There are two views on why combat trackers should not be allowed.
These are views that have been discussed in the larger thread. I don't think they are the major factors, but they are definitely reasons.
To me, the idea that a combat tracker will get players though content faster is actually a reason to have one built in to the game.
Players absolutely will have a combat tracker, and so will complete the games initial content in that same amount of time.
Intrepid can say they don't want combat trackers, and can even ban accounts seen to be using them, but that won't stop - or even really slow - their use. It will just mean people don't openly talk about them.
If that combat tracker is built in to the game, it means the content we have at the start can be tuned for combat tracker use during beta. This is the only way to slow down the rate that players complete content - design it with combat trackers that players will be using in mind.
Why do you even respond anymore?
You just basically said the same exact thing I did.... but tried to spin it as I was wrong for what I said. I told myself I was never going to respond to you again, so now that I lied to myself, I am going to lie to you.. I hope you are successful in AoC.
I'm not sure what this is all about.
As I said, I agree that the fact that players will get through content faster with combat trackers vs without them is a factor to consider, I disagree with Intrwpids view that this is a reason to not have them - as I said above, it is a reason to have them in the game during beta so the content can be properly tuned to take the appropriate amount t of time when the game goes live.
In other words, I agree with you and your points, I disagree with Intrepid.
Dont turn in to Dygz, he thinks everything is about him.
First and foremost, Do not bring compare me to Dygz, I am willing to bet he is one hell of a better person than I am, and it is not fair to him.
Second, I am not talking about Alpha, Beta, Pre Beta, Beta 8, or Alpha 4, I am talking about launch, always have been. And you do not agree with me about hardly anything.... and the one thing you did agree with, you turned into a reason to have one in the alpha... keep reading for my thoughts on that.
Third, Alpha testing is usually not used to test difficulty of content, it is to make sure something is not broken. Not sure how having a tracker in Alpha will help anyone, except people testing to see if their tracker works. Which is a slimey way of trying to getting it tested if you ask me. If there is something the devs want tested and they need you a certain level to do so.. no tracker needed, they will bump you to the appropriate level.
And that is it really... As far as I am concerned our argument over this issue is over... minus your incoming rebuttal to this post, which is fine, I will read it. We both know where we stand, we both know who will and wont use one after launch, and there is nothing else to say.
There are two views on why combat trackers should not be allowed.
These are views that have been discussed in the larger thread. I don't think they are the major factors, but they are definitely reasons.
To me, the idea that a combat tracker will get players though content faster is actually a reason to have one built in to the game.
Players absolutely will have a combat tracker, and so will complete the games initial content in that same amount of time.
Intrepid can say they don't want combat trackers, and can even ban accounts seen to be using them, but that won't stop - or even really slow - their use. It will just mean people don't openly talk about them.
If that combat tracker is built in to the game, it means the content we have at the start can be tuned for combat tracker use during beta. This is the only way to slow down the rate that players complete content - design it with combat trackers that players will be using in mind.
Why do you even respond anymore?
You just basically said the same exact thing I did.... but tried to spin it as I was wrong for what I said. I told myself I was never going to respond to you again, so now that I lied to myself, I am going to lie to you.. I hope you are successful in AoC.
I'm not sure what this is all about.
As I said, I agree that the fact that players will get through content faster with combat trackers vs without them is a factor to consider, I disagree with Intrwpids view that this is a reason to not have them - as I said above, it is a reason to have them in the game during beta so the content can be properly tuned to take the appropriate amount t of time when the game goes live.
In other words, I agree with you and your points, I disagree with Intrepid.
Dont turn in to Dygz, he thinks everything is about him.
First and foremost, Do not bring compare me to Dygz, I am willing to bet he is one hell of a better person than I am, and it is not fair to him.
I disagree entirely.
I've debated with him on these forums far more than you, and I can say with perfect confidence that you are the better person. Smarter, significantly more to the point, and from what I can tell, just a nicer person in general.
You can take that as a compliment to you, an indictment to him, or a reflection on me, I'm not concerned either way.
I know you are not talking about alpha, beta or anything, you are talking about live.
So am I.
In my mind, the best way to have well balanced top end content on launch day is to balance it in beta.
While most games do not balance their top end content in beta, there is no reason this needs to be the case. They balance low end content here, it is simply a matter of time that usually prevents them from also looking at top end.
So while I may be talking about beta, I am only doing so with an eye to launch day.
I am of the opinion that on launch day, content should be as balanced as possible for how players will play it.
