Every time this discussion pops up I’m reminded why I’m glad I’ll mostly be focused on crafting. No objective combat feedback is gonna be horrendous for players.
Every time this discussion pops up I’m reminded why I’m glad I’ll mostly be focused on crafting. No objective combat feedback is gonna be horrendous for players.
I have used ACT for both crafting and harvesting in some games.
Good thing I'm here to figure out the tooltip solution that will work for BOTH sides.
Rest assured this tooltip assistant won't ever give you any hard data, it will just passive aggressively allude to when you are doing poor (and give real tips on how to correct it)
Good thing I'm hear to figure out the tooltip solution that will work for BOTH sides.
Rest assured this tooltip assistant won't ever give you any hard data, it will just passive aggressively allude to when you are doing poor.
If you can get that sword to be a little more toxic we got a deal. All us DPS meter guys want is for the non-DPS guys to feel bad when they play poorly...
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
2
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I think we know each other’s perspectives - we still disagree.
For me it's not even about min-maxing I just don't like having to guess what it is I'm doing. It's super frustrating to just see "Deals some fire damage" or "Heals a bit over time" I want to know if I should cast this heal when you just need a quick fix and this one when you're really hurting w/o having to guess and hope for the best.
That's not fun for me.
If I said something that you disagree w/ feel free to say so here.
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited May 2021
Seems likely gear will have indicators like Critical Hit
Haste
Or have the devs said that’s not going to be available?
@Dygz I like to know the numbers b/c over two decades of playing TTRPGs are deeply ingrained into me. If the most roleplayiest of roleplaying games can handle people knowing exactly what their minimum and maximum damage is w/o too much toxicity I'm positive AoC won't burn to the ground by having detailed tooltips.
What really fascinates me w/ this community is how so many people keep saying how they want a tough, gritty, hardcore game but then those very people cower at the thought of a little math.
If I said something that you disagree w/ feel free to say so here.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I still believe a character panel like Archeage would be a better version of tool tips. I would prefer both to be in the game. It is nice to know what each skill can do but I find the overall power prospects to be more to my overall taste too. I'm not sure how detailed the character panel will be.
Also, the culture of AoC is a strange culture. We won't have specifics for health/mana last I heard so what use is a tool tip which says 'Does 500 Damage' when you can't see if the opponent even has 500 HP left?
0
Options
ThexBlackxKnightMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Are they banning dps meters because because players will be toxic? I mean this game by its very nature is going to have a lot toxicity in it already, having damage meters is not going to make much a splash on how players will be behaving in a very competitive driven game that Ashes will be.
Are they banning dps meters because because players will be toxic? I mean this game by its very nature is going to have a lot toxicity in it already, having damage meters is not going to make much a splash on how players will be behaving in a very competitive driven game that Ashes will be.
yep pretty much having a similar thought. i hope everyone who's super concerned about toxicity extends their same drive to, idk, the toxicity the game brings by being based around mob v mob zone battles/gankfests, and isn't just using the idea of caring about elitism when it suits their views regarding maybe having the option to see a dmg number on a training dummy.
There is a difference between competition/contestation and toxicity. It is true you could face toxicity in competition/contestation but simple zones where there isn't competition/contestation should not be toxic. The same arguments are recycled all the time on the forums. It will be a nice change when the NDA drops and when the game launches. I understand we still have months and even years before we finally get a release.
After my recent experiences on the forums I'm aware toxicity comes in many forms and for seemingly benign reasons. It is not for us to police toxicity but it is for us to weather and deal with the toxicity.
Are they banning dps meters because because players will be toxic? I mean this game by its very nature is going to have a lot toxicity in it already, having damage meters is not going to make much a splash on how players will be behaving in a very competitive driven game that Ashes will be.
It is the only reason we have been given.
Yet, Steven was a self confessed highly toxic player in Archeage, and wasn't using a combat tracker.
So, we know the person that made this decision doesnt even believe their own spin, even if others do.
In my opinion too much of the toxicity topic has been swept onto the dps meter discussion, when there are literally inescapable pvp mechanics that players will get griefed upon. When you want to play the game with pvp - exactly the way that this game is being designed for then choosing a pacifist role and letting players get corruption is a flawed system in itself.
The whole viewpoint that ashes doesnt want to have toxic interactions is entirely baffling to me, because ashes is literally built upon unfair open world pvp that brings inescapable toxicity in way bigger proportions than what instant teleportation and queuing systems have.
