Friendly rivalry and spotting slackers with no dps/hps meters?

Honestly I'm excited to play an MMO that isn't going to be cluttered up with a million addons and just have everything you need built in.

That said something that worries me as a guild leader is friendly competition, for example in wow I have 2 hunters in my guild who play the same class and spec and are constantly competing with each other for top dps/performance and they love to bounce ideas off each other for rotation/talents/stat prio/etc. Without any way to measure yourself in Ashes how can they continue their friendly rivalry?

I'm also worried about how to spot and deal with slackers in my guild in Ashes since people tend to take the path of least resistance, if I have a healer that throws up a hot on the tanks and then alt tabs to watch anime during a boss fight how would I as GM know unless I'm watching everyone casting? (impossible in large group sizes). If we're wiping because of no healing going out how can I identify its the lazy healer and not slap the blame on the entire heal team? (which would suck for everyone who is really trying).

I propose a very simplified "meter" that only the group lead is able to see that just provides a breakdown of either active time casting abilities/hitting the mobs/moving around or the ability to see what spell and how often the person is pressing it just to be able to see everyone is participating or at least trying. That or allow only the group lead to see dps/hps meters. It doesn't help with the friendly competition aspect but idk what would. I'd honestly really love the option to "opt in" for dps/hps meters in specific content like only the gm/group in lead in large scale content, or anyone in small groups of 2-3, or perhaps have some ingame target dummies that display dps/hps and you can only see it there.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Warth

That's not the point at all though.

You're missing the point... Did you read the description of that person's game session?

An instanced battleground where he/she is more focused on the data presented in the UI rather than the events happening in the game. That does not sound like an orc hunting in a fantasy world (or whatever other adventure you would embark on)... which is what MMORPGs were designed for. An adventure to partake in.

None of the features i mentioned add any value to the experience of an Orc Hunting in the fantasy world.

Noaani

Vhaeyne wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

It would be more useful - though I don't expect them to really have an idea yet.

The kind of content I am talking about can't be create by the developers until the combat system is developed, tested, implemented and understood.

This means that this content type won't be in the game at release. It actually can't be developed and ready for release.

If you look at most games with good raid content, the best content is added to the game 2 - 5 years after the game is released.

True enough. Would still be nice to know what encounters from other games Jeff, Steven, or Margret struggled with. I just don't want people to flood the Q and A. I think that is kind of a silly way to do things.

I hope the joking tone of my prior post came across. I noticed some people take the things I say on here way too seriously.

Steven hasn't played a PvE game. This is why he doesn't really speak about PvE, or at least this is my assumption.

Jeff's experience as a developer is somewhat similar to my experience as a player.

I would like them to address PvE content at some stage, I still think it will end up being far more important than any th9nk itwill be.

If the game is still to be as they originally described (PvP being the driving force for change), that puts PvE as the actual core of the game, as having PvP as a force for change is of no use unless there is something worthwhile to change - and I dont see node state being enough of a thing for PvP to change to be compelling enough to keep people in the game in large numbers for long.

Basically, the PvE is there to feed the PvP, but this means that the PvP is relianton the PvE being as good as it can be, as the PvE needs to be able to function while having enough far left to continue to feed the PvP.

Thus, without PvE that people actually want to do for it's own sake (as opposed to PvE that people want to do to get better at PvP), I dont see the game being able to stand.

Basically, it will become another L2 - a game that a very small number of people love, but even most of them dont play. And it will also be a game ⁰that is irrelevant and barely busy enough to keep the servers on.

Leonerdo

Combat trackers could be unnecessary if all of their use-cases are made unnecessary.

If skills/builds are simple enough and don't have dozen of interactions, then we wouldn't need combat trackers to test overall output. We could easily add it up ourselves.
If DPS checks don't exist, then we wouldn't need to care about teammates DPS.
If attacks/mechanics are straightforward and clearly visualized, then we wouldn't need trackers to figure out what went wrong in a wipe. (Although, recording the fight visually might still be necessary to review chaotic fights second-by-second.)