This seems to be something you agree with - correct me if I am wrong.
There are two views on why combat trackers should not be allowed.
These are views that have been discussed in the larger thread. I don't think they are the major factors, but they are definitely reasons.
To me, the idea that a combat tracker will get players though content faster is actually a reason to have one built in to the game.
Players absolutely will have a combat tracker, and so will complete the games initial content in that same amount of time.
Intrepid can say they don't want combat trackers, and can even ban accounts seen to be using them, but that won't stop - or even really slow - their use. It will just mean people don't openly talk about them.
If that combat tracker is built in to the game, it means the content we have at the start can be tuned for combat tracker use during beta. This is the only way to slow down the rate that players complete content - design it with combat trackers that players will be using in mind.
Why do you even respond anymore?
You just basically said the same exact thing I did.... but tried to spin it as I was wrong for what I said. I told myself I was never going to respond to you again, so now that I lied to myself, I am going to lie to you.. I hope you are successful in AoC.
I'm not sure what this is all about.
As I said, I agree that the fact that players will get through content faster with combat trackers vs without them is a factor to consider, I disagree with Intrwpids view that this is a reason to not have them - as I said above, it is a reason to have them in the game during beta so the content can be properly tuned to take the appropriate amount t of time when the game goes live.
In other words, I agree with you and your points, I disagree with Intrepid.
Dont turn in to Dygz, he thinks everything is about him.
First and foremost, Do not bring compare me to Dygz, I am willing to bet he is one hell of a better person than I am, and it is not fair to him.
I disagree entirely.
I've debated with him on these forums far more than you, and I can say with perfect confidence that you are the better person. Smarter, significantly more to the point, and from what I can tell, just a nicer person in general.
You can take that as a compliment to you, an indictment to him, or a reflection on me, I'm not concerned either way.
I know you are not talking about alpha, beta or anything, you are talking about live.
So am I.
In my mind, the best way to have well balanced top end content on launch day is to balance it in beta.
While most games do not balance their top end content in beta, there is no reason this needs to be the case. They balance low end content here, it is simply a matter of time that usually prevents them from also looking at top end.
So while I may be talking about beta, I am only doing so with an eye to launch day.
I am of the opinion that on launch day, content should be as balanced as possible for how players will play it.
This seems to be something you agree with - correct me if I am wrong.
I like Dygz, no need to try and talk me out of liking him. That would be a huge waste of your time. I like pretty much everyone... except those Pirate dudes in the other thread saying they are going to run a 800 man, full time corrupt player guild... ya... those guys are a different story lol.
Balancing will be impossible to figure out even with trackers.. 64 classes, each with what... 4 ways to augment different skills? The best way to balance that, is over time. Trying to do that over a week or so period, while testing sieges and whatever big mechanics they want to test, balancing should be the least of their worries. Save balancing for the beta when you have a larger sample size of classes playing to get a better picture. That is my opinion on it.
Balancing will be impossible to figure out even with trackers.
This I agree with 100%
While time is always going to be the most important thing in balance - the game does have to launch. On launch day, we want it as balanced as possible. Not just the classes, but the content as well.
To me, the best way to balance things as quickly as possible is to have many thousands of people out there that are as keen on the game as possible, all generating and examining actual objective data about their own class, equipment and the games content.
It won't magically make the game perfect on launch day, but it sure will help a whole lot.
Then, going forward, either with continued balance passes or with new content, having these people armed with objective data means they are able to continue to contribute to this balance effort.
While you were not a part of that discussion, one of my main points in the 75 page combat tracker thread is that if players are equipped with combat trackers, we can find problems with the games combat system or content, obtain a full data set, examine that data, and present it to the developer. Every single game I have ever played has had players find issues using combat trackers and present them to the developers. I myself have done this a number of times, resulting in patches to the issues presented in multiple games.
If balance is what you want, either on launch day or later on, putting objective data in the hands of people that will use it to find issues should be a no-brainer.
Any predictions on weather they will address our concerns about high end open world raids?
I want to take the safe bet where they give us the same lines about how the raids will be dynamic enough to challenge any group, but static enough so that you can feel a sense of progression. Without addressing the fact zergs will dominate open world raids.
The optimist in me says they might explain that some high-end bosses will need to be instanced, but the way to gain access to the instance will be competitive in the open world.
I want to take the safe bet where they give us the same lines about how the raids will be dynamic enough to challenge any group, but static enough so that you can feel a sense of progression. Without addressing the fact zergs will dominate open world raids.
This is my thinking as well.