And dont get me wrong, getting griefed in open world pushes players to create communities with shared goals to protect themselves. That is all good, but it is literally dishonest to point to meters as major source of toxicity when the game is built upon toxic pvp interactions to promote player cooperation in building their own social systems that could protect them from such toxicity
In my opinion too much of the toxicity topic has been swept onto the dps meter discussion, when there are literally inescapable pvp mechanics that players will get griefed upon. When you want to play the game with pvp - exactly the way that this game is being designed for then choosing a pacifist role and letting players get corruption is a flawed system in itself.
The whole viewpoint that ashes doesnt want to have toxic interactions is entirely baffling to me, because ashes is literally built upon unfair open world pvp that brings inescapable toxicity in way bigger proportions than what instant teleportation and queuing systems have.
And dont get me wrong, getting griefed in open world pushes players to create communities with shared goals to protect themselves. That is all good, but it is literally dishonest to point to meters as major source of toxicity when the game is built upon toxic pvp interactions to promote player cooperation in building their own social systems that could protect them from such toxicity
I have to agree.
If you take every aspect of this game, lay it all out, and look over it as a single entity, the resulting view is that this game can only be described as a clusterfuck of contradictions.
So, combat trackers are supposed to be this thing that segregates the community and creates toxic situations. Ok, if that was true, and if the game was trying to avoid these situations, I could get behind that.
Thing is, not only is that not true (the toxicity is created due to players being able to be replaced), but the game is also actively encouraging open toxic behavior, and is welcoming in player segregation with open arms.
You can't make the claim that you want to reduce toxicity in a game that allows players to literally destroy each others houses and economic base. You can't make the claim that you want to reduce toxicity in a game that allows players to literally kill each other and take their stuff.
If a lack of toxicity was what you were after, you wouldn't put those things in the game.
"Ah, but that *IS* the game", I hear some people with a feeble attempt at a rebuttal. In that case, your game *IS* toxic, and the best thing to do would be to embrace that toxic nature of the game, since that is what you are making.
If Intrepid didn't want player segregation, then why is there built in voice chat for groups? Almost every MMO player I know will turn it off, and this means that anyone that insists on using it will simply not group with us.
How is this any different to any segregation that would arise from combat tracker use?
Again, a clusterfuck of contradictions.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
The game is not built upon toxic pvp interactions to promote player cooperation.
If that were true, there would be no Corruption mechanic.
The game is built upon consensual pvp conflict.
The game is not built upon toxic pvp interactions to promote player cooperation.
If that were true, there would be no Corruption mechanic.
The game is built upon consensual pvp conflict.
the "corruption" mechanic is pacifist protection so those players can have their safe space, but the majority of the game gravitates towards encouraging and promoting pvp
while the game might be built upon consensual pvp - that doesnt mean that griefing and the toxicity coming with that is gone. Developer intentions dont translate well into actual player behavior
Also to say that Corruption mechanic is even considerably good anti griefing system is entirely based on pure hope, because players will be either forced to surrender open world resources they were trying to access and stay pacified in order to force attackers into gaining corruption if they choose to kill the passive players.
HOWEVER will players get corruption when they crowd control an enemy? because if they dont then griefers will just never kill anyone and just crowd control those players making it impossible for them to complete their tasks that they wanted to complete
The game is not built upon toxic pvp interactions to promote player cooperation.
If that were true, there would be no Corruption mechanic.
The game is built upon consensual pvp conflict.
If that were the purpose of corruption, corruption would exist in sieges - when the real toxicity happens.
If you think corruption based PvP is where the real toxicity is going to happen, I'm not sure what to tell you...
HOWEVER will players get corruption when they crowd control an enemy? because if they dont then griefers will just never kill anyone and just crowd control those players making it impossible for them to complete their tasks that they wanted to complete
This is a fairly good point.
If I am trying to get you to leave a spot I want for what ever reason, and I don't want corruption, all I need to do is CC you at opportune times.
Eventually, you will either need to leave or fight - and I am happy with either.
Don't get me wrong - fighting against griefing is an excellent cause - however you are inevitably trying to p*ss against the wind, because those players will just find whatever small loophole that your design didnt account for
there are always players in mmos that just enjoy making others gametime as miserable as possible - you dont get rid of them, the only sureproof solution to that is to go by WoW's example - remove social interactions
Will Intrepid open up the access to allow third party add-ons such as HUDs and DPS meters? I know some are suggesting ban, but what do we know?
