Seems hypocritical of you again if that is what you think in one situation where you want to do more, but not in a situation where others want to do more.
It's funny how people arguing against combat trackers use the argument that combat trackers will lead to a meta and people won't be able told play what the want, and now it's the opposite xD
"People can try to play against the design if they want to."
If you are worried about playing with players that "only care about their own dps" and "don't care about helping the raid," then don't play with those people?
If you are worried about "needing to play only meta builds," why don't you play with people that don't care about that? This game is supposed to be about choices, right?
In reality, not having a basic dps meter means people will be able to sneak their way to not pulling their own weight. I always thought part of the skill/fun of pve is maximizing damage while staying alive + using support skills as needed. If you don't want to make content to that degree of difficulty, then ok, but just say that.
If you're doing a raid and you consistently wipe somewhere around 5-10%, then maybe the fix is improving damage. Or if you're not killing the boss fast enough for improved rewards, basic damage meters help diagnose this problem. If you think your unique support build is worth the dps you're giving up, why would you be afraid of showing the numbers?
Also, you're not arguing in good faith if you think you can "just observe bro" to see who's efficiently dpsing and who isn't. If you want to make fights that aren't about maximizing dps, then make your arguments about that.
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
You don't look to see who is efficiently DPSing.
Successful combat is not just about efficient DPS.
You don't look to see who is efficiently DPSing.
Successful combat is not just about efficient DPS.
This is true in 2 situation
1) your dreams
2) game with low difficulty
Buy happy to see now you defend existence of META, you did a step into the real life
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited July 2021
You don't need the meta, you just need to successfully defeat the challenges.
Sometimes you might not successfully defeat the challenges. "Growing together is a good thing, and that includes failing together as a means to drive for success together."
---Steven
You don't need the meta, you just need to successfully defeat the challenges.
Sometimes you might not successfully defeat the challenges. "Growing together is a good thing, and that includes failing together as a means to drive for success together."
---Steven
i never said anything against this quote you know. in fact i totally, in this topic, defend this way to see MMORPG.
but, one of your argument against parser is "it creates meta" then, now, you defend meta exist openly.
I know we don't need meta, i never obeyed them. Always played what i liked, even when i was playing endgame. . . (you know, content where is other game all uses combat tracker, but yes combat tracker force people to play meta ... )
At least, admit you simply dislike combat tracker, than using argument you dismantle yourself later v_v
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited July 2021
It creates a false meta.
There will always be some people striving to find the meta.
Which quote of mine do you think defends a meta?
(Your interpretations of what people said don't have the greatest track record for being accurate.)
the fact you always says "if you take a tank you will be tank, if you take [archetype define in wiki as role DPS] you will be DPS"
You defend a kind of meta,
Rarely the best.
Because it is the one that block the most the people to play what they want. it lower the freedom of each player
and what is "false meta" ? i don't know what it is
There is only 1 absolute meta : can be or not the one define by the wiki, can be or not the one devs are explaining.
There is one, the one which is coded in the game. Most of time it differs slitghtly from what devs are saying, even more in games with strong class identity. the more identity and freedom in building character, the more meta can vary from what devs officially stated. The only way to find it ? have devs giving all exact formula (... so no possible) the best way to get as close as this only one absolute real meta : combat tracker that allow to get as close as possible to what code allow
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited July 2021
LMAO
That you are the Primary Archetype is not a meta.
META is most efficient tactics available.
If you are a Tank, you have Tank active skills. You cannot use Cleric active skills.
If you are a Bard, you have Bard active skills. You cannot use Tank active skills.
People striving for a meta who want Tank active skills are going to have people with Tank active skills use Tank active skills.
A Tank with Cleric augments will still be using Tank active skills.
That has nothing to do with most efficient tactics available.
You could be a Tank and try to fill the spot of a Primary Archetype Cleric or Bard.
But, Steven has already said that Cleric augments will not replace the need for a Primary Archetype Cleric.
People don't know the absolute meta.
They think they know what the absolute meta is.
Once someone finds a strategy that is consistent - they assume that is absolute meta.
