Not DPS Meter production, and (AT LEAST TO A LESSER EXTENT!) not the build you've chosen.
-Although, also, to be fair there is not really much variation in builds in FFXIV, just choices of class. I figure these are interchangable in this context.
I have seen support for DPS Meters making a claim that communities aren't elitist and this trend doesn't happen. It does happen. A lot. World of Warcraft is a prime example of how this happens. Individual players are judged based on their build, rather than their abilities/knowledge of their build and game.
Elitism can also take different forms. Often times when a group is failing, one of the first things scrutinized is the healer's performance, followed by looking at damage meters for the lowest output. Advice on how the lowest damage player can improve can feel immediately alienating and like they're being blamed. Although a damage meter can tell a greater story, it is almost exclusively used as a "big number vs. little number" metric. That lower damage player may have been quite productive outside of flat damage output. Most of us have been on either side of this situation in a game at one point or another. We know how it feels to be blamed for the group's shortcomings, and we know we usually feel like the good guy when we try to offer constructive feedback to who we have subconsciously labeled as the dead weight. Your intentions and actions may not always line up as perfectly as you believe they do.
The most important factor, to me, among all this is how a DPS Meter ties into the whole philosophies and design choice of Ashes of Creation. Ashes of Creation is not a PvE game. It is not a PvP game. It is not a RP experience. It is not a gathering/crafting simulator. It is all of these. It is not a one-dimensional PvE meta game. DPS Meters pushes the communities very heavily toward a PvE focus. Elitism is inevitable, even without damage meters, purely as function of players trying to achieve the best results in end-game possible. However, these DPS Meters exacerbate the problem and will narrow the ways we can interact with each other and enjoy the game.
P.S., Do Devs Still Read This Stuff, Or Did I Just Spend An Hour After Work Typing This Out To Pat Myself On The Back?
I think FFXIV does a pretty good job of the DPS meter thing. Not in game, but if you're really really interested in it you can, but nobody really judges new players and if you speak the forbidden two words "DPS Meter" you get the BANHAMMA
Mostly dps meters are effective only if your in stagnate combat with very little movement and relies majorly on roations. Which works fine for purely tab target games, but this game don't have 100% tab target, so unless the pve targets do nothing but stand still which goes against action rpg elements, it will be harder to gauge player skill with just numbers.
If they do as advertised and make this game an action rpg with some tab targeting, then the boss would be more actively moving then in say bosses in WoW, meaning your strikes, if they have cool-downs, can miss simply because the boss moved out of the way, or the npc humanoid dodge rolled out of the way.
Edit: It's also harder to create rotations if the target is on constant move like in most action rpg's. I think it'd be best to wait to see how mobs works in game before we can declare we need meters.
I think you have some misconceptions going on here.
Combat trackers are not a tool for gauging player skill - even if that is what some people misuse them for.
Combat trackers are a tool for assessing builds of individual players, and builds of groups/raids to see how effective the build, as well as tools for learning information on combat systems, and encounter mechanics.
If a build in Ashes has a potential higher DPS than a different build, but is more succeptable to loss if the target moves, then a combat tracker will be able to tell you how each of these builds performs in different situations. It isn't telling you how good a player performs in relation to each other, it is telling you how well the build performs when played by each player.
Now, I agree that you need to run builds that are suited to both PvE and PvP, but everyone does. The need to run builds that can do both do not mean that players suddenly no longer need to not care about the objective performance of a build, but combat trackers assist in that.
Your points all seem to be based around the idea that a combat tracker would only be used to help players create the singular best DPS class, to the detriment of all other aspects. This is not at all true, as a combat tracker can tell the user about every aspect of the build they have used - if they put that aspect of the build to the test.
I feel like I'm very late to the party on this, but this could have a considerable, detrimental impact on the game so I wanted to take and defend a stance that DPS Meters shouldn't be in Ashes of Creation.
There are variety of reasons that interweave with each other, being bad for the health of the game and the positive relationships in the community. Gamers are encouraged, in Ashes of Creation, to make their own path and play their character, in whichever content, as they desire and a DPS meter is at direct odds with that.
First, and somewhat foremost, is the long-term effects; obviously having access to this tool would allow players an easier time of min/maxing, optimizing DPS and a few other logistics for PvE. The other side of that coin is the experience of players who don't want to play the most optimal builds trying to get into group content and are either denied access because they're playing their own build or they aren't putting satisfactory numbers on the DPS meter. Even though damage output is a one dimensional evaluation of a player's contribution, the DPS meter will allow them to take the role of a scapegoat and be blamed for the group's failure and diminish their enjoyment of the game. It may also allow the community to set on the rails of a game that is focused on optimizated progress rather than community and exploring ways to play and progress.
Another point that ties directly into the previous point is how that demand for min/maxing, cookie cutter builds affects the class system. There are, essentially, 64(I think, my brain is fried after work) classes/combinations in this game in addition to the Schools of Augmentation for another layer of personalized character progress and builds. If a standard is set where one class and combination is dominant in one category, it will shoehorn players into that build, probably often times pushing them away from a build they would have naturally gravitated towards and tailored to their own liking. There are additional costs to a problem like this; in particular the time and commitment in progressing your character. If you have a character well half way or at max level and are unable to participate and have to reroll to be more involved in the community and content, that will feel like a tremendous amount of time wasted and CAN be a negative experience (sometimes starting fresh is as fun as it gets, I'll concede to that).
On the other side of the same coin of players piling into a cookie cutter build for optimal DPS, I think there would be some serious issues of other classes/archetypes getting overlooked; namely something to the tune of a Bard (huehuehue). Traditionally the Bard class is a more support oriented role, and I would be surprised if there are other non-heal/tank classes besides that which aren't intended for high damage but instead take a buff/support/debuff benefit. Some players will see the value in these classes and what they offer. Others, directly as a result of the damage meter, will not and will boil the game down to a matter of damage output.
When these occur in a way that the devs can observe and identify as a legitimate problem, they will likely step in and attempt to rebalance classes and abilities a bit, right? This rebalance would affect a tremendous amount of players who decided to take on their classes by the min/maxxing meta alone. These players will be in a pickle, leaving them between chasing another class that they either enjoy, the new optimally performing build, or abandoning the game (even if only for a bit) feeling frustrated and a little bit alienated by the hypothetical changes (let's be honest, they'd be nerfs to that class and buffs to others).
The thing here is that a game will still have a meta, regardless of whether combat trackers exist or not.
There will always be a small sunset of any games classes or builds that players deem acceptable, and another subset that players deem unacceptable. This is not a consequence of combat trackers - as Archeage has shown us.
This meta absolutely will exist, and if players want to be accepted in to groups and such, they will run builds that players deem to be acceptable. Based on that, I would assume most players want those acceptable builds to be actually good (since most players will have no real choice other than to use them). The only wau to ensure the builds in a games meta are actually good builds is to make use of a combat tracker.
Additionally, if someone comes up with a build that is not a part of the games meta - not one of that subset of classes that players deem acceptable - the only way they can prove that the build they have come up with should be accepted is to use a combat tracker.
My own experience with these points have come from the last couple years playing a few mainstream MMOs, and discrepancy between World of Warcraft and Final Fantasy XIV embody these issues very well. Both of these games use a iLvL gear check system. However, WoW allows use of add-ons while FFXIV does not. When examining how players engage in end game content, WoW playerbase is much more fickle and exclusive in how they form groups and raids. Even when a player has an iLvL that is appropiate for the content, they will be overlooked - openly, even, by the leader of the group - for another class that is often a less risk/higher reward selection. There is no consideration for how good that player is, and how/when they perform, what they can offer the group - only the theory-crafted base DPS numbers.
That is contrast to FFXIV where, in end game content, knowledge of encounter mechanics is your most valuable asset. Groups may directly use your iLvL to measure your worth to that of the content, however, I have never personally witnessed a player miss out on a invitation to a raid simply because of their class' projected potential. Knowledge of the game is the barrier to entry in FFXIV end game content. Not DPS Meter production, and (AT LEAST TO A LESSER EXTENT!) not the build you've chosen.
-Although, also, to be fair there is not really much variation in builds in FFXIV, just choices of class. I figure these are interchangable in this context.
This is an argument against giving third party developers accesst o a wide range of data in the games API - something that literally no one is asking for. In fact, I completely agree with you on this point - 100%.
Thing is, this is not a combat tracker issue at all - not even close.
I have seen support for DPS Meters making a claim that communities aren't elitist and this trend doesn't happen. It does happen. A lot. World of Warcraft is a prime example of how this happens. Individual players are judged based on their build, rather than their abilities/knowledge of their build and game.
Elitism can also take different forms. Often times when a group is failing, one of the first things scrutinized is the healer's performance, followed by looking at damage meters for the lowest output. Advice on how the lowest damage player can improve can feel immediately alienating and like they're being blamed. Although a damage meter can tell a greater story, it is almost exclusively used as a "big number vs. little number" metric. That lower damage player may have been quite productive outside of flat damage output. Most of us have been on either side of this situation in a game at one point or another. We know how it feels to be blamed for the group's shortcomings, and we know we usually feel like the good guy when we try to offer constructive feedback to who we have subconsciously labeled as the dead weight. Your intentions and actions may not always line up as perfectly as you believe they do.
The issue with WoW is that the game allows players to be elitest. It isn't the combat tracker allowing it, it is everything in the game.
If you are in a pick up group in WoW, and someone thinks you are not performing as well as you should, they can boot you and know 2 things - first, they can have a replacement in seconds due to the LFG system. Second, they will likely never see you again and so there will be no social consequences to their actions.
In terms of top end guilds, it is a similar thing. These guilds know that their potential pool of recruits is literally everyon that plays the game. As such, they can treat any player in the guild like shit, knowing that there will be dozens of applicants to fill the spot should that player quit the guild.
These things are the core of what allows players in WoW to be toxic exist regardless of whether a combat tracker exists or not. You even go as far as to admit this in the following paragraph.
If you take out the LFG system and the ability to form groups across servers, all of a sudden that player that was thinking about kicking someone from the group won't be able to. That player is now someone on their server, in their faction, that they will see and likely want to group with again in the future. Additionally, since there is no LFG, if they kick the player, they will have to wait for a replacement to be found, and to then run to the dungeon - this could obviously take a long time.
