DPS Meter Megathread

This discussion was created from comments split from: DPS Meter Megathread.

I’ve instructed the mods to focus any dps meter threads into a single mega thread to help focus and centralize the discussion 👍

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Azathoth

To some degree everything is repeatable. Logging in, fighting mobs, farming, really after maybe 30 hours of gameplay it should all be repeatable. I mean, different locations, backgrounds, bad guys, guild mates, goals, bosses will be different. But in essence it will be repeating what I have previously done.

Its odd to consider end game meaning repeatable content. After an hour all games are mostly repeats of themselves or other games when you break it down that far.

I guess wanting end game content is equivalent to wanting to get to max level to just do the same thing all the time?

Damokles

dygz wrote: »

You can call a girl a woman if you want to, sure.

That sounds a bit too pedophilic in my opinion, lets not go there. Agreed? XD

Dygz

Endgame is when you’ve hit max level, completed the story/questlines, explored everywhere, fought all the mobs and what’s left is repeating the exact same dailies and boss fights while waiting for an expansion.

That is the concept of endgame the SOE/Daybreak devs used when discussing EQNext.
A considerable amount of Ashes devs are former SOE/Daybreak devs.
And that is the vision of endgame that Steven and Jeffrey will say Ashes alleviates. It’s a primary goal of the Nodes mechanic.

People can nitpick the meaning of “repeatable” if that makes them happy.

Vun

A personal DPS meter that only shows your DPS and nobody else would be fine and I think it would be a great tool to help maximize your own playstyle. But as soon as a DPS meter becomes party/group wide it starts becoming a way to grief and meta the games PvE rather than allowing people to play how they want.

If the instance/dungeons/boss is cleared in decent time frame it doesn't really matter either way.

Zonned

I think DPS meters should be allowed in raid content but nowhere else.

Damokles

@zonne that is a good idea actually!

malgus

why is @bcgiant not here this forum post is for him

unknownsystemerror

@malgus
https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/42314/salty-goodbye-and-weebs-will-love-this/p1

Noaani

damokles wrote: »

@dygz
No end game would mean that Ashes of Creation had no max level. All content at the level cap is end game content...

This is a fact that everyone in the world other than Dygz understands.

Arguing with him on almost any topic is pointless, because he refuses to admit he is wrong, even when he is the only person in the world with his view - a position he is in often.

Azathoth

I don't see how Max Level automatically determines End Game content.
I have not yet been convinced that there is content in Ashes that is only available at Max Level.

Dygz

noaani wrote: »

damokles wrote: »

@dygz
No end game would mean that Ashes of Creation had no max level. All content at the level cap is end game content...

This is a fact that everyone in the world other than Dygz understands.

Arguing with him on almost any topic is pointless, because he refuses to admit he is wrong, even when he is the only person in the world with his view - a position he is in often.

Of course, the quotes from Steven and Jeffrey (and other Ashes devs) falsify your claim.
Max character level is not synonymous with endgame - though, traditionally there is a strong correlation.

Noaani

azathoth wrote: »

I don't see how Max Level automatically determines End Game content.
I have not yet been convinced that there is content in Ashes that is only available at Max Level.

To me, the answer to that depends on if you are talking semantics, or are talking about what will actually happen in game.

In terms of semantics, you're probably right. I don't expect any content in Ashes to have a lock on it that is level based - that goes against what the game is.

However, I also don't expect a guild to take a player that does not have all abilities and spells available to their class - as well as some decent augments which will also require horizontal progression at the end of vertical progression - on any raid that could be considered "challenging".

If a raid of sub-level cap characters can defeat an encounter, that encounter will not be difficult for a raid of level capped characters - thus is not something to strive for.

In saying that Ashes will have challenging raid content, Steven specifically said it is so players have something to strive towards. If the first goal for any given player looking at raid content as something to strive towards isn't the level cap - a goal that literally happens by just playing the adventuring portion of the game - then what is the point of any system at all in the game?

To me, the notion of not having what players consider end game content and the notion of having challenging raid content are mutually exclusive. When Intrepid said Ashes will not have "end game" content, I read that in terms of static end game content where you follow the prescribed order in which to defeat encounters in the game, whether group or raid.

With the way Ashes content works, end game content in that sense simply will not happen, and right or wrong, that is how I look at those two statements they have made. Others may have a different way of reconciling those two seemingly mutually exclusive comments. However, I simply can not see a way in which a player can consider any content that is able to be defeated before they reach the level cap as something to strive for, and would be interested to hear how anyone (other than Dygz) thinks that could even be possible.

Azathoth

Having some raids, not particularly more than at any other difficulty level, at max level would be something every game should have. So in that sense I totally agree with you. There will likely be some players that have the most efficient raid-stat classes that can play them exceptionally well likely capable of max level dungeons even if they are one or two levels away.

I have yet to play a game where the encounters/mobs/etc are so well balanced that a skilled player can't defeat content a level or two higher than recommended (although this usually happens more at higher levels than the lower ones). So having guilds decide to only take max level characters with enough horizontal progression doesn't imply, to me, end game content in Ashes. Just guild raid leaders looking for max character raids.