I've not had the time to watch any of the livestreams lately, but due to the lack of discussion about them here, I am assuming there is nothing actually new being talked about - maybe the odd piece here and there but nothing else.
I don't see this as being any different - and I am actually perfectly fine with that. I still don't expect to have actual details on raid content for quite a while.
I do expect combat trackers to be re-confirmed as not being wanted though.
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Any predictions on weather they will address our concerns about high end open world raids?
I want to take the safe bet where they give us the same lines about how the raids will be dynamic enough to challenge any group, but static enough so that you can feel a sense of progression. Without addressing the fact zergs will dominate open world raids.
I don't think the devs have enough info yet to meaningfully address concerns about high end raids.
Level cap is 20 and they only have half the Primary Archetypes available for test.
So, even if they have enough NDA testers to test raids, they don't have enough content to test high end raids.
I don't think the devs have enough info yet to meaningfully address concerns about high end raids.
Level cap is 20 and they only have half the Primary Archetypes available for test.
So, even if they have enough NDA testers to test raids, they don't have enough content to test high end raids.
I think they know a lot more than they have talked about in the past. There are two decade of MMO raid history to draw from, and some of the DEV are already a part of that history. They have not had much news about high end raids in a while. I feel like it is about time we heard something new. I am pretty optimistic about tomorrows live stream.
If we can't use damage meters, if you actively ban people that do, I will not be paying for or playing your game. I guarantee you a huge portion of the player base if not the majority of it, will do the same. Damage meters are not about how you think you want your player base to act, its about a quality of life tool that gives us the performance information we absolutely will be seeking regardless.
Any predictions on weather they will address our concerns about high end open world raids?
I want to take the safe bet where they give us the same lines about how the raids will be dynamic enough to challenge any group, but static enough so that you can feel a sense of progression. Without addressing the fact zergs will dominate open world raids.
The optimist in me says they might explain that some high-end bosses will need to be instanced, but the way to gain access to the instance will be competitive in the open world.
I am hoping we learn something new.
This question in mind is pretty important one, because my own free is becoming smaller and smaller and honestly I don't want to get invested into a game where raiding is defined by the word "Zerg" no matter what else the game might bring to the table
If you aren't going to allow add-ons you have to make sure you include all the features you want the players to be using. Knowing that, he is not implementing combat trackers - even though he knows there are people who want them and that he's not going to allow add-ons.
So... I really don't understand what your point is intended to be.
Personally, i'd be totally fine if there was just a way to save combat log into a file, but if I have to use 3rd party software either in the form of dps meters or screen recording software to make accesible permanent log of the ingame combat log then i will always say that the game isn't completed. Why else the game would show damage numbers if it isnt for giving us exactly that information
Stupid simple is subjective.
I think what you mean is that back in the day encounters were not designed to give combat trackers meaningful utility. If you're going to implement combat trackers, you're going to design encounters to be difficult enough to support players using combat trackers.
having only 1 mechanic - that being a dps check is not simple in an objective sense, but in objective you are literally in a true/false state in terms of requirements to kill the boss. If you can't accept that having 1 mechanic is the definition of simplicity then i wouldn't be surprised if you believe the earth is flat
They could help with that, but are most commonly used to enforce FOTM, cookie-cutter builds.
IME
FOTM, cookie-cutter builds are enforced even without meters, because what specs are enforced depends on the game meta and you dont get rid of meta if you make for people harder to gather information
“Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil.”
― Plato
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I don't think the devs have enough info yet to meaningfully address concerns about high end raids.
Level cap is 20 and they only have half the Primary Archetypes available for test.
So, even if they have enough NDA testers to test raids, they don't have enough content to test high end raids.
I think they know a lot more than they have talked about in the past. There are two decade of MMO raid history to draw from, and some of the DEV are already a part of that history. They have not had much news about high end raids in a while. I feel like it is about time we heard something new. I am pretty optimistic about tomorrows live stream.
Oh. If that's what you mean...
It's highly unlikely you will get any info that addresses concerns about high end raids tomorrow. Pretty much the only way to get leaks about Steven's vision for high end raids is to ask him specific questions about it.
If you aren't going to allow add-ons you have to make sure you include all the features you want the players to be using. Knowing that, he is not implementing combat trackers - even though he knows there are people who want them and that he's not going to allow add-ons.
So... I really don't understand what your point is intended to be.
There is a major flaw in this thinking.
I'm sure you know of desire paths, or paths of least resistance. The easy illustration of this is a designed path that looks great, but is sat beside a worn trail of where people actually walk to get from where they are to where they want to be.