In regards to guilds - without server transfers the recruitment pool for any guild goes from everyone in the game, to everyone on the server. This is a much lower number, obviously. Since this potential recruitment pool is lower, guilds will need to put a higher value on any given guild member. Not only will guilds be recruiting from their server, but in many cases they will want to stick to their node cluster - players coming to a guild from a different node cluster should be looked at with suspicion, even in top end guilds.
If you look at games with high combat tracker use, you can see that they don't all have that toxic element to them that WoW has. If you also look at Archeage (which has very low combat tracker use, but toxicity on part with WoW), you should be able to see that combat trackers are not the root of that toxicity and eliteism. This simply can't be the case if that toxicity doesn't exist in games with combat trackers, and does exist in games without combat trackers.
To me, the two things that have the most potential to cause the issue that you are talking about here - an issue I agree every game should avoid - are the family summons, and the potential to open up server transfers in the future. These two things open up the gate to toxicity - combat trackers do not.
As to the point you make about "big number vs. little number", a tool should not be blamed if it is used incorrectly.
A part of the reason I would like to see a combat tracker built in to the client of Ashes is because then Intrepid can provide actual information and training on how to use it properly, and it can be something that is openly discussed on the games forum, reddit and discord. This means there is more good information on how to use a tracker properly that is available to all players, which means more and more players will use it properly.
If it is a third party application (which is what is going to happen if it is not built in to the client), then players have every excuse to not know how to use it properly.
The most important factor, to me, among all this is how a DPS Meter ties into the whole philosophies and design choice of Ashes of Creation. Ashes of Creation is not a PvE game. It is not a PvP game. It is not a RP experience. It is not a gathering/crafting simulator. It is all of these. It is not a one-dimensional PvE meta game. DPS Meters pushes the communities very heavily toward a PvE focus. Elitism is inevitable, even without damage meters, purely as function of players trying to achieve the best results in end-game possible. However, these DPS Meters exacerbate the problem and will narrow the ways we can interact with each other and enjoy the game.
The only way a combat tracker will narrow the ways players can interact with each other is if combat trackers show us all that the game only has a single best option that is suited to all situations.
If that is what combat trackers show us, that is not the fault of the combat tracker, it is the fault of the developer.
Should that happen, the entire playerbase has every right to stand up to Intrepid and demand they fix it.
"bosses/dungeons/raids will become more difficult and give better loot the better you perform".
I actually completely dislike the notion of encounters becoming more difficult the better you perform. This gives guilds a reason to do a poor job on lower tier encounters in a dungeon, in order to make the higher tier encounters easier. They may get less loot, but it also means the difficulty threashold to killing these encounters is far lower.
When you are talking about open world content - where if we don't kill it now another guild will come along and challenge us for it - the idea will be to get "the kill", not to get the hard mode kill.
As such, this system is going to lead to every guild in the game cheesing their way to the hardest encounters in order to get the easiest version of the hardest encounters, so that they can kill them first and deprive other guilds of hard content.
It really is a fucked up system.
The *ONLY* way it will work is if it is only applicable to instanced content. If it is only applicable to instanced content, you now have a system where by guilds are not just rewarded for getting the kill, but in how well they get the kill.
This means the argument of "you did well if the mob dies" is no longer applicable. Players will want more objective data with this system in the game than without it, as they would want to know why they only got 1 drop instead of 3, and what they can do next time to make sure they get 3.
"bosses/dungeons/raids will become more difficult and give better loot the better you perform".
I actually completely dislike the notion of encounters becoming more difficult the better you perform. This gives guilds a reason to do a poor job on lower tier encounters in a dungeon, in order to make the higher tier encounters easier. They may get less loot, but it also means the difficulty threashold to killing these encounters is far lower.
When you are talking about open world content - where if we don't kill it now another guild will come along and challenge us for it - the idea will be to get "the kill", not to get the hard mode kill.
As such, this system is going to lead to every guild in the game cheesing their way to the hardest encounters in order to get the easiest version of the hardest encounters, so that they can kill them first and deprive other guilds of hard content.
It really is a fucked up system.
The *ONLY* way it will work is if it is only applicable to instanced content. If it is only applicable to instanced content, you now have a system where by guilds are not just rewarded for getting the kill, but in how well they get the kill.
This means the argument of "you did well if the mob dies" is no longer applicable. Players will want more objective data with this system in the game than without it, as they would want to know why they only got 1 drop instead of 3, and what they can do next time to make sure they get 3.
Well I mean you're making tons of assumptions here. First is how you think all guilds, or even the majority of guilds, thinks. You need to get better gear to take on harder content. Not all content needs to be "easy" unless it ramps up because you performed better. Some content will be inherently harder than others, regardless of the performance adjusted level of difficulty.
Another big assumption is the player density in these open world dungeons. We won't really know anything about this until they start larger scale testing I imagine. My argument isn't "you did well if the mob dies", my argument is that you will receive feedback regarding the group's performance by the dynamic difficulty of the content. I think a lot of other people provided tons of great reasons why not having a DPS meter is good. And yeah players will want answers and they won't have exact numbers to get those answers, but if you're suggesting that not having a DPS meter will leave players baffled and without a clue as to why they didn't get to a higher tier of boss difficulty + loot I mean that's just ridiculous. You can probably do more dps by getting better gear or optimizing your build, dodge more stuff etc and yeah it won't be as easy to do all these things without a DPS meter and thus begins creative problem solving. You don't need a DPS meter to tell you what you need to do better, but you may want a DPS meter to baby you through improving your build, however that doesn't make it necessary in any way shape or form. The bottom line is that no game is unplayable, and no encounter is too complicated to improve performance on without a DPS meter, it is a luxury and they've designed content around making it easy to live without this luxury it feels like.
In any case it is not clear how this ramp in difficulty will work because Steven has also mentioned that he hates scaling content. It did sound like there would be new/different abilities and behaviors the boss may have access to depending on the difficulty tier but I mean if it has more HP or does more damage, a lot of people (myself included) would consider that a form of scaling so I'm not sure what the implementation of this boss difficulty tiers will look like.
"bosses/dungeons/raids will become more difficult and give better loot the better you perform".
I actually completely dislike the notion of encounters becoming more difficult the better you perform. This gives guilds a reason to do a poor job on lower tier encounters in a dungeon, in order to make the higher tier encounters easier. They may get less loot, but it also means the difficulty threashold to killing these encounters is far lower.
When you are talking about open world content - where if we don't kill it now another guild will come along and challenge us for it - the idea will be to get "the kill", not to get the hard mode kill.
As such, this system is going to lead to every guild in the game cheesing their way to the hardest encounters in order to get the easiest version of the hardest encounters, so that they can kill them first and deprive other guilds of hard content.
It really is a fucked up system.
The *ONLY* way it will work is if it is only applicable to instanced content. If it is only applicable to instanced content, you now have a system where by guilds are not just rewarded for getting the kill, but in how well they get the kill.
This means the argument of "you did well if the mob dies" is no longer applicable. Players will want more objective data with this system in the game than without it, as they would want to know why they only got 1 drop instead of 3, and what they can do next time to make sure they get 3.
Well I mean you're making tons of assumptions here. First is how you think all guilds, or even the majority of guilds, thinks. You need to get better gear to take on harder content. Not all content needs to be "easy" unless it ramps up because you performed better. Some content will be inherently harder than others, regardless of the performance adjusted level of difficulty.
Another big assumption is the player density in these open world dungeons. We won't really know anything about this until they start larger scale testing I imagine. My argument isn't "you did well if the mob dies", my argument is that you will receive feedback regarding the group's performance by the dynamic difficulty of the content. I think a lot of other people provided tons of great reasons why not having a DPS meter is good. And yeah players will want answers and they won't have exact numbers to get those answers, but if you're suggesting that not having a DPS meter will leave players baffled and without a clue as to why they didn't get to a higher tier of boss difficulty + loot I mean that's just ridiculous. You can probably do more dps by getting better gear or optimizing your build, dodge more stuff etc and yeah it won't be as easy to do all these things without a DPS meter and thus begins creative problem solving. You don't need a DPS meter to tell you what you need to do better, but you may want a DPS meter to baby you through improving your build, however that doesn't make it necessary in any way shape or form. The bottom line is that no game is unplayable, and no encounter is too complicated to improve performance on without a DPS meter, it is a luxury and they've designed content around making it easy to live without this luxury it feels like.
In any case it is not clear how this ramp in difficulty will work because Steven has also mentioned that he hates scaling content. It did sound like there would be new/different abilities and behaviors the boss may have access to depending on the difficulty tier but I mean if it has more HP or does more damage, a lot of people (myself included) would consider that a form of scaling so I'm not sure what the implementation of this boss difficulty tiers will look like.
Oh of course there are some assumptions made, but they are not overly hard to imagine ones.
To the first assumption - guilds will not just look at getting gear for themselves, but also doing what they can to exclude rival guilds from getting gear.
This is, after all, a game where PvP matters. Any gear you can deprive your rival of is functionally the same as getting gear yourself - at least in regards to that rivalry. If a guild is in a position where they accept slightly lesser rewards than would otherwise be on the table, but in doing so means there rival guild gets nothing, it is a no-brainer as to what the best thing to do there would be.
As to player density, if a dungeon has a raid encounter in it, then it should be an easy assumption that there will be room for multiple raids - like, 3 or 4.
After that suggestion, your post seems to assume that top end PvE content should be about guessing, rather than knowing. There should be nothing at all in the game that is left to a guess - that is the antithesis of player agency. This is literally true - not just hyperbolically true or subjectively true. Player agency is the notion that players will be presented with options, and will have full understanding of the consequences of those options. Anything that is left to chance or left as a guess for players is not player agency.
Now, despite appearances, I am not actually arguing for a combat tracker to exist. I am arguing for a combat tracker to be built directly in to the games client. This game will have combat trackers - all MMO's do (even ones people don't think have them, like Archeage). Even Intrepid know that there will absolutely be ways for combat trackers to exist in this game - they said they think they have taken out most avenues by which this data can be collected, which means they know they have not taken out all of them.