But, designers do not actually design for the absolute best solution.
There is no way to determine absolute close as possible - even with combat trackers.
And you can get close, more and more.
How? while collecting more, and more, and more data, and do calculations around it.
And no, people don't assume that is absolute meta, except the dumb one who don't understand how video games really works. Just, look at speedrunners, they spend time training their patern, until another one is found, they test it, and if it does better that previous one. they change. No one of the real good player consider that the situation they found, and use is the definitiv best, and many even crave to continue to dig data to prove that the current meta is not enough perfect yet.
and about the primary archetype role ?
Yes, it is the first meta we all will use at the launch. Because the meta is always with the condition "with the current knwoledge" it is never fixed.
People begin with the simple tank/heal/support/DPS range/DPS melee (those are the main way to classify the role of each character)
This is the first meta of all MMORPG, most RPG.
Then, while doing the first discovery in the world we add another way to distinguish characters : one-target/multi-target.
and as time pass and people discover more thing in game, and also level add more tools to each character, the meta change, getting more or less variety, and some ranking can change.
The simple fact you say "no" to any character that does not fit what you think is best for your group/raid is already applying a meta.
The simple fact you do a team with 1 tank, 1 heal, 3 DPS all time because you consider it is the best way to do content, is already applying a meta. When FFXI used a DPS (ninja) to tank some of the strongest boss instead of a "tank job" was also a META, when people in WoW, uses balance druid as healer in dungeons, and/or fury warrior as tank (both are DPS spec) is also a meta. (it is more efficient because damages in dungeon can be not enough to need a real tank+heal)
And what does combat tracker ? Just HELP to define where each build does its best, and so, in the global meta, what will be the exact role, among a raid of 40 people, of this specific build. It is not even enough alone to try to define a meta. because there is many things not shown in parser, or at least, not before trying this specific encounter. (a fight asking many move will totally break the DPS from high cast time classes for example)
Meta dictates from the first MMORPG, Ultima Online, How players teamup together, from the first STR, Dune 2, how to dominate each matchup. With or without combat tracker, we will be submitted to meta... and in my 19 years MMORPG experience, meta without real data behind it are dumb, and the one that allow the least player plays what they like even if it is efficient. Because without way to prove what you say, you will hardly convince people to trust you if you have a build considered suboptimal, exotic...
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited July 2021
You said absolute.
If something is absolute, you cannot get more, more close.
You said absolute.
If something is absolute, you cannot get more, more close.
the absolute meta exist, or the "perfect one" if you prefer, the one that is dictated by the game code itself. (be it because the devs speciffically want the meta to be like this, or simple consequences of class and fight design). Simply because how game are nothing more than informatic program... you can't do without it. This meta is not fixed. It changes each time there is a patch (sometime, the change is meaningless, sometime... it can totally break already all that was already discovered. say hello to WoW/FFXIV expansions)
and people will find way to find the meta as close as possible of this perfect one. the more basic (which can already be close to the one in the code) is the simple "tank/heal/DPS" and then by iteration and data collect, people will try to get even closer. And some people like me love to do this work of finding always better meta, closer to the one "perfect" (untill next patch :-° )
And sometime it can be really... REALLY exotic (when Ramuh was released in FFXIV, the best tank was "titan-egi" also called "the potato" ... the boss mechanic was not so simple to learn for tank, while the pet did negate all difficulty from the tank mechanic :') ... then they patched it (and made the mechanic a little less stupid, making it easier to do)
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
That said, have to define this group of words.
"efficient" seems to not fit the same things for all.
For me meta really fit with efficiency. because best practice = the most efficient, but efficiency is not only "biggest DPS" there is lot of factor to define what is efficient
also never forget it is "tactics" and not "tactic" ... one meta = different tactics.
That said, have to define this group of words.
"efficient" seems to not fit the same things for all.
For me meta really fit with efficiency. because best practice = the most efficient, but efficiency is not only "biggest DPS" there is lot of factor to define what is efficient
I'm saying that is never what it actually is in practice. As you suggest, this is largely because different people/guilds have a differing opinion of what efficient is.