I guess we'll see what kind of game AoC ends up being, and whether it necessitates combat trackers. Personally, that third "If" sounds pretty nice to me, but the first two could be considered a lack of depth or challenge that makes the game more boring.

Honestly I could see all 3 being the case, if Intrepid decides to focus more on PvP, action combat, and visual flair, while intentionally keeping complex PvE mechanics (both on mobs and player skills) to a minimum.

I'm personally not going to claim that one design is better than the other, but I feel like the majority of the AoC community is somewhat attached to the complicated, number-crunchy kind of gameplay, and would be sad to see it go. (At least when it comes to building their character up.)

Biccus

Leonerdo5 wrote: »

Combat trackers could be unnecessary if all of their use-cases are made unnecessary.

If skills/builds are simple enough and don't have dozen of interactions, then we wouldn't need combat trackers to test overall output. We could easily add it up ourselves.

If DPS checks don't exist, then we wouldn't need to care about teammates DPS.

If attacks/mechanics are straightforward and clearly visualized, then we wouldn't need trackers to figure out what went wrong in a wipe. (Although, recording the fight visually might still be necessary to review chaotic fights second-by-second.)

Are you really advocating for simple builds, no dps checks and straightforward mechanics?
This game will rely on PvE just like Noaani stated. I'll even add that the best gear in the game is almost entirely from PvE (raid boss loot or crafting materials from raid bosses)

PvP might be how you change the world, but it won't necessarily by why .

Noaani

Biccus wrote: »

Leonerdo5 wrote: »

Combat trackers could be unnecessary if all of their use-cases are made unnecessary.

If skills/builds are simple enough and don't have dozen of interactions, then we wouldn't need combat trackers to test overall output. We could easily add it up ourselves.

If DPS checks don't exist, then we wouldn't need to care about teammates DPS.

If attacks/mechanics are straightforward and clearly visualized, then we wouldn't need trackers to figure out what went wrong in a wipe. (Although, recording the fight visually might still be necessary to review chaotic fights second-by-second.)

Are you really advocating for simple builds, no dps checks and straightforward mechanics?
This game will rely on PvE just like Noaani stated. I'll even add that the best gear in the game is almost entirely from PvE (raid boss loot or crafting materials from raid bosses)

PvP might be how you change the world, but it won't necessarily by why .

This is basically the reply I was going to give the above post.

Sure, if the game has no complex, intricate encounters (which are the only time a combat tracker could be said to be *needed*), then combat trackers wont be needed.

The problem with that is that it means the game will have no complex, intricate encounters.

Leonerdo

@Noaani @Biccus I did say, "I'm personally not going to claim that one design is better than the other." So no I'm not advocating it. I'm just sayin' it's a possibility for such an MMO to exist. There are MMOs out there, that serve their audiences just fine without combat trackers. But those are not this MMO, nor this audience. My post was a tongue-in-cheek way of illustrating that. (Maybe a little too much devil's advocate?)

So ya'know, business as usual. As Noanni always says, combat trackers will exist one way or another. But Steven won't ever support them. Hopefully he won't crusade against them either. We've all heard these things 100 times.

Let the salt continue.

Vhaeyne

Leonerdo5 wrote: »

So ya'know, business as usual. As Noanni always says, combat trackers will exist one way or another. But Steven won't ever support them. Hopefully he won't crusade against them either. We've all heard these things 100 times.

Let the salt continue.

Or maybe they wont...

A few layers of obfuscation on the client side and the only way to track DPS would be to have a program do screen capture, run image detection on the combat log window, and read it in real time. Something that is entirely possible, but not practical.

Otherwise Ashes will be in the same boat as FFXIV. Where they don't want combat trackers, but it would take too much reworking to prevent combat trackers. Realistically all they have to do is make it so the combat data from the network packets is randomly different every time a client connects, and have some similar obfuscation on the clients memory. If combat trackers can't pull the data from the network traffic or the clients memory. The only thing left is to look at the screen at high speed. This could also be countered by making the combat log invisible in combat. The only thing left to look at would be damage numbers as they pop up from personal attacks, and that would only give you personal DPS.