There are obviously pros and cons with third party add-ons. The pros being the potential for a better user interface as Intrepid may not have all the time to consider every variation and might not have an incentive to do so. The cons being some tools create a more mechanical experience where your choices are reduced (actually this is due to the tool revealing something about the game design to show which options are actually false alternatives).
Metas are going to meta. So I am not sure bans are the answer. In the end you may only be banning improvement.
If you want to combat or fix the min-maxing you only do this via solid game design where there are no dominant strategies, or where the differences are so minimal that min-maxing becomes a waste of time. But even after you fix it some players will always try to find an edge. Those players see that as being part of the game as much if not more than the game play.
As for groups that boot players for being suboptimal that’s a combination of poor game design and poor players on both sides. Both sides have their perspective and argument, and in the end it’s all a matter of who you choose to play with. But then if dungeon rewards are increased due to party optimization, then you can expect more of this behavior and not less. That’s not a good vs bad thing, it simply is.
IMO, all forms of data mining and meta gaming should be combatted and unaided to the max extent possible. Certain things are of course inevitable, but anything that can be done to delay and prevent it should be done. The longer the game remains mysterious and unknown, the longer it remains magical and not just an illustrated spreadsheet.
No combat logging, no meters, no tool tip with raw information, I even think that floating combat text shouldn’t be an accurate representation of what’s going on but rather a visual effect that just provides a sense of feedback (give every player a randomly assigned modifier so that the numbers that appear to them are unique and consistent, but prevents the data from being compared and contrasted).
IMO, all forms of data mining and meta gaming should be combatted and unaided to the max extent possible. Certain things are of course inevitable, but anything that can be done to delay and prevent it should be done. The longer the game remains mysterious and unknown, the longer it remains magical and not just an illustrated spreadsheet.
No combat logging, no meters, no tool tip with raw information, I even think that floating combat text shouldn’t be an accurate representation of what’s going on but rather a visual effect that just provides a sense of feedback (give every player a randomly assigned modifier so that the numbers that appear to them are unique and consistent, but prevents the data from being compared and contrasted).
That doesn't look like a combat system based on building and playing a stronger character it looks like flipping a coin a dozen time and whoever gets the most tails wins and I'm not going to lie, that sounds like a nightmare.
Do we need a full on WoWhead for AoC? Probably not, but a game that's supposedly made for those hardcore gamers will draw minmaxers and munchkins and designing them out is just as futile as designing out a meta...I think the happy middle ground is to ban third party tools but at the bare minimum allowing us to know exactly what the numbers are for our characters so we know what we're building.
If I said something that you disagree w/ feel free to say so here.
IMO, all forms of data mining and meta gaming should be combatted and unaided to the max extent possible. Certain things are of course inevitable, but anything that can be done to delay and prevent it should be done. The longer the game remains mysterious and unknown, the longer it remains magical and not just an illustrated spreadsheet.
No combat logging, no meters, no tool tip with raw information, I even think that floating combat text shouldn’t be an accurate representation of what’s going on but rather a visual effect that just provides a sense of feedback (give every player a randomly assigned modifier so that the numbers that appear to them are unique and consistent, but prevents the data from being compared and contrasted).
In raid content, the better you do on an encounter, the harder the next encounter will be. The harder an encounter you kill is, the better the loot.
This means better performance means better loot.
Also, crafting raw materials will have quality assigned to them. The better quality of the raw material, the better quality the item.
Not giving raiders objective information on their performance (performance dictates reward) is the same as not letting crafters know the quality of the raw material they are holding (quality dictates reward).
This would clearly be stupid - both are clearly stupid. Yet, one of these is happening.
0
Options
ThexBlackxKnightMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
In a game where looting rights are determine by who does more damage on a raid boss and the fate of a city and node lives or dies on the outcome of a siege. It seems counter productive not to have some way to measure who your best players are in terms of damage. The devs can say they are trying make a carefree fun experience devoid of toxicity all they want but I know better. Players will go to ridiculousness lengths to win at any cost and will use 3rd party programs to record damage numbers.