A good designer designs around what the users will do. With paths, that means that instead of creating nice, neat paths in a pleasing, symmetrical layout, you place paths where people will walk.
In terms of game design, what you are saying here is that Intrepid know where players (many players, even if not all players) will want to walk, and are purposefully not placing a path there.
All this means is that players are going to wear in that trail, and that trail is where the path should have been built. Even if Intrepid attempt to built a fence where users want to walk (which is just horrid design - all things considered), users will still take the route that is closest to where they want to walk, not where Intrepid lay their path. In fact, players will even help each other get over that fence, if need be.
Now sure, it's Stevens game and he can design it how he likes, but that doesn't mean every decision he makes is a good decision, nor that every decision is the right decision. It is foolish to think this is the case, and there is no aspect of this game that this is an appropriate defense for.
Indeed, any decision that a company makes that is going to see many people create their own trail rather than follow the designated path is a bad decision by definition.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Personally, i'd be totally fine if there was just a way to save combat log into a file, but if I have to use 3rd party software either in the form of dps meters or screen recording software to make accessible permanent log of the ingame combat log then i will always say that the game isn't completed. Why else the game would show damage numbers if it isnt for giving us exactly that information.
Right. But, again, this is like PvEers complaining that there are no separate PvE-Only servers.
I think we all understand what you want. What matters is that Steven doesn't want what you want.
having only 1 mechanic - that being a dps check is not simple in an objective sense, but in objective you are literally in a true/false state in terms of requirements to kill the boss. If you can't accept that having 1 mechanic is the definition of simplicity then i wouldn't be surprised if you believe the earth is flat
I don't agree with your assertion about a true/false state in terms of requirements to kill the boss.
As in, I don't believe there is a true/false state of requirements.
FOTM, cookie-cutter builds are enforced even without meters, because what specs are enforced depends on the game meta and you dont get rid of meta if you make for people harder to gather information
Some people will try to promote them. It will be more difficult to get others to accept them.
I didn't say not having combat trackers will "get rid of" meta.
having only 1 mechanic - that being a dps check is not simple in an objective sense, but in objective you are literally in a true/false state in terms of requirements to kill the boss. If you can't accept that having 1 mechanic is the definition of simplicity then i wouldn't be surprised if you believe the earth is flat
I don't agree with your assertion about a true/false state in terms of requirements to kill the boss.
As in, I don't believe there is a true/false state of requirements.
So when a boss needs to be killed inside a certain time period and that is the only requirement then the boss is complex and not simple?
FOTM, cookie-cutter builds are enforced even without meters, because what specs are enforced depends on the game meta and you dont get rid of meta if you make for people harder to gather information
Some people will try to promote them. It will be more difficult to get others to accept them.
I didn't say not having combat trackers will "get rid of" meta.
On the total polar opposite - if you dont have tools to verify the effectivity of builds then you go with those builds that got proven inside an actual raid. This makes going outside of the meta incredibly harder
Players absolutely will have a combat tracker, and so will complete the games initial content in that same amount of time.
For me this is reason enough to no have a Combat Tracker. Even if the game ships with one, I am 100% sure it won't be enough.
People will want more, and will still have another combat tracker outside of the game.
So having or not having a DPS meter ensures the same result, might as well make it harder like Steven wants.
Players absolutely will have a combat tracker, and so will complete the games initial content in that same amount of time.
For me this is reason enough to no have a Combat Tracker. Even if the game ships with one, I am 100% sure it won't be enough.
People will want more, and will still have another combat tracker outside of the game.
So having or not having a DPS meter ensures the same result, might as well make it harder like Steven wants.
only someone who uses only front page with dps leaderboard can say something so out of touch
Players absolutely will have a combat tracker, and so will complete the games initial content in that same amount of time.
For me this is reason enough to no have a Combat Tracker. Even if the game ships with one, I am 100% sure it won't be enough.
People will want more, and will still have another combat tracker outside of the game.
So having or not having a DPS meter ensures the same result, might as well make it harder like Steven wants.
If you have combat trackers, and the developers know this, they can design the content with that in mind.
Assuming the combat tracker offers up all needed information, there is nothing left to be gained by having an additional combat tracker.
Players absolutely will have a combat tracker, and so will complete the games initial content in that same amount of time.
For me this is reason enough to no have a Combat Tracker. Even if the game ships with one, I am 100% sure it won't be enough.
People will want more, and will still have another combat tracker outside of the game.