The meta for casual raiders is to strive for reliability, to play it "safe" while on the other way the top raiders are always squeeze the maximum power even if it has risks with it
I have a love-hate relationship with dps meters. On the one hand my inner nerd loves pouring over the data you get from them. But at the same time I hate having to rely on them to know if you are playing well or not.
I'd prefer they stayed out of the game unless we absolutely needed them.
If every build in the game is viable and every hero can achieve best results with any item he can equip, then DPS meters are not needed and the game is better without them.
However, if half the builds aren't viable (as in: don't do the same dps as others) or players are obligated to use certain item builds to achieve good results, then DPS meters are needed to help players see what is working and what not.
In an ideal game, a warrior using a 2h weapon and a warrior dual-wielding should both do the same DPS when played correctly. When those conditions are true, then the DPS meter is not needed.
In an ideal game, a warrior using a 2h weapon and a warrior dual-wielding should both do the same DPS when played correctly. When those conditions are true, then the DPS meter is not needed.
Those are not the only conditions - what if the DPS difference is different at various skill levels? For example if the ceiling is mathematically the same, but dual wielding has much lower skill floor which makes the average person perform way better with dual wielding spec instead of 2h spec
Do you then change the ceiling so the specs average out for the masses, but create a rift at the ceiling?
Is it fair to have the specs balanced for the top 0.1% or for the average player, but making the dps ceilings different?
In an ideal game, a warrior using a 2h weapon and a warrior dual-wielding should both do the same DPS when played correctly. When those conditions are true, then the DPS meter is not needed.
In an ideal game, these two builds should function differently.
A two handed character dealing fewer, larger hits should be better against a heavily armored target, while a dual wielding character dealing faster, smaller hits should be better against a lightly or unarmored target.
If a game just had these two builds do the same if played the same, then what is the point in having two builds?
A two handed character dealing fewer, larger hits should be better against a heavily armored target, while a dual wielding character dealing faster, smaller hits should be better against a lightly or unarmored target.
This suggests that armor should have a flat reduction component in order to make your statement about light hits being worse against armored targets true
If a game just had these two builds do the same if played the same, then what is the point in having two builds?
You can have two builds having the exact same gameplay core if you add flavorful abilities atop of that with enterily different particles and animations - in a game such as Ashes that aims to have extremely diverse builds is doomed to have some builds share the exact core gameplay loop
A two handed character dealing fewer, larger hits should be better against a heavily armored target, while a dual wielding character dealing faster, smaller hits should be better against a lightly or unarmored target.
This suggests that armor should have a flat reduction component in order to make your statement about light hits being worse against armored targets true
This is one way to achieve this, but not the only way. A more common method is for larger weapons to have innate armor penetration, which is often 'hidden'.
there is a question then if there is an armor pene cap - and if armor pene is obtainable through other means as well
because so far I've always seen dualwielding having higher scaling and 2h specs being offset with high base values (like having armor pene baked into the spec)
“Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil.”
― Plato
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
However, if half the builds aren't viable (as in: don't do the same dps as others) or players are obligated to use certain item builds to achieve good results, then DPS meters are needed to help players see what is working and what not.
In an ideal game, a warrior using a 2h weapon and a warrior dual-wielding should both do the same DPS when played correctly. When those conditions are true, then the DPS meter is not needed.
It's not builds that aren't viable, it's tactics.
Especially the way Ashes is designed.
there is a question then if there is an armor pene cap - and if armor pene is obtainable through other means as well
because so far I've always seen dualwielding having higher scaling and 2h specs being offset with high base values (like having armor pene baked into the spec)
In my experience, dual wielding does always have a higher cap, but not always for the same reason - and as such is not an inherent aspect of dual wield vs two hander so much as a result of differing implementations.
In some games, it is because of an armor penetration cap - however, some games have that cap not include innate weapon effects (especially common in games where that effect is hidden).
The dual wield cap being higher is sometimes also due to effects that proc on attack. Unless the game normalizes such procs based on your weapons attack speed, hitting more often will cause you to proc these effects more often. Since such effects become more common the farther you progress, the benefit from them goes up as you progress.