If IG really wanted no combat trackers. I think they could do it. They just have to take it seriously.

but yes. let the salt flow.

ariatras

Stormfyre wrote: »

Honestly I'm excited to play an MMO that isn't going to be cluttered up with a million addons and just have everything you need built in.

That said something that worries me as a guild leader is friendly competition, for example in wow I have 2 hunters in my guild who play the same class and spec and are constantly competing with each other for top dps/performance and they love to bounce ideas off each other for rotation/talents/stat prio/etc. Without any way to measure yourself in Ashes how can they continue their friendly rivalry?

I'm also worried about how to spot and deal with slackers in my guild in Ashes since people tend to take the path of least resistance, if I have a healer that throws up a hot on the tanks and then alt tabs to watch anime during a boss fight how would I as GM know unless I'm watching everyone casting? (impossible in large group sizes). If we're wiping because of no healing going out how can I identify its the lazy healer and not slap the blame on the entire heal team? (which would suck for everyone who is really trying).

I propose a very simplified "meter" that only the group lead is able to see that just provides a breakdown of either active time casting abilities/hitting the mobs/moving around or the ability to see what spell and how often the person is pressing it just to be able to see everyone is participating or at least trying. That or allow only the group lead to see dps/hps meters. It doesn't help with the friendly competition aspect but idk what would. I'd honestly really love the option to "opt in" for dps/hps meters in specific content like only the gm/group in lead in large scale content, or anyone in small groups of 2-3, or perhaps have some ingame target dummies that display dps/hps and you can only see it there.

I understand what you mean about DPS meters and the little rivalries that come with it. I've enjoyed those things myself. But I'm against dps meters, because what they usually turn into. Instead, imagine the following scenario.

Ashes will have action-combat. You'll have to aim your spells, which means, to me. That spells are essentially projectiles. So far so good. There will be tanking, healing, damage. Pretty useful metrics to base ones performance on. But not the only metric. Here's a few examples.

A warrior charges you (assuming he's not the mage secondary which turns it into a blink) It would make sense there is some travel time. (In WoW for example it's a ranged stun essentially. And the animation is irrelevant) What if the animations aren't irrelevant. What if I, who usually does damage see that a warrior is charging you, or even a monster or boss, and I have the toolkit, provided I react fast and precise enough enough to stop the charge from happening. Like erecting a wall between you and the one who charges. Or any other thing that would make him stop in his tracks.

Even in WoW there used to be situations like that for me (Long long ago, when people were really bad at the game) I had to take attention away from the healer as our tank couldn't cope. So I kited the mobs, losing significant dps in the process.

Now, what is my point? In short, if you take away a metric used to monitor performance, give us tools and ways to influence how things go other than dealing damage/taking damage/healing. In most MMOs these are the only metrics to consider (other than dispels sometimes) if I can aim my attack away from a monster and instead in the path of one of his attacks, I could make myself a lot more useful. And fights would be a whole lot more dynamic, and chaotic (which battles often are)

Jxshuwu

@ariatras

I think this thing that ESO does is pretty cool, where you use an ability and an ally can press a button on it to activate its 2nd ability which makes it more powerful. For example, there's these 'talons' my character has that root enemies into place around me, and if an ally presses X it 'ignites' and does major fire damage + big Dot Damage.

I don't necessarily like nor dislike that its just pressing a button, i'd maybe like for it to be a little bit more mechanical although i wouldn't know how to do that. Combo's where you need allies could bring forward this point you're making in a way.

ariatras

Vhaeyne wrote: »

Leonerdo5 wrote: »

So ya'know, business as usual. As Noanni always says, combat trackers will exist one way or another. But Steven won't ever support them. Hopefully he won't crusade against them either. We've all heard these things 100 times.

Let the salt continue.

Or maybe they wont...

A few layers of obfuscation on the client side and the only way to track DPS would be to have a program do screen capture, run image detection on the combat log window, and read it in real time. Something that is entirely possible, but not practical.

Otherwise Ashes will be in the same boat as FFXIV. Where they don't want combat trackers, but it would take too much reworking to prevent combat trackers. Realistically all they have to do is make it so the combat data from the network packets is randomly different every time a client connects, and have some similar obfuscation on the clients memory. If combat trackers can't pull the data from the network traffic or the clients memory. The only thing left is to look at the screen at high speed. This could also be countered by making the combat log invisible in combat. The only thing left to look at would be damage numbers as they pop up from personal attacks, and that would only give you personal DPS.