So having or not having a DPS meter ensures the same result, might as well make it harder like Steven wants.
If you have combat trackers, and the developers know this, they can design the content with that in mind.
Assuming the combat tracker offers up all needed information, there is nothing left to be gained by having an additional combat tracker.
I definitely believe he meant that players would start making play assist addons that play in part instead of you
Players absolutely will have a combat tracker, and so will complete the games initial content in that same amount of time.
For me this is reason enough to no have a Combat Tracker. Even if the game ships with one, I am 100% sure it won't be enough.
People will want more, and will still have another combat tracker outside of the game.
So having or not having a DPS meter ensures the same result, might as well make it harder like Steven wants.
If you have combat trackers, and the developers know this, they can design the content with that in mind.
Assuming the combat tracker offers up all needed information, there is nothing left to be gained by having an additional combat tracker.
And do you know what information is this? Is there a blue print IS can follow to make sure everyone is happy? I mean, people can't even agree on what a Combat Tracker is.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
So when a boss needs to be killed inside a certain time period and that is the only requirement then the boss is complex and not simple?
That sounds like a boss designed specifically for combat trackers.
On the total polar opposite - if you dont have tools to verify the effectivity of builds then you go with those builds that got proven inside an actual raid. This makes going outside of the meta incredibly harder.
Nope. It makes it more likely the FOTM meta is bullshit that can be disregarded. Especially in Ashes class design.
So when a boss needs to be killed inside a certain time period and that is the only requirement then the boss is complex and not simple?
That sounds like a boss designed specifically for combat trackers.
Really? To me that sounds like the definition of old school MMO raid encounters
On the total polar opposite - if you dont have tools to verify the effectivity of builds then you go with those builds that got proven inside an actual raid. This makes going outside of the meta incredibly harder.
Nope. It makes it more likely the FOTM meta is bullshit that can be disregarded. Especially in Ashes class design.
Throwing more variables into the table just means more confusion so ppl will cling harder to the meta instead breaking off of it
You know when you watch a youtube video where a guy showcases a build that kills the same mob you are killing in half the time then most people just say fk it and respec
“Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil.”
― Plato
0
Options
akabearMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
The last discussion on this topic had a straw poll that included 140 odd player feedback, which is far more representative of general player sentiment than limited number of the prolific writers in these forums comments might suggest
The result was something like
56% no, they do not want combat trackers in game
20% undecided
Of the remaining half wanted one and the other half wanted a limited one.
So it appears in the forums there is a vocal minority that are not representative of the majority.
Players absolutely will have a combat tracker, and so will complete the games initial content in that same amount of time.
For me this is reason enough to no have a Combat Tracker. Even if the game ships with one, I am 100% sure it won't be enough.
People will want more, and will still have another combat tracker outside of the game.
So having or not having a DPS meter ensures the same result, might as well make it harder like Steven wants.
If you have combat trackers, and the developers know this, they can design the content with that in mind.
Assuming the combat tracker offers up all needed information, there is nothing left to be gained by having an additional combat tracker.
I definitely believe he meant that players would start making play assist addons that play in part instead of you
The development of something like this does not rely on anything at all to do with a combat tracker.
Players absolutely will have a combat tracker, and so will complete the games initial content in that same amount of time.
For me this is reason enough to no have a Combat Tracker. Even if the game ships with one, I am 100% sure it won't be enough.
People will want more, and will still have another combat tracker outside of the game.
So having or not having a DPS meter ensures the same result, might as well make it harder like Steven wants.
If you have combat trackers, and the developers know this, they can design the content with that in mind.
Assuming the combat tracker offers up all needed information, there is nothing left to be gained by having an additional combat tracker.
And do you know what information is this? Is there a blue print IS can follow to make sure everyone is happy? I mean, people can't even agree on what a Combat Tracker is.
It is every ability used by players and the target, and the results of said ability use.
The last discussion on this topic had a straw poll that included 140 odd player feedback, which is far more representative of general player sentiment than limited number of the prolific writers in these forums comments might suggest
The result was something like
56% no, they do not want combat trackers in game
20% undecided
Of the remaining half wanted one and the other half wanted a limited one.
So it appears in the forums there is a vocal minority that are not representative of the majority.
Player run polls are never of any value.
In order to get an accurate result, you would also need to include how much money Intrepid would need to spend to do a half decent job at trying to keep trackers out of the game on an ongoing basis, and exactly what content it is that this money would be used on instead.