It is also worth noting that Steven has not come up against a top end PvE community in any game he has played. He doesn't understand the difference in the resolve of a top end PvE player over a top end PvP player.
If your argument is that the "game shouldn't have a combat tracker because..." then I hate to say it, but you've lost that argument before you make it. I'm not even really that interested in a debate along those lines.
I am happy to point out why combat trackers are useful in general, especially to people that have outright incorrect assumptions about them (many people conflate trackers with all addons, and think combat trackers will lead to WoW Armory style websites and such). Pointing this out may well be mistaken as me arguing that combat trackers should indeed exist - but that is not the case. It should be looked at as me saying why they will exist in one form or another, in order to provide a frame around my argument as to why they should be built in to the games client directly.
So, while the correct use of a combat tracker is a discussion I am happy to engage in, my actual argument is that the combat tracker should be built in to the games client, so that Intrepid can place some restrictions on it.
If combat trackers are left to third parties, there will be no restrictions. If combat trackers are built in to the game, there can be restrictions. This is why the suggestion I have been making in this thread for a year now (that has been modified over that year) has many restrictions - they are designed to alleviate the issues (both real and pecieved) that players have with them, leaving a suggestion that is far better for the bulk of players than what we will have if Intrepid do nothing.
@Chunks
There will always be a small sunset of any games classes or builds that players deem acceptable, and another subset that players deem unacceptable. This is not a consequence of combat trackers - as Archeage has shown us.
This meta absolutely will exist, and if players want to be accepted in to groups and such, they will run builds that players deem to be acceptable. Based on that, I would assume most players want those acceptable builds to be actually good (since most players will have no real choice other than to use them). The only wau to ensure the builds in a games meta are actually good builds is to make use of a combat tracker.
Additionally, if someone comes up with a build that is not a part of the games meta - not one of that subset of classes that players deem acceptable - the only way they can prove that the build they have come up with should be accepted is to use a combat tracker.
You're accidently agreeing with me here, and backing up my points on most fronts. We concur that a meta will exist regardless, but you're saying a tracker would establish a meta and would be the only possible standard for marking a build as viable. Your idea hinges entirely on the concept that the general playerbase will take the time and have the comprehension skills to use the tracker correctly instead of a flat damage meter.
I take issue with these assumptions. The reality is, most people want the quick and dirty access to what they can easily relate to; most often being efficient damage output. They'll assume it's the best option and blindly build identically. Most MMO players are not innovators. They take the easiest route to success. You clearly have spent some time playing these genre. You know how these people are lol.
The concept that tracking this information will make it very easy to establish a viable meta is a very safe bet. And I'm against that happening. Out of 64 classes, you're on board with 85% of players using like 4 or 5 of those classes because the numbers told them to. The byproduct of that being the remaining demographic playing a solo game. Access to those numbers will allow theorycrafters to have concrete data to reference. I understand the benefit to it, but there is more to lose than to gain in this game for that topic. Namely, a varied playerbase.
It's super frustrating that you're just blatantly telling me that we should use tracking to form a slim standard for how to play the game, and everybody else is up creek, paddle 10 miles behind down river because they didn't build that way. The game should be accessible as virtually any player build. You're saying that players being pushed out of content because their level 50 character that took them two months to level up doesn't fit the min/maxed vision of how the game needs to be played. You cannot have an exclusive meta that you are supporting AND tell me that the underrepresented builds deserve help. You are asking for the problem to crop up and then say the player base deserves a solution.
This is what I do not want for this game. It is why I am attracted to this game. Everybody should be able to play how they like without concern for repercussion of their fantasy build. They should be able to experiment. To play what fits them. Having a meta form based on the optimal numbers is at the absolute, most direct odds with that.
As to the point you make about "big number vs. little number", a tool should not be blamed if it is used incorrectly.
A part of the reason I would like to see a combat tracker built in to the client of Ashes is because then Intrepid can provide actual information and training on how to use it properly, and it can be something that is openly discussed on the games forum, reddit and discord. This means there is more good information on how to use a tracker properly that is available to all players, which means more and more players will use it properly.
If it is a third party application (which is what is going to happen if it is not built in to the client), then players have every excuse to not know how to use it properly.
We just discussed it but I'm in for a round two. Most players will not take the time or care enough about these things to use a tool like that "correctly". If anything, the existence of it will motivate them to go explore the internet to see "what's the best class/build for Ashes of Creation" and then they can congratulate themselves on their damage meter numbers. I believe not having the meters will encourage them to just play the game on their own terms.
In fact, that has me now wondering, what metric do you use to decide a meta? If you have all this varying data tracking an abundance of things, sometimes with context, sometimes without, how do you apply some unknown algorithm to create this meta? For the most part, these numbers will be too all over the place and in a game like Ashes (as compared to WoW or FFXIV that's more sedintary fights) difficult to identify what exact story they represent. It feels like a shallow defense for these metrics being accessible, because in all likelihood it is just going end up being a story of "how much did damage did they do, how much damage did their defensives absorb/did the player receive" Without a second-to-second replay of everything happening in that encounter with a heatmap, there's no way you can collect any kind of data on how that build may have played dynamicly. Thus, we have the simplest form of risk/reward.
The only way a combat tracker will narrow the ways players can interact with each other is if combat trackers show us all that the game only has a single best option that is suited to all situations.
If that is what combat trackers show us, that is not the fault of the combat tracker, it is the fault of the developer.
Should that happen, the entire playerbase has every right to stand up to Intrepid and demand they fix it.
I think the situation can be avoided altogether. There WILL be a single best, all purpose build. There will be. That is just the nature of this, and any game. There will always be an optimal way to fill a particular pair of shoes. This seems like the wrong game for the mainstream demographic to try to min/max. There is room for it, for a particular demographic of players, and those players will be informed and skilled enough to discover it without using provided numbers and data. The players who aren't invested in the min/max pursuit will feel less pressure to follow without numbers constantly staring back at them from the UI.
Just a side benefit, as well; in the case that a class/build is extremely dominant, Intrepid being the only ones with access to the data can silently address the issue before it reaches the general player base. That way, players won't start following a cookie cutter design before a nerf hits and dramatic outcry begins.
If you reread what you said, you are telling me that you're pushing for a standard that players will have to accept or not participate in, enabled by this information tracking. Until you're (you are closing statement, btw) closing statement, at least.
We may be in agreement about the outcome, I really can't tell from seemingly mixed messages tbh, but we are on opposite sides of the fence on how to reach it. I think not having damage meters will avoid the problem. You think it will solve the problem that I think we can avoid to begin with.
As to player density, if a dungeon has a raid encounter in it, then it should be an easy assumption that there will be room for multiple raids - like, 3 or 4.
After that suggestion, your post seems to assume that top end PvE content should be about guessing, rather than knowing. There should be nothing at all in the game that is left to a guess - that is the antithesis of player agency. This is literally true - not just hyperbolically true or subjectively true. Player agency is the notion that players will be presented with options, and will have full understanding of the consequences of those options. Anything that is left to chance or left as a guess for players is not player agency.
Now, despite appearances, I am not actually arguing for a combat tracker to exist. I am arguing for a combat tracker to be built directly in to the games client. This game will have combat trackers - all MMO's do (even ones people don't think have them, like Archeage). Even Intrepid know that there will absolutely be ways for combat trackers to exist in this game - they said they think they have taken out most avenues by which this data can be collected, which means they know they have not taken out all of them.
It is also worth noting that Steven has not come up against a top end PvE community in any game he has played. He doesn't understand the difference in the resolve of a top end PvE player over a top end PvP player.
If your argument is that the "game shouldn't have a combat tracker because..." then I hate to say it, but you've lost that argument before you make it. I'm not even really that interested in a debate along those lines.
I am happy to point out why combat trackers are useful in general, especially to people that have outright incorrect assumptions about them (many people conflate trackers with all addons, and think combat trackers will lead to WoW Armory style websites and such). Pointing this out may well be mistaken as me arguing that combat trackers should indeed exist - but that is not the case. It should be looked at as me saying why they will exist in one form or another, in order to provide a frame around my argument as to why they should be built in to the games client directly.
So, while the correct use of a combat tracker is a discussion I am happy to engage in, my actual argument is that the combat tracker should be built in to the games client, so that Intrepid can place some restrictions on it.
If combat trackers are left to third parties, there will be no restrictions. If combat trackers are built in to the game, there can be restrictions. This is why the suggestion I have been making in this thread for a year now (that has been modified over that year) has many restrictions - they are designed to alleviate the issues (both real and pecieved) that players have with them, leaving a suggestion that is far better for the bulk of players than what we will have if Intrepid do nothing.
It is not literally true. You're trying to apply the concept of "player agency" where it does not belong. Then loot tables and damage ranges and critical strikes are also not adherent to "player agency" because there is RNG involved... that doesn't make sense. Player agency and the exact DPS numbers you pump out are unrelated concepts. It's not about guessing, it's about having to solve problems more intuitively and creatively. When you play sports in real life, you don't get numbers on how much force and velocity you moved your body to throw a baseball, and yet we all manage to get better and figure out how to improve.
Also, if there is room for 3-4 raids, it still provides zero information about the density of people in that space. That is a variable that will fluctuate but we have no idea what the average density will be.
I don't really have an "argument" I shared my opinion and you replied to it stating twice now "if this is your argument..." so to me it sounds like you have a point you're trying to make, which I honestly am not sure what it actually is. Are you saying we should be given combat trackers because they are inevitably going to exist? That's a silly argument that provides no information as to what they would positively add to the game, and if a feature does not have a positive impact on the game, and many people point out the negative impacts they have, I don't see why they should add it at all. Or are you perhaps saying they should exist in some form so third parties don't create them in another form? That doesn't make sense because if you're saying this information exists and people will create it, then they will create it to fit their specifications whether Intrepid provides us one or not, and it doesn't matter how they restrict or regulate the built in combat tracker so then we go back to the first question... if it doesn't add anything positive to the game what's the point?
I think if you hav a point to make, just make it clear and address this: what positive impact could a built in combat tracker provide the game that would outweigh the many negatives stated in this thread?