If IG really wanted no combat trackers. I think they could do it. They just have to take it seriously.

but yes. let the salt flow.

I hope they go that route tbh

zammwich

I feel like you should be able to track your own dps/hps and only your own dps/hps, that way you can compete with yourself to improve. I've always found myself either running or being a part of smaller more personal guilds so worrying about slackers has never been musch of an issue as we tend to have decent relationships built that allow us to not only trust one another but feel ok with throwing people in our backpack occasionally. That being said having an opt in system where only the lead can see your numbers doesnt sound entirely bad. But there is probably a high chance that it will become common that groups require that opt in to play content at all. I do know a fair few people that really do hate dps meters as it makes them feel insecure when they are not familiar with every group member.

Shoelid

this is always an interesting conversation

Meters and trackers definitely have their use cases, especially for those who love to optimize performance which... I would say is most modern gamers. However, the more information people have about a game, the stronger the meta gets.

If I'm given a choice between...
DPS/HPS meters and complete combat tracking, but with a meta where only 32 out of 64 classes are played
or zero meters and zero tracking, but 50 out of 64 classes are played...

I'm choosing no combat tracking nine times out of ten. That's just me though

Noaani

Shoelid wrote: »

this is always an interesting conversation

Meters and trackers definitely have their use cases, especially for those who love to optimize performance which... I would say is most modern gamers. However, the more information people have about a game, the stronger the meta gets.

If I'm given a choice between...
DPS/HPS meters and complete combat tracking, but with a meta where only 32 out of 64 classes are played
or zero meters and zero tracking, but 50 out of 64 classes are played...

I'm choosing no combat tracking nine times out of ten. That's just me though

The problem with this is that the meta will exist with or without combat trackers.

With combat trackers, the meta will consist of classes that players can objectively state are good, and players that think they have a better build have an objective way of making the case for said build (which people will listen to, generally).

Without a combat tracker, the meta will consist of classes that people think are good, and players that think they have a better build have no real way of proving it to others, and so no one will really listen.

Of these two potential meta versions, which would you rather have?

What won't happen, even though it seems to be what many people think, is that people won't take along unfamiliar players running unfamiliar builds with no objective way of assessing them.

The fact that this won't happen is probably obvious to you when it is stated as such.

Shoelid

Noaani wrote: »

The problem with this is that the meta will exist with or without combat trackers.

With combat trackers, the meta will consist of classes that players can objectively state are good, and players that think they have a better build have an objective way of making the case for said build (which people will listen to, generally).

Without a combat tracker, the meta will consist of classes that people think are good, and players that think they have a better build have no real way of proving it to others, and so no one will really listen.

Of these two potential meta versions, which would you rather have?

What won't happen, even though it seems to be what many people think, is that people won't take along unfamiliar players running unfamiliar builds with no objective way of assessing them.

The fact that this won't happen is probably obvious to you when it is stated as such.

I understand what you're saying. metaslaving will always exist, and without combat trackers, innovations in builds will not be easily accepted.

However, I think I still prefer a meta based off word of mouth and community experimentation rather than comparing meters. Maybe that's stupid of me. Maybe it's because the recent WoW expansion left such a bad taste in my mouth that I never want to think about sims and raid logs ever again.

I'm not expecting some meta-less fantasy land where every class is balanced and nobody cares where you put your talent points. I just think that the hardcore players will figure out how to make do without combat tracking, and us filthy casuals never really needed it in the first place

Noaani

Shoelid wrote: »

However, I think I still prefer a meta based off word of mouth and community experimentation rather than comparing meters.

Archeage had very low combat tracker use - there were people with trackers (like myself) but they were rare.

The game had the same meta for the 4 years I was playing/following the game.

Most people are not interested in spending time working out a new build, then spending dozens or hundreds of hours working out if that build is better or worse than the one they used to have. Most people simply want to get a build, get in to game and play.