As such, a poll about combat trackers should be "would you rather have combat trackers and xyz content, or fewer people using combat trackers and no xyz content", as that really is what it boils down to.
The last discussion on this topic had a straw poll that included 140 odd player feedback, which is far more representative of general player sentiment than limited number of the prolific writers in these forums comments might suggest
The result was something like
56% no, they do not want combat trackers in game
20% undecided
Of the remaining half wanted one and the other half wanted a limited one.
So it appears in the forums there is a vocal minority that are not representative of the majority.
Forum posters are not a good representation of the actual playerbase. I know this might hurt, but it is true - a lot of ppl here on forums are hurt from playing other MMOs and most of them had only negative experiences with meters. That's like taking polls in the reclamation department in a store
“Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil.”
― Plato
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Really? To me that sounds like the definition of old school MMO raid encounters
If all you have to do is kill within a time frame - no need for trial and error.
Throwing more variables into the table just means more confusion so ppl will cling harder to the meta instead breaking off of it.
You know when you watch a youtube video where a guy showcases a build that kills the same mob you are killing in half the time then most people just say fk it and respec
No combat tracker makes finding a must have meta more difficult...and more difficult to prove the assertion that the FOTM is the most viable truly comports with reality.
A guy showcasing a build that kills the same mob in half the time doesn't mean you have to respec exactly the same. I don't agree that that one strategy necessarily is the best or even the FOTM - it's just one strategy that is better than yours was.
If people are relying on YouTube - we definitely don't need combat trackers.
No combat tracker makes finding a must have meta more difficult.
The "must have" aspect of a meta - other than at the very top end of the game where you have no experience and thus are in no position to talk - is a function of player desire, not of statistical necessity.
Basically, players will have a meta, a combat tracker means that meta is more likely to be good.
Really? To me that sounds like the definition of old school MMO raid encounters
If all you have to do is kill within a time frame - no need for trial and error.
Yes - and that is what oldschool MMO encounters were about. The only trial and error was about learning to play the game by yourself - you dont have that today - you get free education on how to play any popular game for free
Throwing more variables into the table just means more confusion so ppl will cling harder to the meta instead breaking off of it.
You know when you watch a youtube video where a guy showcases a build that kills the same mob you are killing in half the time then most people just say fk it and respec
No combat tracker makes finding a meta more difficult.
And more difficult to prove the FOTM being the most viable comports with reality.
A guy showcasing a build that kills the same mob in half the time doesn't mean you have to respec exactly the same. And, if people are relying on YouTube - we definitely don't need combat trackers.
meta is found almost instantly - the problem is that without meters improving, enriching, revolutionizing the meta is much harder.
And with the hypothetical that no meter exists for ashes once it is live ;-) then ppl will use any common method to measure a kill speed for something that has the most amount of health and the builds will be compared in that way - if it comes to this primitive stage
And you can bet that the drive to find the best builds will be big, because who doesnt want to clickbait the shit out of youtube to show that their raid cleartime is just running straight ahead with 30s pauses to demolish the boss.
if the meta build is "only" 5% stronger than average build then the whole 40man raid is as strong as the "average" 42man raid
however i've never seen top meta build in any hyperoptimised build mmo be below 20% stronger than the average ones - this alone brings a full 40man raid of top meta specs on par with a 48man average raid
and you can bet that with the amount of additional customization through a ton of augments that were spoken about so heavily will in my opinion be way bigger than the 20%
I would bet real money that 40man raid of top players with top meta builds will be way stronger than 100 average players that raid
Comments
First and foremost, Do not bring compare me to Dygz, I am willing to bet he is one hell of a better person than I am, and it is not fair to him.
Second, I am not talking about Alpha, Beta, Pre Beta, Beta 8, or Alpha 4, I am talking about launch, always have been. And you do not agree with me about hardly anything.... and the one thing you did agree with, you turned into a reason to have one in the alpha... keep reading for my thoughts on that.
Third, Alpha testing is usually not used to test difficulty of content, it is to make sure something is not broken. Not sure how having a tracker in Alpha will help anyone, except people testing to see if their tracker works. Which is a slimey way of trying to getting it tested if you ask me. If there is something the devs want tested and they need you a certain level to do so.. no tracker needed, they will bump you to the appropriate level.
And that is it really... As far as I am concerned our argument over this issue is over... minus your incoming rebuttal to this post, which is fine, I will read it. We both know where we stand, we both know who will and wont use one after launch, and there is nothing else to say.