Edit: I also agree with pretty much everything @Chunks said above. I just don't understand why you think people NEED a DPS meter or combat tracker to be able to min/max. People will have access to tooltip information and can make spread sheets, it isn't that hard to theorycraft optimal crap and I'm sure it'll be on youtube pretty fast. But to make it easily accessible in game to test and quantify DPS only improves these "positives" if you think about it that way slightly while it brings with it all of the negatives pointed to above. People will know what the best builds are from theorycrafters that don't need DPS meters, but without DPS meters you can't have a witch hunt of suboptimal builds/DPS rotations as easily, I don't see what the problem is. You just need rudimentary coding skills and some experience with spreadsheets to try to figure out what's optimal, a DPS meter just brings about a lot of negative social interactions.
@Chunks
There will always be a small sunset of any games classes or builds that players deem acceptable, and another subset that players deem unacceptable. This is not a consequence of combat trackers - as Archeage has shown us.
This meta absolutely will exist, and if players want to be accepted in to groups and such, they will run builds that players deem to be acceptable. Based on that, I would assume most players want those acceptable builds to be actually good (since most players will have no real choice other than to use them). The only wau to ensure the builds in a games meta are actually good builds is to make use of a combat tracker.
Additionally, if someone comes up with a build that is not a part of the games meta - not one of that subset of classes that players deem acceptable - the only way they can prove that the build they have come up with should be accepted is to use a combat tracker.
You're accidently agreeing with me here, and backing up my points on most fronts. We concur that a meta will exist regardless, but you're saying a tracker would establish a meta and would be the only possible standard for marking a build as viable. Your idea hinges entirely on the concept that the general playerbase will take the time and have the comprehension skills to use the tracker correctly instead of a flat damage meter.
I take issue with these assumptions. The reality is, most people want the quick and dirty access to what they can easily relate to; most often being efficient damage output. They'll assume it's the best option and blindly build identically. Most MMO players are not innovators. They take the easiest route to success. You clearly have spent some time playing these genre. You know how these people are lol.
I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion you have here.
Yes, most people will just follow build guides. Most people can't be bothered coming up with a build of their own.
The few people that actually want to run a different build and also expect to be able to group up with others are likely the same people that know how to correctly use a combat tracker - so I am not sure where you are seeing the issue.
You don't need the bulk of players to be able to use a tracker effectively, only the ones that want to break away from teh meta - which as you yourself say, most people can't be bothered with.
The concept that tracking this information will make it very easy to establish a viable meta is a very safe bet. And I'm against that happening. Out of 64 classes, you're on board with 85% of players using like 4 or 5 of those classes because the numbers told them to. The byproduct of that being the remaining demographic playing a solo game. Access to those numbers will allow theorycrafters to have concrete data to reference. I understand the benefit to it, but there is more to lose than to gain in this game for that topic. Namely, a varied playerbase.
The game has 8 classes.
Each of those classes has 8 build trees that a player can use one of each. Saying that each of these is it's own distinct class is like saying a fire mage in WoW is a distinct class. The fact that they are named does not detract from the fact that they are simply something that players of the actual class can just spec in to almost at will.
Now, since Ashes is a PvP game, the meta is as much about countering other players and builds as it is countering PvE content.
If a given build is popular, people will go out and use combat trackers to come up with counters to it from various classes. Then when these counter-builds become popular, people will go out and use combat trackers to build counters to those counter-builds. This cycle will repeat, and at any point, any of the previous builds will remain a viable option based on what other builds people are using at the time.
This is the singular way a game can have the most varied meta - make it so the meta reacts to the meta, not to new content.
In a PvE only game, the meta is often fairly static based on the content people are working on. In a PvP game though, as long as new builds can be objectively assessed, the meta changes often based on what other players are doing.
As to that remaining portion of the population that would be playing solo - if they are not following the meta, they will be in the same place with or without a combat tracker. I mean, you have said youself that a meta will exist either way - and the only reason they would be left out is because they are not following the meta. There is nothing in that situation that a combat tracker would change - eithe way.
It's super frustrating that you're just blatantly telling me that we should use tracking to form a slim standard for how to play the game, and everybody else is up creek, paddle 10 miles behind down river because they didn't build that way. The game should be accessible as virtually any player build. You're saying that players being pushed out of content because their level 50 character that took them two months to level up doesn't fit the min/maxed vision of how the game needs to be played. You cannot have an exclusive meta that you are supporting AND tell me that the underrepresented builds deserve help. You are asking for the problem to crop up and then say the player base deserves a solution.
This is what I do not want for this game. It is why I am attracted to this game. Everybody should be able to play how they like without concern for repercussion of their fantasy build. They should be able to experiment. To play what fits them. Having a meta form based on the optimal numbers is at the absolute, most direct odds with that.
If we are able to objectively assess the games combat, and deduce that there is only a single narrow standard on how it should be played, you do not blame that objective data for this.
If you build a bridge, then I come along and use a calculator to show you that your bridge will collapse if the wind is just right, you do not blame the calculator.
In both situations, we all tell the person that designed the broken thing to fix it.
As to the point you make about "big number vs. little number", a tool should not be blamed if it is used incorrectly.
A part of the reason I would like to see a combat tracker built in to the client of Ashes is because then Intrepid can provide actual information and training on how to use it properly, and it can be something that is openly discussed on the games forum, reddit and discord. This means there is more good information on how to use a tracker properly that is available to all players, which means more and more players will use it properly.
If it is a third party application (which is what is going to happen if it is not built in to the client), then players have every excuse to not know how to use it properly.
We just discussed it but I'm in for a round two. Most players will not take the time or care enough about these things to use a tool like that "correctly". If anything, the existence of it will motivate them to go explore the internet to see "what's the best class/build for Ashes of Creation" and then they can congratulate themselves on their damage meter numbers. I believe not having the meters will encourage them to just play the game on their own terms.
These people will still look around for a build. They are not doing that because they can't be bothered with a combat tracker, they are doing that because they can't be bothered to think.
In fact, that has me now wondering, what metric do you use to decide a meta? If you have all this varying data tracking an abundance of things, sometimes with context, sometimes without, how do you apply some unknown algorithm to create this meta? For the most part, these numbers will be too all over the place and in a game like Ashes (as compared to WoW or FFXIV that's more sedintary fights) difficult to identify what exact story they represent. It feels like a shallow defense for these metrics being accessible, because in all likelihood it is just going end up being a story of "how much did damage did they do, how much damage did their defensives absorb/did the player receive" Without a second-to-second replay of everything happening in that encounter with a heatmap, there's no way you can collect any kind of data on how that build may have played dynamicly. Thus, we have the simplest form of risk/reward.
An individual player doesn't decide the meta - the meta is just what people in the game are doing. The meta doesn't even need to be "right" (as is the case in Archeage, and was for years the case in GW2). All the meta needs in order to be considered the meta, is to be popular.
However, I would suggest that it is in all players best interests if the meta is also good.
The only way a combat tracker will narrow the ways players can interact with each other is if combat trackers show us all that the game only has a single best option that is suited to all situations.
If that is what combat trackers show us, that is not the fault of the combat tracker, it is the fault of the developer.
Should that happen, the entire playerbase has every right to stand up to Intrepid and demand they fix it.
I think the situation can be avoided altogether. There WILL be a single best, all purpose build. There will be. That is just the nature of this, and any game. There will always be an optimal way to fill a particular pair of shoes. This seems like the wrong game for the mainstream demographic to try to min/max. There is room for it, for a particular demographic of players, and those players will be informed and skilled enough to discover it without using provided numbers and data. The players who aren't invested in the min/max pursuit will feel less pressure to follow without numbers constantly staring back at them from the UI.
Just a side benefit, as well; in the case that a class/build is extremely dominant, Intrepid being the only ones with access to the data can silently address the issue before it reaches the general player base. That way, players won't start following a cookie cutter design before a nerf hits and dramatic outcry begins.
If you reread what you said, you are telling me that you're pushing for a standard that players will have to accept or not participate in, enabled by this information tracking. Until you're (you are closing statement, btw) closing statement, at least.
We may be in agreement about the outcome, I really can't tell from seemingly mixed messages tbh, but we are on opposite sides of the fence on how to reach it. I think not having damage meters will avoid the problem. You think it will solve the problem that I think we can avoid to begin with.
.... I think.
I completely disagree that there will be a single best build.
If your server has a lot of tank/summoners on it, but mine has a lot of tank/mages on it, then the build we consider to be the best for the class we are playing may well be vastly different. You may want one to take out tank/summoners easily, while I want one to take out tank/mages easily.
If there is the ability to actually objectively assess builds, then things like the inter-guild political state of a server can and will affect the meta of that server.
Without the ability to objectively assess builds, the meta will be the same for the game, and will be either agonizingly slow to change, or simply won't change at all (as per Archeage).
Of every MMO ever released, this game stands to have the most unique situations where a player or a guild would want to min/max things.
If there is a single class that is able to be the rock while every other class is scissors, then that is obviously broken. It wouldn't take a combat tracker to point that out - combat trackers are only needed to point out the subtle things, not hte smack around the case obvious things like one class is able to dominate every other class.
If that happens, the game is broken with or without a combat tracker.
When you play sports in real life, you don't get numbers on how much force and velocity you moved your body to throw a baseball, and yet we all manage to get better and figure out how to improve.
Top end players do.
Sport science is a multi-billion dollar industry.
Also, if there is room for 3-4 raids, it still provides zero information about the density of people in that space. That is a variable that will fluctuate but we have no idea what the average density will be.
Have you played games with open raid dungeons? I have, for years.
If you are in a dungeon and you know the boss is up (spotters and spawn timers are a thing), then you know where you are heading. If there is a guild in front of you, you have a clear shot to where ever that guild is - because they killed everything between the entrance and where you are. Base population in raid zones takes 3 or 4 times longer to respawn (by necessity) than base population in a single group zone, so chances are if the boss is not down, there is a clear path to the guild that has been clearing their way to it.
If there is another guild able to take the encounter on, they will be there.
to me it sounds like you have a point you're trying to make, which I honestly am not sure what it actually is.