In some games, it is also simply down to itemization.
Really, we are talking specifics about multiple different games here though.
I got back in to Guild Wars 2 WvW.
Daredevil is not a meta subclass to be playing with the melee train.
Because of this I always got thrown in the party of rangers even though it can't function there.
DPS meters allowed some commanders to see it wasn't useless and started give me proper parties.
Without DPS meters, people will just follow the meta and instead of being rejected or kicked out of groups for performance, you will be rejected or kicked for not being meta.
Um. You will be thrown into whatever your Primary Archetype is.
We don't need DPS meters to figure that out.
This is the way you will play Ashes, not the way all HAVE TO play. If some want to play different way, they can, and not even steven can forbid this. Even more, a good RPG (MMO or not) is where you CAN try exotic things, like in a pen&paper RPG, and find some quite good even if it wasn't expected...
Stop saying people "how to play" ... Play what you want, recruit who you want, and let people do what they want (bonus : i will be on European servers, so you won't even have to deal with me pretending doing a good DPS or a decent tanking as sumoner )
It's the way the game is designed.
People can try to play against the design if they want to.
But, people playing for the meta will assign people based on Primary Archetype.
And, we won't need combat trackers to figure that out.
In top end content a meta will form, this could be tank/tank or tank/cleric or something else as best tank but a meta will form. Without a combat tracker you have no reliable way to prove the meta wrong without getting a group who will repeatedly take the risk of playing non meta, which most won't.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
If one of the Archetypes is regarded as not what?
People will say they have found the meta. That much is true.
You don't need to "find the meta". You just need to defeat the challenge.
Tank/Tank v Tank/Cleric is irrelevant because all Tanks will be viable.
The whole point of the augment design is not needing "the meta".
All Tanks will be viable because it's the active skills that are most impactful.
The augments allow players to have characters with diversity and still be able to defeat world bosses.
In Ashes, especially, "the meta" is inherently "wrong". What you have, instead, is a consistently successful strategy.
Comments
Playing the game in ways it is not explicitly designed is kind of the point.
As you said in another thread... Seems hypocritical of you again if that is what you think in one situation where you want to do more, but not in a situation where others want to do more.
"People can try to play against the design if they want to."
If you are worried about "needing to play only meta builds," why don't you play with people that don't care about that? This game is supposed to be about choices, right?
In reality, not having a basic dps meter means people will be able to sneak their way to not pulling their own weight. I always thought part of the skill/fun of pve is maximizing damage while staying alive + using support skills as needed. If you don't want to make content to that degree of difficulty, then ok, but just say that.
If you're doing a raid and you consistently wipe somewhere around 5-10%, then maybe the fix is improving damage. Or if you're not killing the boss fast enough for improved rewards, basic damage meters help diagnose this problem. If you think your unique support build is worth the dps you're giving up, why would you be afraid of showing the numbers?
Also, you're not arguing in good faith if you think you can "just observe bro" to see who's efficiently dpsing and who isn't. If you want to make fights that aren't about maximizing dps, then make your arguments about that.
Successful combat is not just about efficient DPS.
It's an added layer of difficulty to do everything else AND efficiently dps
This is true in 2 situation
1) your dreams
2) game with low difficulty
Buy happy to see now you defend existence of META, you did a step into the real life
Sometimes you might not successfully defeat the challenges.
"Growing together is a good thing, and that includes failing together as a means to drive for success together."
---Steven
i never said anything against this quote you know. in fact i totally, in this topic, defend this way to see MMORPG.
but, one of your argument against parser is "it creates meta" then, now, you defend meta exist openly.
I know we don't need meta, i never obeyed them. Always played what i liked, even when i was playing endgame. . . (you know, content where is other game all uses combat tracker, but yes combat tracker force people to play meta ... )
At least, admit you simply dislike combat tracker, than using argument you dismantle yourself later v_v
There will always be some people striving to find the meta.
Which quote of mine do you think defends a meta?
(Your interpretations of what people said don't have the greatest track record for being accurate.)