I've debated with him on these forums far more than you, and I can say with perfect confidence that you are the better person. Smarter, significantly more to the point, and from what I can tell, just a nicer person in general.
You can take that as a compliment to you, an indictment to him, or a reflection on me, I'm not concerned either way.
I know you are not talking about alpha, beta or anything, you are talking about live.
So am I.
In my mind, the best way to have well balanced top end content on launch day is to balance it in beta.
While most games do not balance their top end content in beta, there is no reason this needs to be the case. They balance low end content here, it is simply a matter of time that usually prevents them from also looking at top end.
So while I may be talking about beta, I am only doing so with an eye to launch day.
I am of the opinion that on launch day, content should be as balanced as possible for how players will play it.
This seems to be something you agree with - correct me if I am wrong.
I like Dygz, no need to try and talk me out of liking him. That would be a huge waste of your time. I like pretty much everyone... except those Pirate dudes in the other thread saying they are going to run a 800 man, full time corrupt player guild... ya... those guys are a different story lol.
Balancing will be impossible to figure out even with trackers.. 64 classes, each with what... 4 ways to augment different skills? The best way to balance that, is over time. Trying to do that over a week or so period, while testing sieges and whatever big mechanics they want to test, balancing should be the least of their worries. Save balancing for the beta when you have a larger sample size of classes playing to get a better picture. That is my opinion on it.
While time is always going to be the most important thing in balance - the game does have to launch. On launch day, we want it as balanced as possible. Not just the classes, but the content as well.
To me, the best way to balance things as quickly as possible is to have many thousands of people out there that are as keen on the game as possible, all generating and examining actual objective data about their own class, equipment and the games content.
It won't magically make the game perfect on launch day, but it sure will help a whole lot.
Then, going forward, either with continued balance passes or with new content, having these people armed with objective data means they are able to continue to contribute to this balance effort.
While you were not a part of that discussion, one of my main points in the 75 page combat tracker thread is that if players are equipped with combat trackers, we can find problems with the games combat system or content, obtain a full data set, examine that data, and present it to the developer. Every single game I have ever played has had players find issues using combat trackers and present them to the developers. I myself have done this a number of times, resulting in patches to the issues presented in multiple games.
If balance is what you want, either on launch day or later on, putting objective data in the hands of people that will use it to find issues should be a no-brainer.
They are talking raids tomorrow...
Any predictions on weather they will address our concerns about high end open world raids?
I want to take the safe bet where they give us the same lines about how the raids will be dynamic enough to challenge any group, but static enough so that you can feel a sense of progression. Without addressing the fact zergs will dominate open world raids.
The optimist in me says they might explain that some high-end bosses will need to be instanced, but the way to gain access to the instance will be competitive in the open world.
I am hoping we learn something new.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
I've not had the time to watch any of the livestreams lately, but due to the lack of discussion about them here, I am assuming there is nothing actually new being talked about - maybe the odd piece here and there but nothing else.
I don't see this as being any different - and I am actually perfectly fine with that. I still don't expect to have actual details on raid content for quite a while.
I do expect combat trackers to be re-confirmed as not being wanted though.
Level cap is 20 and they only have half the Primary Archetypes available for test.
So, even if they have enough NDA testers to test raids, they don't have enough content to test high end raids.
I think they know a lot more than they have talked about in the past. There are two decade of MMO raid history to draw from, and some of the DEV are already a part of that history. They have not had much news about high end raids in a while. I feel like it is about time we heard something new. I am pretty optimistic about tomorrows live stream.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
This question in mind is pretty important one, because my own free is becoming smaller and smaller and honestly I don't want to get invested into a game where raiding is defined by the word "Zerg" no matter what else the game might bring to the table
― Plato
having only 1 mechanic - that being a dps check is not simple in an objective sense, but in objective you are literally in a true/false state in terms of requirements to kill the boss. If you can't accept that having 1 mechanic is the definition of simplicity then i wouldn't be surprised if you believe the earth is flat
FOTM, cookie-cutter builds are enforced even without meters, because what specs are enforced depends on the game meta and you dont get rid of meta if you make for people harder to gather information
― Plato
It's highly unlikely you will get any info that addresses concerns about high end raids tomorrow. Pretty much the only way to get leaks about Steven's vision for high end raids is to ask him specific questions about it.
I'm sure you know of desire paths, or paths of least resistance. The easy illustration of this is a designed path that looks great, but is sat beside a worn trail of where people actually walk to get from where they are to where they want to be.
A good designer designs around what the users will do. With paths, that means that instead of creating nice, neat paths in a pleasing, symmetrical layout, you place paths where people will walk.