This thread is essentially the point I am trying to make.
I will break it down for you though.
There are a small number of valid reasons some people do not want a combat tracker. These reasons are not in regards to why a combat tracker shouldn't exist, but rather why they shouldn't have to use one (or have one used on them).
There are a small number of reasons as to why combat trackers are very good - if not actually essential - for the health of the game. However, not all players need combat trackers for this to be true.
One of those reasons is that a combat tracker is the only way players can review Intrepids combat system. Players with a combat tracker will always be able to find more bugs and issues in a combat system than any amount of QA or testing a developer can do, because as of 3 months after launch, top end players know the combat system better than the people that made it. They know how they think it functions, we know how it actually functions - this is why developers use top end guilds to test content - their developers are simply not capable of using the combat system they created as well as top end players can.
I have yet to see a game where a combat tracker was not used to point out seemingly impossible to notice bugs with the game, that developers have then fixed. This in itself is reason to want combat trackers in any game - assuming the issues that some players have can be dealt with. Even if you forget that they will exist, this is reason for all players to want them to exist.
So, the idea now is to deal with those issues from above.
Players don't want to be forced to use a combat tracker and they don't want others using combat trackers on them. These two things are the root cause of everything players have against combat trackers. If you make these two things not possible, the actual issues people have with combat trackers go away.
So, the suggestion made eliminates these things from happening. In order to use a combat tracker, or to have someone use a combat tracker on you, you would need to actively allow it - by joining a guild that has taken that specific perk in place of a perk that would be more suited to PvP guild, casual guilds, crafting guilds, casual guilds, etc. Since most players tend to join guilds with players that enjoy playing the game in the same manner as each other, this means that the people that enjoy using combat trackers are likely to all be in only a few guilds, and those few guilds are likely to pick the combat tracker perk over the others.
So now you have a game where people that want to use combat trackers can, and people that don't want to use them and/or don't want others to use combat trackers on them are able to have that as well.
This has eliminated the actual issues people have with combat trackers, while still leaving them in the hands of the people that want to use them, and will use them well for the benefit of the whole game (and for their guild, of course).
Now, when you start talking about a games meta and such, literally the only impact combat trackers will have on it is that they will allow builds to be assessed faster, and the builds that exist can be known to be fairly good, rather than assumed to be. Players that follow the meta will follow it, players that don't, won't. Combat trackers do not alter these things.
Speeding up the games meta is a fantastic thing, if you want the game to have a varied meta at least. The faster a new build can be created to counter an existing popular build, the better.
I just don't understand why you think people NEED a DPS meter or combat tracker to be able to min/max. People will have access to tooltip information and can make spread sheets, it isn't that hard to theorycraft optimal crap and I'm sure it'll be on youtube pretty fast.
I have, in several games (and several times over in some games) used combat trackers to point out to developers that the tool tips on abilities were wrong.
If you want to rely on tool tips to work things out, that's perfectly fine. All I ask is that you not get in my way when I attempt to make sure that data in your tool tips is actually accurate.
Yeah sure, when people's livelihoods and income is dependent on sports performance you can justify that sort of science but like we both agree, people who want it can probably create the tool anyways.
I don't even understand how else to communicate with you on the player density point. We do not know how many people will exist in the world around each dungeon/raid and how frequently you will bump into one another. You can claim otherwise, but this information is simply non-existent because there is no populated server to provide this information.
I don't really see the point in this conversation anymore, but if you already know people will create something like this (DPS meter/combat tracker), then just use it and let those who want to use it seek it out and use it too. The simple fact of its in-game sanctioned availability has a lot more social consequences than you think.
Metas don't get determined by player creativity much once people start using DPS meters, they are determined by patch notes. You don't counter PvP builds with DPS meters, there are too many variables. DPS meters do not accelerate the meta, they just make it more visible and people will base invites to guilds and parties on those numbers. But anyways, if you don't agree we can just agree to disagree at this point.
I don't even understand how else to communicate with you on the player density point. We do not know how many people will exist in the world around each dungeon/raid and how frequently you will bump into one another. You can claim otherwise, but this information is simply non-existent because there is no populated server to provide this information.
We don't need to know any of this.
Top end raid encounters in an open world setting are rare in regards to spawn timer - perhaps one spawn every 4 - 10 days or so.
In games that have this, guilds will know the spawn window, as well as any other conditions that may be set (such as only spawning in a specific window on any given day).
As such, when it spawns, every guild on the server that is interested in the encounter will know about it, and most will head towards it.
The encounter essentially functions as a beacon to draw these guilds to that specific location at that specific time.
It isn't a case of bumping in to each other, it is a case of these guilds will all be running to the exact same location, to take on the exact same encounter, at the exact same time.
This is how top end raiding in an open world setting goes.
This is why we don't need any data on how frequently groups or raids will bump in to each other - they will all be rushing the same encounter.
Metas don't get determined by player creativity much once people start using DPS meters, they are determined by patch notes.
In PvE games, sure.
You don't counter PvP builds with DPS meters, there are too many variables.
Correct, this is why I don't talk about "DPS meters", I talk about combat trackers. Combat trackers can provide you with hard data on those variables.
DPS meters do not accelerate the meta, they just make it more visible and people will base invites to guilds and parties on those numbers. But anyways, if you don't agree we can just agree to disagree at this point.
Actually, it is forums, reddit and discord that make a meta more visible, not a combat tracker. The more the playerbase is connected to each other outside of the game, the more visible the games meta will be.
People that will refuse others in a group or guild will do so on the games meta as much as they will on the results of a combat tracker. They are just interested in the act of refusing, they don't care about the reason.
The only possibility that Ashes will not have a strong meta is if only the playerbase is small that nobody will care. If you have big playerbase the meta is inevitable
IMO if they don't put one in the game itself, then people will find a way to make one for the game. For example FFXIV. Either way, If they do or don't add one I'm fine.
Comments
i Disagree.
You choose your build for for a strategy that is often part of a team effort to down a boss. DPS meters just give us a opportunity to see what is happening. Are we taking too much dmg? are we doing too little dmg? I understand why casual players root DPS meters to elitism and not being good enough. That is often from a inexperienced leader who does not know how to read one. A support character obviously is not going to do as much dmg as a full on dps class. Knowing the difference is huge and knowing what the class brings to the table is part of the leaders job. i think creating easy to use and transparent meters would be the better option.
A community can grow together with dps meters. it will be a more educated community and understand how to play their class better. They will literally grow their skills and knowledge of the game together. it gives a leader a tool to actually help a player that is struggling to succeed with meeting his personal goals vs running around thinking hes doing great when he is the one holding us back or for a good player to not know what he is bringing to the table is horrible. Who plays a support and has near no idea how big of a impact they are having on their group? That is the joy of playing a support class. Drop that wind fury totem and twist totems and watch as your buddy reaches a new personal best or we miss the dps meter by a second and knowing your support to the raid could have been the exact counter measure that allowed us to get that kill. This will likely cause more elitism. PVE guilds will have no choice but to be extremely selective and go back to leadership tactics i disliked very much with a super elitist raid leader who gives close to 0 chances and is extra elitist on simple things that likely do not matter. From my experience its a lack of knowledge that causes elitist mentalities not more information. I know we have all suffered from pugging or joining a small or below average guild who didn't know each classes strengths and weaknesses and just wanted to see output on his inaccurate dps meter. I assure you i understand as healing meters are extremely hard to read for even experienced raid leaders.
It needs to be remembered, Stevens MMO experience is not that of a high end PvE player - the games he has spent most of his time in don't even have a high end PvE.
This is why he absolutely should be listening to his staff in regards to high end PvE - or even better yet, handing control of it over to someone else completely.
If you are in a raid tho there should be some kind of data for the leader to determine why a raid wasn't successful. Did the raid lack defensive, offensive or supportive capabilities? Without some kind of stats it's very hard to improve. You can try out all kinds of things tho to get through the raid but this might take a while and could lead to frustration if you tried the same boss 30 times.
That's just my 2 cents on this topic.
Could you share why you believe that? Because I have actually polar opposite conclusion to your train of thought, however I have no problem to create an ingame "licence" that is required for you to use them (the licence being a guild perk is popular solution in this thread)
― Plato
If they do as advertised and make this game an action rpg with some tab targeting, then the boss would be more actively moving then in say bosses in WoW, meaning your strikes, if they have cool-downs, can miss simply because the boss moved out of the way, or the npc humanoid dodge rolled out of the way.
Edit: It's also harder to create rotations if the target is on constant move like in most action rpg's. I think it'd be best to wait to see how mobs works in game before we can declare we need meters.
What you are writing about is the fact that with action combat skills there comes a player skill component that can further decrease the effectiveness of builds. Which I actually take as a pro meter argument, because if you cannot reliably hit things on the boss then the meter can tell you if it is worth to switch to more stable and consistent spec.
If in raid I miss a slow traveling projectile that gives critical debuff on the boss, because the boss is moving then I would want the raid leader to know that from a log or a meter that it missed, because I want to fully focus on playing correctly without mechanical errors and not be focused on watching that slow projectile to hit the boss.
Players that would use the increased performance volatility to discriminate players that misplayed have no real place in raiding and are always pushed away where their only island of safe existence are pickup public raids where people do not know them.
In all raiding I have done is going through meters taken as an act to improve the players that the guild has. You know willing raiders that want to improve are a really rare commodity in MMO's and even if you are really a slow bad learner then you will still have a pretty high chance to be raiding in a really great guild, because raid leaders value the most the players that want to improve. They don't care that you made mistakes, they care if you want to improve to not do them and practice not doing them.
Taking meters away is hurting guilds trying to teach their players to play better.
― Plato
So you want a meta in a game being designed to avoid meta's?
There are variety of reasons that interweave with each other, being bad for the health of the game and the positive relationships in the community. Gamers are encouraged, in Ashes of Creation, to make their own path and play their character, in whichever content, as they desire and a DPS meter is at direct odds with that.