If you want a meta that moves at all outside of Intrepid making large changes to classes to force people to change, then combat trackers are about the only way to achieve that.

It's great thinking that people will put the time in to builds - they won't, and they don't.

Vhaeyne

Shoelid wrote: »

However, I think I still prefer a meta based off word of mouth and community experimentation rather than comparing meters. Maybe that's stupid of me.

I don't think it is stupid of you. Personally I like it when a few builds are theory crafted to be really close, but without meters there is no clear winner. This is entirely possible.

Using Shadowlands as a example would be really good here. There are a number of legendries, talents, and convenient abilities that are really good. Without DPS meters or solid SIMing there would be massive debates per class on what build is best for what Scenario. A clear best build may eventually be solved for with certain classes and objective, but some best builds may never be determined for sure.

Vhaeyne

Noaani wrote: »

It's great thinking that people will put the time in to builds - they won't, and they don't.

It depends on the game. When I played GW1 back in like 2005-2006 the PvP and PvE Metas were revolving doors.

The meta was just constantly changing. People would switch their builds up all day looking for an edge. Trying different skill combinations with gear sets and sub jobs.

What was great was that the meta slaves were forced to change all the time or get rekt. Every time something became popular, counter building it would become popular.

Depending on how in depth the build customization is. The meta could be a revolving door that is never truly solved for. Especially if they manage to pull off preventing combat logs.

Noaani

Vhaeyne wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

It's great thinking that people will put the time in to builds - they won't, and they don't.

It depends on the game. When I played GW1 back in like 2005-2006 the PvP and PvE Metas were revolving doors.

The meta was just constantly changing. People would switch their builds up all day looking for an edge. Trying different skill combinations with gear sets and sub jobs.

What was great was that the meta slaves were forced to change all the time or get rekt. Every time something became popular, counter building it would become popular.

Depending on how in depth the build customization is. The meta could be a revolving door that is never truly solved for. Especially if they manage to pull off preventing combat logs.

I can't speak to GW back then, but in many other games, combat trackers were the exclusive realm of the top end player, metas were suggestions and players were generally more willing to put in the time to do things.

Each of these things is no longer the case.

Shoelid

Vhaeyne wrote: »

Using Shadowlands as a example would be really good here. There are a number of legendries, talents, and convenient abilities that are really good. Without DPS meters or solid SIMing there would be massive debates per class on what build is best for what Scenario. A clear best build may eventually be solved for with certain classes and objective, but some best builds may never be determined for sure.

You just perfectly put into words why I've developed a dislike for combat tracking haha

That pressure to do what's 5% better instead of what you think looks/feels the best absolutely sucks.

And then you get some knuckleheads who get angry whenever they're grouped with somebody who wants to look cool instead of doing 5% more damage in easy PvE content.

Of course, 5% can make or break some of the more difficult content, but I find that people are concerned about that 5% even when it really doesn't matter.

Vhaeyne

Noaani wrote: »

I can't speak to GW back then, but in many other games, combat trackers were the exclusive realm of the top end player, metas were suggestions and players were generally more willing to put in the time to do things.

Each of these things is no longer the case.

I just wish you had a more open mind about the possibilities less data, and an uncertain meta bring to the table. It means that the whole character build part of the game has some value.

FFXIV just makes everyone the same. Which is dumb and boring.

WOW just throws a billion options at the wall and sees what sticks for the next six months, then nerfs (or not) depending on their mood.

There are games where you can come up with your own build and no one is going to be that upset about it. Crowfall right now has that. DDO has it. GW1 had it for sure.

To me if we are going to just give up and say there will always be a set meta. Then we might as well not have the option to come up with character builds. We might as well go the FFXIV route and not have any real customization.

I am the type of guy that will waste hours looking at talents and trying builds. Wasting money on the AH getting items to try parts of builds. I mean I played shadowlands recently, my experience was basically:
"Look at all of these legendries I can craft, too bad one of them is BiS, I guess I will just take that and move on.".
I hate it.

I think we are all here because Ashes is trying to do something special. It would be mighty special if best character builds were not something that was ever truly solved for.

Child Item