In terms of game design, what you are saying here is that Intrepid know where players (many players, even if not all players) will want to walk, and are purposefully not placing a path there.
All this means is that players are going to wear in that trail, and that trail is where the path should have been built. Even if Intrepid attempt to built a fence where users want to walk (which is just horrid design - all things considered), users will still take the route that is closest to where they want to walk, not where Intrepid lay their path. In fact, players will even help each other get over that fence, if need be.
Now sure, it's Stevens game and he can design it how he likes, but that doesn't mean every decision he makes is a good decision, nor that every decision is the right decision. It is foolish to think this is the case, and there is no aspect of this game that this is an appropriate defense for.
Indeed, any decision that a company makes that is going to see many people create their own trail rather than follow the designated path is a bad decision by definition.
I think we all understand what you want. What matters is that Steven doesn't want what you want.
I don't agree with your assertion about a true/false state in terms of requirements to kill the boss.
As in, I don't believe there is a true/false state of requirements.
Some people will try to promote them. It will be more difficult to get others to accept them.
I didn't say not having combat trackers will "get rid of" meta.
― Plato
For me this is reason enough to no have a Combat Tracker. Even if the game ships with one, I am 100% sure it won't be enough.
People will want more, and will still have another combat tracker outside of the game.
So having or not having a DPS meter ensures the same result, might as well make it harder like Steven wants.
only someone who uses only front page with dps leaderboard can say something so out of touch
― Plato
If you have combat trackers, and the developers know this, they can design the content with that in mind.
Assuming the combat tracker offers up all needed information, there is nothing left to be gained by having an additional combat tracker.
I definitely believe he meant that players would start making play assist addons that play in part instead of you
― Plato
And do you know what information is this? Is there a blue print IS can follow to make sure everyone is happy? I mean, people can't even agree on what a Combat Tracker is.
Nope. It makes it more likely the FOTM meta is bullshit that can be disregarded. Especially in Ashes class design.
Throwing more variables into the table just means more confusion so ppl will cling harder to the meta instead breaking off of it
You know when you watch a youtube video where a guy showcases a build that kills the same mob you are killing in half the time then most people just say fk it and respec
― Plato
The result was something like
So it appears in the forums there is a vocal minority that are not representative of the majority.
The development of something like this does not rely on anything at all to do with a combat tracker.
It is every ability used by players and the target, and the results of said ability use.
Player run polls are never of any value.
In order to get an accurate result, you would also need to include how much money Intrepid would need to spend to do a half decent job at trying to keep trackers out of the game on an ongoing basis, and exactly what content it is that this money would be used on instead.
As such, a poll about combat trackers should be "would you rather have combat trackers and xyz content, or fewer people using combat trackers and no xyz content", as that really is what it boils down to.
Forum posters are not a good representation of the actual playerbase. I know this might hurt, but it is true - a lot of ppl here on forums are hurt from playing other MMOs and most of them had only negative experiences with meters. That's like taking polls in the reclamation department in a store
― Plato
No combat tracker makes finding a must have meta more difficult...and more difficult to prove the assertion that the FOTM is the most viable truly comports with reality.
A guy showcasing a build that kills the same mob in half the time doesn't mean you have to respec exactly the same. I don't agree that that one strategy necessarily is the best or even the FOTM - it's just one strategy that is better than yours was.
If people are relying on YouTube - we definitely don't need combat trackers.
Basically, players will have a meta, a combat tracker means that meta is more likely to be good.
meta is found almost instantly - the problem is that without meters improving, enriching, revolutionizing the meta is much harder.
And with the hypothetical that no meter exists for ashes once it is live ;-) then ppl will use any common method to measure a kill speed for something that has the most amount of health and the builds will be compared in that way - if it comes to this primitive stage
And you can bet that the drive to find the best builds will be big, because who doesnt want to clickbait the shit out of youtube to show that their raid cleartime is just running straight ahead with 30s pauses to demolish the boss.
if the meta build is "only" 5% stronger than average build then the whole 40man raid is as strong as the "average" 42man raid
however i've never seen top meta build in any hyperoptimised build mmo be below 20% stronger than the average ones - this alone brings a full 40man raid of top meta specs on par with a 48man average raid
and you can bet that with the amount of additional customization through a ton of augments that were spoken about so heavily will in my opinion be way bigger than the 20%
I would bet real money that 40man raid of top players with top meta builds will be way stronger than 100 average players that raid
― Plato