In a game where looting rights are determine by who does more damage on a raid boss and the fate of a city and node lives or dies on the outcome of a siege. It seems counter productive not to have some way to measure who your best players are in terms of damage. The devs can say they are trying make a carefree fun experience devoid of toxicity all they want but I know better. Players will go to ridiculousness lengths to win at any cost and will use 3rd party programs to record damage numbers.
This is actually a really good point that isn't brought up nearly enough.
How's it make sense to base rewards on something we can't even track or even monitor within our own personal character? It would make literally everything be functionally the same as RNG.
If I said something that you disagree w/ feel free to say so here.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Most of the PvP combat in Ashes is intended to be objective-based, so...
It doesn't doesn't really matter who the best players are, solely based on damage.
Most of the PvP combat in Ashes is intended to be objective-based, so...
It doesn't doesn't really matter who the best players are, solely based on damage.
That's kinda the point though. The game directly rewards those who build and play the stronger character...but then actively prevents you from even knowing how strong your character actually is.
Even the PvE dungeons ramp up in difficulty and loot based on how fast you clear them yet you're not given even basic tools to understand how to ensure you're maximizing damage?
That's frustrating to a degenerate degree in the slim hopes it'll reduce toxicity...which I can tell you right now is pointless b/c we don't even have a playable game and the community has plenty of toxic people as is.
If I said something that you disagree w/ feel free to say so here.
Comments
I have used ACT for both crafting and harvesting in some games.
Just saying.
Rest assured this tooltip assistant won't ever give you any hard data, it will just passive aggressively allude to when you are doing poor (and give real tips on how to correct it)
If you can get that sword to be a little more toxic we got a deal. All us DPS meter guys want is for the non-DPS guys to feel bad when they play poorly...
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
That's not fun for me.
Haste
Or have the devs said that’s not going to be available?
What really fascinates me w/ this community is how so many people keep saying how they want a tough, gritty, hardcore game but then those very people cower at the thought of a little math.
Also, the culture of AoC is a strange culture. We won't have specifics for health/mana last I heard so what use is a tool tip which says 'Does 500 Damage' when you can't see if the opponent even has 500 HP left?
yep pretty much having a similar thought. i hope everyone who's super concerned about toxicity extends their same drive to, idk, the toxicity the game brings by being based around mob v mob zone battles/gankfests, and isn't just using the idea of caring about elitism when it suits their views regarding maybe having the option to see a dmg number on a training dummy.
After my recent experiences on the forums I'm aware toxicity comes in many forms and for seemingly benign reasons. It is not for us to police toxicity but it is for us to weather and deal with the toxicity.
It is the only reason we have been given.
Yet, Steven was a self confessed highly toxic player in Archeage, and wasn't using a combat tracker.
So, we know the person that made this decision doesnt even believe their own spin, even if others do.
The whole viewpoint that ashes doesnt want to have toxic interactions is entirely baffling to me, because ashes is literally built upon unfair open world pvp that brings inescapable toxicity in way bigger proportions than what instant teleportation and queuing systems have.
And dont get me wrong, getting griefed in open world pushes players to create communities with shared goals to protect themselves. That is all good, but it is literally dishonest to point to meters as major source of toxicity when the game is built upon toxic pvp interactions to promote player cooperation in building their own social systems that could protect them from such toxicity
― Plato
I have to agree.
If you take every aspect of this game, lay it all out, and look over it as a single entity, the resulting view is that this game can only be described as a clusterfuck of contradictions.
So, combat trackers are supposed to be this thing that segregates the community and creates toxic situations. Ok, if that was true, and if the game was trying to avoid these situations, I could get behind that.
Thing is, not only is that not true (the toxicity is created due to players being able to be replaced), but the game is also actively encouraging open toxic behavior, and is welcoming in player segregation with open arms.
You can't make the claim that you want to reduce toxicity in a game that allows players to literally destroy each others houses and economic base. You can't make the claim that you want to reduce toxicity in a game that allows players to literally kill each other and take their stuff.
If a lack of toxicity was what you were after, you wouldn't put those things in the game.
"Ah, but that *IS* the game", I hear some people with a feeble attempt at a rebuttal. In that case, your game *IS* toxic, and the best thing to do would be to embrace that toxic nature of the game, since that is what you are making.
If Intrepid didn't want player segregation, then why is there built in voice chat for groups? Almost every MMO player I know will turn it off, and this means that anyone that insists on using it will simply not group with us.