You defend a kind of meta,
Rarely the best.
Because it is the one that block the most the people to play what they want. it lower the freedom of each player
and what is "false meta" ? i don't know what it is
There is only 1 absolute meta : can be or not the one define by the wiki, can be or not the one devs are explaining.
There is one, the one which is coded in the game. Most of time it differs slitghtly from what devs are saying, even more in games with strong class identity. the more identity and freedom in building character, the more meta can vary from what devs officially stated. The only way to find it ? have devs giving all exact formula (... so no possible) the best way to get as close as this only one absolute real meta : combat tracker that allow to get as close as possible to what code allow
That you are the Primary Archetype is not a meta.
META is most efficient tactics available.
If you are a Tank, you have Tank active skills. You cannot use Cleric active skills.
If you are a Bard, you have Bard active skills. You cannot use Tank active skills.
People striving for a meta who want Tank active skills are going to have people with Tank active skills use Tank active skills.
A Tank with Cleric augments will still be using Tank active skills.
That has nothing to do with most efficient tactics available.
You could be a Tank and try to fill the spot of a Primary Archetype Cleric or Bard.
But, Steven has already said that Cleric augments will not replace the need for a Primary Archetype Cleric.
People don't know the absolute meta.
They think they know what the absolute meta is.
Once someone finds a strategy that is consistent - they assume that is absolute meta.
But, designers do not actually design for the absolute best solution.
There is no way to determine absolute close as possible - even with combat trackers.
And you can get close, more and more.
How? while collecting more, and more, and more data, and do calculations around it.
And no, people don't assume that is absolute meta, except the dumb one who don't understand how video games really works. Just, look at speedrunners, they spend time training their patern, until another one is found, they test it, and if it does better that previous one. they change. No one of the real good player consider that the situation they found, and use is the definitiv best, and many even crave to continue to dig data to prove that the current meta is not enough perfect yet.
and about the primary archetype role ?
Yes, it is the first meta we all will use at the launch. Because the meta is always with the condition "with the current knwoledge" it is never fixed.
People begin with the simple tank/heal/support/DPS range/DPS melee (those are the main way to classify the role of each character)
This is the first meta of all MMORPG, most RPG.
Then, while doing the first discovery in the world we add another way to distinguish characters : one-target/multi-target.
and as time pass and people discover more thing in game, and also level add more tools to each character, the meta change, getting more or less variety, and some ranking can change.
The simple fact you say "no" to any character that does not fit what you think is best for your group/raid is already applying a meta.
The simple fact you do a team with 1 tank, 1 heal, 3 DPS all time because you consider it is the best way to do content, is already applying a meta. When FFXI used a DPS (ninja) to tank some of the strongest boss instead of a "tank job" was also a META, when people in WoW, uses balance druid as healer in dungeons, and/or fury warrior as tank (both are DPS spec) is also a meta. (it is more efficient because damages in dungeon can be not enough to need a real tank+heal)
And what does combat tracker ? Just HELP to define where each build does its best, and so, in the global meta, what will be the exact role, among a raid of 40 people, of this specific build. It is not even enough alone to try to define a meta. because there is many things not shown in parser, or at least, not before trying this specific encounter. (a fight asking many move will totally break the DPS from high cast time classes for example)
Meta dictates from the first MMORPG, Ultima Online, How players teamup together, from the first STR, Dune 2, how to dominate each matchup. With or without combat tracker, we will be submitted to meta... and in my 19 years MMORPG experience, meta without real data behind it are dumb, and the one that allow the least player plays what they like even if it is efficient. Because without way to prove what you say, you will hardly convince people to trust you if you have a build considered suboptimal, exotic...