First, and somewhat foremost, is the long-term effects; obviously having access to this tool would allow players an easier time of min/maxing, optimizing DPS and a few other logistics for PvE. The other side of that coin is the experience of players who don't want to play the most optimal builds trying to get into group content and are either denied access because they're playing their own build or they aren't putting satisfactory numbers on the DPS meter. Even though damage output is a one dimensional evaluation of a player's contribution, the DPS meter will allow them to take the role of a scapegoat and be blamed for the group's failure and diminish their enjoyment of the game. It may also allow the community to set on the rails of a game that is focused on optimizated progress rather than community and exploring ways to play and progress.
Another point that ties directly into the previous point is how that demand for min/maxing, cookie cutter builds affects the class system. There are, essentially, 64(I think, my brain is fried after work) classes/combinations in this game in addition to the Schools of Augmentation for another layer of personalized character progress and builds. If a standard is set where one class and combination is dominant in one category, it will shoehorn players into that build, probably often times pushing them away from a build they would have naturally gravitated towards and tailored to their own liking. There are additional costs to a problem like this; in particular the time and commitment in progressing your character. If you have a character well half way or at max level and are unable to participate and have to reroll to be more involved in the community and content, that will feel like a tremendous amount of time wasted and CAN be a negative experience (sometimes starting fresh is as fun as it gets, I'll concede to that).
On the other side of the same coin of players piling into a cookie cutter build for optimal DPS, I think there would be some serious issues of other classes/archetypes getting overlooked; namely something to the tune of a Bard (huehuehue). Traditionally the Bard class is a more support oriented role, and I would be surprised if there are other non-heal/tank classes besides that which aren't intended for high damage but instead take a buff/support/debuff benefit. Some players will see the value in these classes and what they offer. Others, directly as a result of the damage meter, will not and will boil the game down to a matter of damage output.
When these occur in a way that the devs can observe and identify as a legitimate problem, they will likely step in and attempt to rebalance classes and abilities a bit, right? This rebalance would affect a tremendous amount of players who decided to take on their classes by the min/maxxing meta alone. These players will be in a pickle, leaving them between chasing another class that they either enjoy, the new optimally performing build, or abandoning the game (even if only for a bit) feeling frustrated and a little bit alienated by the hypothetical changes (let's be honest, they'd be nerfs to that class and buffs to others).
My own experience with these points have come from the last couple years playing a few mainstream MMOs, and discrepancy between World of Warcraft and Final Fantasy XIV embody these issues very well. Both of these games use a iLvL gear check system. However, WoW allows use of add-ons while FFXIV does not. When examining how players engage in end game content, WoW playerbase is much more fickle and exclusive in how they form groups and raids. Even when a player has an iLvL that is appropiate for the content, they will be overlooked - openly, even, by the leader of the group - for another class that is often a less risk/higher reward selection. There is no consideration for how good that player is, and how/when they perform, what they can offer the group - only the theory-crafted base DPS numbers.
That is contrast to FFXIV where, in end game content, knowledge of encounter mechanics is your most valuable asset. Groups may directly use your iLvL to measure your worth to that of the content, however, I have never personally witnessed a player miss out on a invitation to a raid simply because of their class' projected potential. Knowledge of the game is the barrier to entry in FFXIV end game content. Not DPS Meter production, and (AT LEAST TO A LESSER EXTENT!) not the build you've chosen.
-Although, also, to be fair there is not really much variation in builds in FFXIV, just choices of class. I figure these are interchangable in this context.
I have seen support for DPS Meters making a claim that communities aren't elitist and this trend doesn't happen. It does happen. A lot. World of Warcraft is a prime example of how this happens. Individual players are judged based on their build, rather than their abilities/knowledge of their build and game.
Elitism can also take different forms. Often times when a group is failing, one of the first things scrutinized is the healer's performance, followed by looking at damage meters for the lowest output. Advice on how the lowest damage player can improve can feel immediately alienating and like they're being blamed. Although a damage meter can tell a greater story, it is almost exclusively used as a "big number vs. little number" metric. That lower damage player may have been quite productive outside of flat damage output. Most of us have been on either side of this situation in a game at one point or another. We know how it feels to be blamed for the group's shortcomings, and we know we usually feel like the good guy when we try to offer constructive feedback to who we have subconsciously labeled as the dead weight. Your intentions and actions may not always line up as perfectly as you believe they do.
The most important factor, to me, among all this is how a DPS Meter ties into the whole philosophies and design choice of Ashes of Creation. Ashes of Creation is not a PvE game. It is not a PvP game. It is not a RP experience. It is not a gathering/crafting simulator. It is all of these. It is not a one-dimensional PvE meta game. DPS Meters pushes the communities very heavily toward a PvE focus. Elitism is inevitable, even without damage meters, purely as function of players trying to achieve the best results in end-game possible. However, these DPS Meters exacerbate the problem and will narrow the ways we can interact with each other and enjoy the game.
P.S.,
Do Devs Still Read This Stuff, Or Did I Just Spend An Hour After Work Typing This Out To Pat Myself On The Back?
If this wasn't the case it would be frustrating to not have a DPS meter because you don't know why you can't down a boss perhaps, how to optimize your personal performance and figuring out who isn't pulling their weight. But if most groups can clear content and the better you are the harder the content, the difficulty of the content becomes the DPS meter for the group itself.
The lack of this formal DPS information will also allow for creative ways for more dedicated players to test and optimize their personal builds and ultimately the GROUP is tested in their DPS and performance by the content not the individual, and therefore it is very fitting that the difficulty of the content becomes a DPS meter litmus test for the group, not individuals.
I think that because of the design decisions to make the content difficulty work this way, Intrepid has made it very reasonable to leave out a DPS meter if they so choose.
An armory style website is right out.
That's the player's information and you shouldn't have access to it unless they want you.
Lets be honest though, people want to know whether they lost dps by missing skills, miscalculating things or forgetting things without having to pay attention to them.
Well.. thats kinda the thing right.
Not having dps meters makes you have to focus on whats happening and what your skills are doing.
As much as i like FFXIV, after a while it becomes simply running a basic routine with dps meters....you just do the exact same walk and button press combinations every single time. You dont even know what youre casting anymore, just that casting spell A after 4 steps is the most efficient to get the highest number. What spell A is or does becomes irrelevant at that point.
And if the number is lower than last time, next time you walk slightly later left for those extra 100 deeps
Just throwing my opinion out there
A being can not judge light if he has never seen it, neither can he judge darkness if he never has been it
I'd rather not have DPS meters , pretty much due to what he said here
I think you have some misconceptions going on here.
Combat trackers are not a tool for gauging player skill - even if that is what some people misuse them for.
Combat trackers are a tool for assessing builds of individual players, and builds of groups/raids to see how effective the build, as well as tools for learning information on combat systems, and encounter mechanics.
If a build in Ashes has a potential higher DPS than a different build, but is more succeptable to loss if the target moves, then a combat tracker will be able to tell you how each of these builds performs in different situations. It isn't telling you how good a player performs in relation to each other, it is telling you how well the build performs when played by each player.
Now, I agree that you need to run builds that are suited to both PvE and PvP, but everyone does. The need to run builds that can do both do not mean that players suddenly no longer need to not care about the objective performance of a build, but combat trackers assist in that.
Your points all seem to be based around the idea that a combat tracker would only be used to help players create the singular best DPS class, to the detriment of all other aspects. This is not at all true, as a combat tracker can tell the user about every aspect of the build they have used - if they put that aspect of the build to the test.
There will always be a small sunset of any games classes or builds that players deem acceptable, and another subset that players deem unacceptable. This is not a consequence of combat trackers - as Archeage has shown us.
This meta absolutely will exist, and if players want to be accepted in to groups and such, they will run builds that players deem to be acceptable. Based on that, I would assume most players want those acceptable builds to be actually good (since most players will have no real choice other than to use them). The only wau to ensure the builds in a games meta are actually good builds is to make use of a combat tracker.
Additionally, if someone comes up with a build that is not a part of the games meta - not one of that subset of classes that players deem acceptable - the only way they can prove that the build they have come up with should be accepted is to use a combat tracker. This is an argument against giving third party developers accesst o a wide range of data in the games API - something that literally no one is asking for. In fact, I completely agree with you on this point - 100%.
Thing is, this is not a combat tracker issue at all - not even close. The issue with WoW is that the game allows players to be elitest. It isn't the combat tracker allowing it, it is everything in the game.
If you are in a pick up group in WoW, and someone thinks you are not performing as well as you should, they can boot you and know 2 things - first, they can have a replacement in seconds due to the LFG system. Second, they will likely never see you again and so there will be no social consequences to their actions.
In terms of top end guilds, it is a similar thing. These guilds know that their potential pool of recruits is literally everyon that plays the game. As such, they can treat any player in the guild like shit, knowing that there will be dozens of applicants to fill the spot should that player quit the guild.
These things are the core of what allows players in WoW to be toxic exist regardless of whether a combat tracker exists or not. You even go as far as to admit this in the following paragraph.
If you take out the LFG system and the ability to form groups across servers, all of a sudden that player that was thinking about kicking someone from the group won't be able to. That player is now someone on their server, in their faction, that they will see and likely want to group with again in the future. Additionally, since there is no LFG, if they kick the player, they will have to wait for a replacement to be found, and to then run to the dungeon - this could obviously take a long time.
In regards to guilds - without server transfers the recruitment pool for any guild goes from everyone in the game, to everyone on the server. This is a much lower number, obviously. Since this potential recruitment pool is lower, guilds will need to put a higher value on any given guild member. Not only will guilds be recruiting from their server, but in many cases they will want to stick to their node cluster - players coming to a guild from a different node cluster should be looked at with suspicion, even in top end guilds.
If you look at games with high combat tracker use, you can see that they don't all have that toxic element to them that WoW has. If you also look at Archeage (which has very low combat tracker use, but toxicity on part with WoW), you should be able to see that combat trackers are not the root of that toxicity and eliteism. This simply can't be the case if that toxicity doesn't exist in games with combat trackers, and does exist in games without combat trackers.
To me, the two things that have the most potential to cause the issue that you are talking about here - an issue I agree every game should avoid - are the family summons, and the potential to open up server transfers in the future. These two things open up the gate to toxicity - combat trackers do not.
As to the point you make about "big number vs. little number", a tool should not be blamed if it is used incorrectly.