How is this any different to any segregation that would arise from combat tracker use?
Again, a clusterfuck of contradictions.
If that were true, there would be no Corruption mechanic.
The game is built upon consensual pvp conflict.
the "corruption" mechanic is pacifist protection so those players can have their safe space, but the majority of the game gravitates towards encouraging and promoting pvp
while the game might be built upon consensual pvp - that doesnt mean that griefing and the toxicity coming with that is gone. Developer intentions dont translate well into actual player behavior
Also to say that Corruption mechanic is even considerably good anti griefing system is entirely based on pure hope, because players will be either forced to surrender open world resources they were trying to access and stay pacified in order to force attackers into gaining corruption if they choose to kill the passive players.
HOWEVER will players get corruption when they crowd control an enemy? because if they dont then griefers will just never kill anyone and just crowd control those players making it impossible for them to complete their tasks that they wanted to complete
― Plato
If that were the purpose of corruption, corruption would exist in sieges - when the real toxicity happens.
If you think corruption based PvP is where the real toxicity is going to happen, I'm not sure what to tell you...
If I am trying to get you to leave a spot I want for what ever reason, and I don't want corruption, all I need to do is CC you at opportune times.
Eventually, you will either need to leave or fight - and I am happy with either.
there are always players in mmos that just enjoy making others gametime as miserable as possible - you dont get rid of them, the only sureproof solution to that is to go by WoW's example - remove social interactions
― Plato
There are obviously pros and cons with third party add-ons. The pros being the potential for a better user interface as Intrepid may not have all the time to consider every variation and might not have an incentive to do so. The cons being some tools create a more mechanical experience where your choices are reduced (actually this is due to the tool revealing something about the game design to show which options are actually false alternatives).
Metas are going to meta. So I am not sure bans are the answer. In the end you may only be banning improvement.
If you want to combat or fix the min-maxing you only do this via solid game design where there are no dominant strategies, or where the differences are so minimal that min-maxing becomes a waste of time. But even after you fix it some players will always try to find an edge. Those players see that as being part of the game as much if not more than the game play.
As for groups that boot players for being suboptimal that’s a combination of poor game design and poor players on both sides. Both sides have their perspective and argument, and in the end it’s all a matter of who you choose to play with. But then if dungeon rewards are increased due to party optimization, then you can expect more of this behavior and not less. That’s not a good vs bad thing, it simply is.
No combat logging, no meters, no tool tip with raw information, I even think that floating combat text shouldn’t be an accurate representation of what’s going on but rather a visual effect that just provides a sense of feedback (give every player a randomly assigned modifier so that the numbers that appear to them are unique and consistent, but prevents the data from being compared and contrasted).
That doesn't look like a combat system based on building and playing a stronger character it looks like flipping a coin a dozen time and whoever gets the most tails wins and I'm not going to lie, that sounds like a nightmare.
Do we need a full on WoWhead for AoC? Probably not, but a game that's supposedly made for those hardcore gamers will draw minmaxers and munchkins and designing them out is just as futile as designing out a meta...I think the happy middle ground is to ban third party tools but at the bare minimum allowing us to know exactly what the numbers are for our characters so we know what we're building.
In raid content, the better you do on an encounter, the harder the next encounter will be. The harder an encounter you kill is, the better the loot.
This means better performance means better loot.
Also, crafting raw materials will have quality assigned to them. The better quality of the raw material, the better quality the item.
Not giving raiders objective information on their performance (performance dictates reward) is the same as not letting crafters know the quality of the raw material they are holding (quality dictates reward).
This would clearly be stupid - both are clearly stupid. Yet, one of these is happening.
This is actually a really good point that isn't brought up nearly enough.
How's it make sense to base rewards on something we can't even track or even monitor within our own personal character? It would make literally everything be functionally the same as RNG.
It doesn't doesn't really matter who the best players are, solely based on damage.
That's kinda the point though. The game directly rewards those who build and play the stronger character...but then actively prevents you from even knowing how strong your character actually is.
Even the PvE dungeons ramp up in difficulty and loot based on how fast you clear them yet you're not given even basic tools to understand how to ensure you're maximizing damage?
That's frustrating to a degenerate degree in the slim hopes it'll reduce toxicity...which I can tell you right now is pointless b/c we don't even have a playable game and the community has plenty of toxic people as is.