If something is absolute, you cannot get more, more close.
the absolute meta exist, or the "perfect one" if you prefer, the one that is dictated by the game code itself. (be it because the devs speciffically want the meta to be like this, or simple consequences of class and fight design). Simply because how game are nothing more than informatic program... you can't do without it. This meta is not fixed. It changes each time there is a patch (sometime, the change is meaningless, sometime... it can totally break already all that was already discovered. say hello to WoW/FFXIV expansions)
and people will find way to find the meta as close as possible of this perfect one. the more basic (which can already be close to the one in the code) is the simple "tank/heal/DPS" and then by iteration and data collect, people will try to get even closer. And some people like me love to do this work of finding always better meta, closer to the one "perfect" (untill next patch :-° )
And sometime it can be really... REALLY exotic (when Ramuh was released in FFXIV, the best tank was "titan-egi" also called "the potato" ... the boss mechanic was not so simple to learn for tank, while the pet did negate all difficulty from the tank mechanic :') ... then they patched it
A meta is the commonly accepted best practice. Even in games with combat trackers, it is rarely the most efficient, as there is more to it than that.
That said, have to define this group of words.
"efficient" seems to not fit the same things for all.
For me meta really fit with efficiency. because best practice = the most efficient, but efficiency is not only "biggest DPS" there is lot of factor to define what is efficient
also never forget it is "tactics" and not "tactic" ... one meta = different tactics.
I'm saying that is never what it actually is in practice. As you suggest, this is largely because different people/guilds have a differing opinion of what efficient is.
The meta for casual raiders is to strive for reliability, to play it "safe" while on the other way the top raiders are always squeeze the maximum power even if it has risks with it
― Plato
If every build in the game is viable and every hero can achieve best results with any item he can equip, then DPS meters are not needed and the game is better without them.
However, if half the builds aren't viable (as in: don't do the same dps as others) or players are obligated to use certain item builds to achieve good results, then DPS meters are needed to help players see what is working and what not.
In an ideal game, a warrior using a 2h weapon and a warrior dual-wielding should both do the same DPS when played correctly. When those conditions are true, then the DPS meter is not needed.
Those are not the only conditions - what if the DPS difference is different at various skill levels? For example if the ceiling is mathematically the same, but dual wielding has much lower skill floor which makes the average person perform way better with dual wielding spec instead of 2h spec
Do you then change the ceiling so the specs average out for the masses, but create a rift at the ceiling?
Is it fair to have the specs balanced for the top 0.1% or for the average player, but making the dps ceilings different?
― Plato
In an ideal game, these two builds should function differently.
A two handed character dealing fewer, larger hits should be better against a heavily armored target, while a dual wielding character dealing faster, smaller hits should be better against a lightly or unarmored target.
If a game just had these two builds do the same if played the same, then what is the point in having two builds?
― Plato
because so far I've always seen dualwielding having higher scaling and 2h specs being offset with high base values (like having armor pene baked into the spec)
― Plato
Especially the way Ashes is designed.
In my experience, dual wielding does always have a higher cap, but not always for the same reason - and as such is not an inherent aspect of dual wield vs two hander so much as a result of differing implementations.
In some games, it is because of an armor penetration cap - however, some games have that cap not include innate weapon effects (especially common in games where that effect is hidden).
The dual wield cap being higher is sometimes also due to effects that proc on attack. Unless the game normalizes such procs based on your weapons attack speed, hitting more often will cause you to proc these effects more often. Since such effects become more common the farther you progress, the benefit from them goes up as you progress.
In some games, it is also simply down to itemization.
Really, we are talking specifics about multiple different games here though.
right so any random combination of skill point allocation and augments results in a viable build for all content - i get you
― Plato
If one of the Archetypes is regarded as not
In top end content a meta will form, this could be tank/tank or tank/cleric or something else as best tank but a meta will form. Without a combat tracker you have no reliable way to prove the meta wrong without getting a group who will repeatedly take the risk of playing non meta, which most won't.
People will say they have found the meta. That much is true.
You don't need to "find the meta". You just need to defeat the challenge.
Tank/Tank v Tank/Cleric is irrelevant because all Tanks will be viable.
The whole point of the augment design is not needing "the meta".
All Tanks will be viable because it's the active skills that are most impactful.
The augments allow players to have characters with diversity and still be able to defeat world bosses.
In Ashes, especially, "the meta" is inherently "wrong". What you have, instead, is a consistently successful strategy.