A part of the reason I would like to see a combat tracker built in to the client of Ashes is because then Intrepid can provide actual information and training on how to use it properly, and it can be something that is openly discussed on the games forum, reddit and discord. This means there is more good information on how to use a tracker properly that is available to all players, which means more and more players will use it properly.
If it is a third party application (which is what is going to happen if it is not built in to the client), then players have every excuse to not know how to use it properly. The only way a combat tracker will narrow the ways players can interact with each other is if combat trackers show us all that the game only has a single best option that is suited to all situations.
If that is what combat trackers show us, that is not the fault of the combat tracker, it is the fault of the developer.
Should that happen, the entire playerbase has every right to stand up to Intrepid and demand they fix it.
When you are talking about open world content - where if we don't kill it now another guild will come along and challenge us for it - the idea will be to get "the kill", not to get the hard mode kill.
As such, this system is going to lead to every guild in the game cheesing their way to the hardest encounters in order to get the easiest version of the hardest encounters, so that they can kill them first and deprive other guilds of hard content.
It really is a fucked up system.
The *ONLY* way it will work is if it is only applicable to instanced content. If it is only applicable to instanced content, you now have a system where by guilds are not just rewarded for getting the kill, but in how well they get the kill.
This means the argument of "you did well if the mob dies" is no longer applicable. Players will want more objective data with this system in the game than without it, as they would want to know why they only got 1 drop instead of 3, and what they can do next time to make sure they get 3.
Well I mean you're making tons of assumptions here. First is how you think all guilds, or even the majority of guilds, thinks. You need to get better gear to take on harder content. Not all content needs to be "easy" unless it ramps up because you performed better. Some content will be inherently harder than others, regardless of the performance adjusted level of difficulty.
Another big assumption is the player density in these open world dungeons. We won't really know anything about this until they start larger scale testing I imagine. My argument isn't "you did well if the mob dies", my argument is that you will receive feedback regarding the group's performance by the dynamic difficulty of the content. I think a lot of other people provided tons of great reasons why not having a DPS meter is good. And yeah players will want answers and they won't have exact numbers to get those answers, but if you're suggesting that not having a DPS meter will leave players baffled and without a clue as to why they didn't get to a higher tier of boss difficulty + loot I mean that's just ridiculous. You can probably do more dps by getting better gear or optimizing your build, dodge more stuff etc and yeah it won't be as easy to do all these things without a DPS meter and thus begins creative problem solving. You don't need a DPS meter to tell you what you need to do better, but you may want a DPS meter to baby you through improving your build, however that doesn't make it necessary in any way shape or form. The bottom line is that no game is unplayable, and no encounter is too complicated to improve performance on without a DPS meter, it is a luxury and they've designed content around making it easy to live without this luxury it feels like.
In any case it is not clear how this ramp in difficulty will work because Steven has also mentioned that he hates scaling content. It did sound like there would be new/different abilities and behaviors the boss may have access to depending on the difficulty tier but I mean if it has more HP or does more damage, a lot of people (myself included) would consider that a form of scaling so I'm not sure what the implementation of this boss difficulty tiers will look like.
Oh of course there are some assumptions made, but they are not overly hard to imagine ones.
To the first assumption - guilds will not just look at getting gear for themselves, but also doing what they can to exclude rival guilds from getting gear.
This is, after all, a game where PvP matters. Any gear you can deprive your rival of is functionally the same as getting gear yourself - at least in regards to that rivalry. If a guild is in a position where they accept slightly lesser rewards than would otherwise be on the table, but in doing so means there rival guild gets nothing, it is a no-brainer as to what the best thing to do there would be.
As to player density, if a dungeon has a raid encounter in it, then it should be an easy assumption that there will be room for multiple raids - like, 3 or 4.
After that suggestion, your post seems to assume that top end PvE content should be about guessing, rather than knowing. There should be nothing at all in the game that is left to a guess - that is the antithesis of player agency. This is literally true - not just hyperbolically true or subjectively true. Player agency is the notion that players will be presented with options, and will have full understanding of the consequences of those options. Anything that is left to chance or left as a guess for players is not player agency.
Now, despite appearances, I am not actually arguing for a combat tracker to exist. I am arguing for a combat tracker to be built directly in to the games client. This game will have combat trackers - all MMO's do (even ones people don't think have them, like Archeage). Even Intrepid know that there will absolutely be ways for combat trackers to exist in this game - they said they think they have taken out most avenues by which this data can be collected, which means they know they have not taken out all of them.
It is also worth noting that Steven has not come up against a top end PvE community in any game he has played. He doesn't understand the difference in the resolve of a top end PvE player over a top end PvP player.
If your argument is that the "game shouldn't have a combat tracker because..." then I hate to say it, but you've lost that argument before you make it. I'm not even really that interested in a debate along those lines.
I am happy to point out why combat trackers are useful in general, especially to people that have outright incorrect assumptions about them (many people conflate trackers with all addons, and think combat trackers will lead to WoW Armory style websites and such). Pointing this out may well be mistaken as me arguing that combat trackers should indeed exist - but that is not the case. It should be looked at as me saying why they will exist in one form or another, in order to provide a frame around my argument as to why they should be built in to the games client directly.
So, while the correct use of a combat tracker is a discussion I am happy to engage in, my actual argument is that the combat tracker should be built in to the games client, so that Intrepid can place some restrictions on it.
If combat trackers are left to third parties, there will be no restrictions. If combat trackers are built in to the game, there can be restrictions. This is why the suggestion I have been making in this thread for a year now (that has been modified over that year) has many restrictions - they are designed to alleviate the issues (both real and pecieved) that players have with them, leaving a suggestion that is far better for the bulk of players than what we will have if Intrepid do nothing.
You're accidently agreeing with me here, and backing up my points on most fronts. We concur that a meta will exist regardless, but you're saying a tracker would establish a meta and would be the only possible standard for marking a build as viable. Your idea hinges entirely on the concept that the general playerbase will take the time and have the comprehension skills to use the tracker correctly instead of a flat damage meter.
I take issue with these assumptions. The reality is, most people want the quick and dirty access to what they can easily relate to; most often being efficient damage output. They'll assume it's the best option and blindly build identically. Most MMO players are not innovators. They take the easiest route to success. You clearly have spent some time playing these genre. You know how these people are lol.
The concept that tracking this information will make it very easy to establish a viable meta is a very safe bet. And I'm against that happening. Out of 64 classes, you're on board with 85% of players using like 4 or 5 of those classes because the numbers told them to. The byproduct of that being the remaining demographic playing a solo game. Access to those numbers will allow theorycrafters to have concrete data to reference. I understand the benefit to it, but there is more to lose than to gain in this game for that topic. Namely, a varied playerbase.
It's super frustrating that you're just blatantly telling me that we should use tracking to form a slim standard for how to play the game, and everybody else is up creek, paddle 10 miles behind down river because they didn't build that way. The game should be accessible as virtually any player build. You're saying that players being pushed out of content because their level 50 character that took them two months to level up doesn't fit the min/maxed vision of how the game needs to be played. You cannot have an exclusive meta that you are supporting AND tell me that the underrepresented builds deserve help. You are asking for the problem to crop up and then say the player base deserves a solution.
This is what I do not want for this game. It is why I am attracted to this game. Everybody should be able to play how they like without concern for repercussion of their fantasy build. They should be able to experiment. To play what fits them. Having a meta form based on the optimal numbers is at the absolute, most direct odds with that.
We just discussed it but I'm in for a round two. Most players will not take the time or care enough about these things to use a tool like that "correctly". If anything, the existence of it will motivate them to go explore the internet to see "what's the best class/build for Ashes of Creation" and then they can congratulate themselves on their damage meter numbers. I believe not having the meters will encourage them to just play the game on their own terms.
In fact, that has me now wondering, what metric do you use to decide a meta? If you have all this varying data tracking an abundance of things, sometimes with context, sometimes without, how do you apply some unknown algorithm to create this meta? For the most part, these numbers will be too all over the place and in a game like Ashes (as compared to WoW or FFXIV that's more sedintary fights) difficult to identify what exact story they represent. It feels like a shallow defense for these metrics being accessible, because in all likelihood it is just going end up being a story of "how much did damage did they do, how much damage did their defensives absorb/did the player receive" Without a second-to-second replay of everything happening in that encounter with a heatmap, there's no way you can collect any kind of data on how that build may have played dynamicly. Thus, we have the simplest form of risk/reward.
I think the situation can be avoided altogether. There WILL be a single best, all purpose build. There will be. That is just the nature of this, and any game. There will always be an optimal way to fill a particular pair of shoes. This seems like the wrong game for the mainstream demographic to try to min/max. There is room for it, for a particular demographic of players, and those players will be informed and skilled enough to discover it without using provided numbers and data. The players who aren't invested in the min/max pursuit will feel less pressure to follow without numbers constantly staring back at them from the UI.
Just a side benefit, as well; in the case that a class/build is extremely dominant, Intrepid being the only ones with access to the data can silently address the issue before it reaches the general player base. That way, players won't start following a cookie cutter design before a nerf hits and dramatic outcry begins.
If you reread what you said, you are telling me that you're pushing for a standard that players will have to accept or not participate in, enabled by this information tracking. Until you're (you are closing statement, btw) closing statement, at least.
We may be in agreement about the outcome, I really can't tell from seemingly mixed messages tbh, but we are on opposite sides of the fence on how to reach it. I think not having damage meters will avoid the problem. You think it will solve the problem that I think we can avoid to begin with.
.... I think.
It is not literally true. You're trying to apply the concept of "player agency" where it does not belong. Then loot tables and damage ranges and critical strikes are also not adherent to "player agency" because there is RNG involved... that doesn't make sense. Player agency and the exact DPS numbers you pump out are unrelated concepts. It's not about guessing, it's about having to solve problems more intuitively and creatively. When you play sports in real life, you don't get numbers on how much force and velocity you moved your body to throw a baseball, and yet we all manage to get better and figure out how to improve.
Also, if there is room for 3-4 raids, it still provides zero information about the density of people in that space. That is a variable that will fluctuate but we have no idea what the average density will be.
I don't really have an "argument" I shared my opinion and you replied to it stating twice now "if this is your argument..." so to me it sounds like you have a point you're trying to make, which I honestly am not sure what it actually is. Are you saying we should be given combat trackers because they are inevitably going to exist? That's a silly argument that provides no information as to what they would positively add to the game, and if a feature does not have a positive impact on the game, and many people point out the negative impacts they have, I don't see why they should add it at all. Or are you perhaps saying they should exist in some form so third parties don't create them in another form? That doesn't make sense because if you're saying this information exists and people will create it, then they will create it to fit their specifications whether Intrepid provides us one or not, and it doesn't matter how they restrict or regulate the built in combat tracker so then we go back to the first question... if it doesn't add anything positive to the game what's the point?
I think if you hav a point to make, just make it clear and address this: what positive impact could a built in combat tracker provide the game that would outweigh the many negatives stated in this thread?
Edit: I also agree with pretty much everything @Chunks said above. I just don't understand why you think people NEED a DPS meter or combat tracker to be able to min/max. People will have access to tooltip information and can make spread sheets, it isn't that hard to theorycraft optimal crap and I'm sure it'll be on youtube pretty fast. But to make it easily accessible in game to test and quantify DPS only improves these "positives" if you think about it that way slightly while it brings with it all of the negatives pointed to above. People will know what the best builds are from theorycrafters that don't need DPS meters, but without DPS meters you can't have a witch hunt of suboptimal builds/DPS rotations as easily, I don't see what the problem is. You just need rudimentary coding skills and some experience with spreadsheets to try to figure out what's optimal, a DPS meter just brings about a lot of negative social interactions.
Yes, most people will just follow build guides. Most people can't be bothered coming up with a build of their own.
The few people that actually want to run a different build and also expect to be able to group up with others are likely the same people that know how to correctly use a combat tracker - so I am not sure where you are seeing the issue.
You don't need the bulk of players to be able to use a tracker effectively, only the ones that want to break away from teh meta - which as you yourself say, most people can't be bothered with. The game has 8 classes.
Each of those classes has 8 build trees that a player can use one of each. Saying that each of these is it's own distinct class is like saying a fire mage in WoW is a distinct class. The fact that they are named does not detract from the fact that they are simply something that players of the actual class can just spec in to almost at will.
Now, since Ashes is a PvP game, the meta is as much about countering other players and builds as it is countering PvE content.
If a given build is popular, people will go out and use combat trackers to come up with counters to it from various classes. Then when these counter-builds become popular, people will go out and use combat trackers to build counters to those counter-builds. This cycle will repeat, and at any point, any of the previous builds will remain a viable option based on what other builds people are using at the time.
This is the singular way a game can have the most varied meta - make it so the meta reacts to the meta, not to new content.
In a PvE only game, the meta is often fairly static based on the content people are working on. In a PvP game though, as long as new builds can be objectively assessed, the meta changes often based on what other players are doing.
As to that remaining portion of the population that would be playing solo - if they are not following the meta, they will be in the same place with or without a combat tracker. I mean, you have said youself that a meta will exist either way - and the only reason they would be left out is because they are not following the meta. There is nothing in that situation that a combat tracker would change - eithe way.
If we are able to objectively assess the games combat, and deduce that there is only a single narrow standard on how it should be played, you do not blame that objective data for this.
If you build a bridge, then I come along and use a calculator to show you that your bridge will collapse if the wind is just right, you do not blame the calculator.
In both situations, we all tell the person that designed the broken thing to fix it. These people will still look around for a build. They are not doing that because they can't be bothered with a combat tracker, they are doing that because they can't be bothered to think. An individual player doesn't decide the meta - the meta is just what people in the game are doing. The meta doesn't even need to be "right" (as is the case in Archeage, and was for years the case in GW2). All the meta needs in order to be considered the meta, is to be popular.
However, I would suggest that it is in all players best interests if the meta is also good. I completely disagree that there will be a single best build.
If your server has a lot of tank/summoners on it, but mine has a lot of tank/mages on it, then the build we consider to be the best for the class we are playing may well be vastly different. You may want one to take out tank/summoners easily, while I want one to take out tank/mages easily.
If there is the ability to actually objectively assess builds, then things like the inter-guild political state of a server can and will affect the meta of that server.
Without the ability to objectively assess builds, the meta will be the same for the game, and will be either agonizingly slow to change, or simply won't change at all (as per Archeage).
Of every MMO ever released, this game stands to have the most unique situations where a player or a guild would want to min/max things.
If there is a single class that is able to be the rock while every other class is scissors, then that is obviously broken. It wouldn't take a combat tracker to point that out - combat trackers are only needed to point out the subtle things, not hte smack around the case obvious things like one class is able to dominate every other class.
If that happens, the game is broken with or without a combat tracker.
Sport science is a multi-billion dollar industry. Have you played games with open raid dungeons? I have, for years.
If you are in a dungeon and you know the boss is up (spotters and spawn timers are a thing), then you know where you are heading. If there is a guild in front of you, you have a clear shot to where ever that guild is - because they killed everything between the entrance and where you are. Base population in raid zones takes 3 or 4 times longer to respawn (by necessity) than base population in a single group zone, so chances are if the boss is not down, there is a clear path to the guild that has been clearing their way to it.
If there is another guild able to take the encounter on, they will be there. This thread is essentially the point I am trying to make.
I will break it down for you though.
There are a small number of valid reasons some people do not want a combat tracker. These reasons are not in regards to why a combat tracker shouldn't exist, but rather why they shouldn't have to use one (or have one used on them).
There are a small number of reasons as to why combat trackers are very good - if not actually essential - for the health of the game. However, not all players need combat trackers for this to be true.
One of those reasons is that a combat tracker is the only way players can review Intrepids combat system. Players with a combat tracker will always be able to find more bugs and issues in a combat system than any amount of QA or testing a developer can do, because as of 3 months after launch, top end players know the combat system better than the people that made it. They know how they think it functions, we know how it actually functions - this is why developers use top end guilds to test content - their developers are simply not capable of using the combat system they created as well as top end players can.
I have yet to see a game where a combat tracker was not used to point out seemingly impossible to notice bugs with the game, that developers have then fixed. This in itself is reason to want combat trackers in any game - assuming the issues that some players have can be dealt with. Even if you forget that they will exist, this is reason for all players to want them to exist.
So, the idea now is to deal with those issues from above.
Players don't want to be forced to use a combat tracker and they don't want others using combat trackers on them. These two things are the root cause of everything players have against combat trackers. If you make these two things not possible, the actual issues people have with combat trackers go away.
So, the suggestion made eliminates these things from happening. In order to use a combat tracker, or to have someone use a combat tracker on you, you would need to actively allow it - by joining a guild that has taken that specific perk in place of a perk that would be more suited to PvP guild, casual guilds, crafting guilds, casual guilds, etc. Since most players tend to join guilds with players that enjoy playing the game in the same manner as each other, this means that the people that enjoy using combat trackers are likely to all be in only a few guilds, and those few guilds are likely to pick the combat tracker perk over the others.
So now you have a game where people that want to use combat trackers can, and people that don't want to use them and/or don't want others to use combat trackers on them are able to have that as well.
This has eliminated the actual issues people have with combat trackers, while still leaving them in the hands of the people that want to use them, and will use them well for the benefit of the whole game (and for their guild, of course).
Now, when you start talking about a games meta and such, literally the only impact combat trackers will have on it is that they will allow builds to be assessed faster, and the builds that exist can be known to be fairly good, rather than assumed to be. Players that follow the meta will follow it, players that don't, won't. Combat trackers do not alter these things.
Speeding up the games meta is a fantastic thing, if you want the game to have a varied meta at least. The faster a new build can be created to counter an existing popular build, the better.
I have, in several games (and several times over in some games) used combat trackers to point out to developers that the tool tips on abilities were wrong.
If you want to rely on tool tips to work things out, that's perfectly fine. All I ask is that you not get in my way when I attempt to make sure that data in your tool tips is actually accurate.
Yeah sure, when people's livelihoods and income is dependent on sports performance you can justify that sort of science but like we both agree, people who want it can probably create the tool anyways.
I don't even understand how else to communicate with you on the player density point. We do not know how many people will exist in the world around each dungeon/raid and how frequently you will bump into one another. You can claim otherwise, but this information is simply non-existent because there is no populated server to provide this information.
I don't really see the point in this conversation anymore, but if you already know people will create something like this (DPS meter/combat tracker), then just use it and let those who want to use it seek it out and use it too. The simple fact of its in-game sanctioned availability has a lot more social consequences than you think.
Metas don't get determined by player creativity much once people start using DPS meters, they are determined by patch notes. You don't counter PvP builds with DPS meters, there are too many variables. DPS meters do not accelerate the meta, they just make it more visible and people will base invites to guilds and parties on those numbers. But anyways, if you don't agree we can just agree to disagree at this point.
Top end raid encounters in an open world setting are rare in regards to spawn timer - perhaps one spawn every 4 - 10 days or so.
In games that have this, guilds will know the spawn window, as well as any other conditions that may be set (such as only spawning in a specific window on any given day).
As such, when it spawns, every guild on the server that is interested in the encounter will know about it, and most will head towards it.
The encounter essentially functions as a beacon to draw these guilds to that specific location at that specific time.
It isn't a case of bumping in to each other, it is a case of these guilds will all be running to the exact same location, to take on the exact same encounter, at the exact same time.
This is how top end raiding in an open world setting goes.
This is why we don't need any data on how frequently groups or raids will bump in to each other - they will all be rushing the same encounter.
In PvE games, sure. Correct, this is why I don't talk about "DPS meters", I talk about combat trackers. Combat trackers can provide you with hard data on those variables.
Actually, it is forums, reddit and discord that make a meta more visible, not a combat tracker. The more the playerbase is connected to each other outside of the game, the more visible the games meta will be.
People that will refuse others in a group or guild will do so on the games meta as much as they will on the results of a combat tracker. They are just interested in the act of refusing, they don't care about the reason.
@Great Brae
The only possibility that Ashes will not have a strong meta is if only the playerbase is small that nobody will care. If you have big playerbase the meta is inevitable
― Plato