I guess the semantics are rather or not End Game Content is everything available at max level, or everything locked behind max level. For me it's the second part, as for Ashes currently does not plan on having content that is only available at max level. Raids can be done at any level, having tough max level raids I don't consider end game. If group raiding could only be accomplished by max level characters, I would consider that end game content.

Dygz

noaani wrote: »

If a raid of sub-level cap characters can defeat an encounter, that encounter will not be difficult for a raid of level capped characters - thus is not something to strive for.

In saying that Ashes will have challenging raid content, Steven specifically said it is so players have something to strive towards. If the first goal for any given player looking at raid content as something to strive towards isn't the level cap - a goal that literally happens by just playing the adventuring portion of the game - then what is the point of any system at all in the game?

One of the design goals for Ashes is for all content to be more meaningful than just mechanics and meta goals. We don't raid just because we are striving to be the best of the best when it comes to raiding at max character level - we raid because the raid bosses have a negative effect on the world or region of the world - and we want to get rid of those negative effects.
That remains true at all character levels. And, the diversity of bosses, and new repercussions associated with those bosses, don't end when characters hit max level.

noaani wrote: »

To me, the notion of not having what players consider end game content and the notion of having challenging raid content are mutually exclusive. When Intrepid said Ashes will not have "end game" content, I read that in terms of static end game content where you follow the prescribed order in which to defeat encounters in the game, whether group or raid.

It means we aren't stuck with static content like dungeons, raids, dailies and weeklies while waiting for the devs to introduce new content in an expansion.
Ashes not having an endgame does not mean Ashes does not have raids. Also doesn't mean there is no content for max level characters.
You acknowledge that Intrepid said Ashes will not have endgame content, but then get all agitated when I say Ashes will not have endgame content.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

noaani wrote: »

I simply can not see a way in which a player can consider any content that is able to be defeated before they reach the level cap as something to strive for, and would be interested to hear how anyone (other than Dygz) thinks that could even be possible.

1: It's not all the same content.
2: Endgame is not synonymous with max character level, so there will still be people striving to be the best of the best at max character level - to whatever degree that is possible. It still may be that only the best of the max level "Top End Raiders" will be able to defeat that Winter Dragon causing a perpetual Winter.
But, they won't be the only players striving to defeat that Winter Dragon because the players negatively affected by the perpetual Winter will be striving to put an end to that plight even if they aren't at max character level.
3: Not having an endgame means after the Winter Dragon is defeated, we won't be repeating that Winter Dragon raid day after day - week after week - year after year while we wait for the devs to implement new content. We especially won't be using the same cookie-cutter strategies if/when another Winter Dragon appears in a new region. The whole point of Nodes, specifically Nodes continuing to provide new,dynamic content even after characters reach max character level, is to get rid of endgame.
4: This relates to DPS meters in that, according to Steven, we won't be repeating the same strategies to defeat the Winter Dragon because the mechanics will change session to session and raid to raid - and has "variance between the combat".

noaani wrote: »

The developers have said encounters will have phases and be heavily scripted. These things are not something that will be able to be dynamic, and as many scripts are a part of the environment rather than the encounter, it would be stupid to even try. Anyone that has spent any time raiding will know this.

The dynamic component of raid encounters will be the abilities of the mobs themselves, rather than the scripts.

When you take on an encounter, you'll likely understand what the script will be asking players to do. Whether it's adds in eggs, disintegrating floors, switches that need to be pulled, what ever - this component of encounters will likely remain the same.

According to how the devs have described their design, what you've stated above is false.
Especially since the bosses will move to a new environment some time after they are defeated - if they reappear at all.
And we should expect the environmental obstacles and challenges to also change within the same dungeon/raid. If the dungeon/raid itself does not cease to exist.
Of course, it remains to be seen how much of the design the devs can fulfill.

Noaani

azathoth wrote: »

Having some raids, not particularly more than at any other difficulty level, at max level would be something every game should have. So in that sense I totally agree with you. There will likely be some players that have the most efficient raid-stat classes that can play them exceptionally well likely capable of max level dungeons even if they are one or two levels away.

I have yet to play a game where the encounters/mobs/etc are so well balanced that a skilled player can't defeat content a level or two higher than recommended (although this usually happens more at higher levels than the lower ones). So having guilds decide to only take max level characters with enough horizontal progression doesn't imply, to me, end game content in Ashes. Just guild raid leaders looking for max character raids.

I guess the semantics are rather or not End Game Content is everything available at max level, or everything locked behind max level. For me it's the second part, as for Ashes currently does not plan on having content that is only available at max level. Raids can be done at any level, having tough max level raids I don't consider end game. If group raiding could only be accomplished by max level characters, I would consider that end game content.

I enjoy lower level raids, but there are a few inherent issues with them that I have yet to see any game deal to in a satisfactory manner.

The first is that they usually only stay relevant for a few months after launch. It isn't that they are no longer worth killing, its that after the initial wave of characters level past lower level content, it becomes harder and harder to find enough people of an appropriate level to kill the encounter without resorting to using higher level characters.

The second is that if it is open world content, it can cause players later on in a games life to get upset at content they can see but can't kill due to not enough interest.

I have played many games where content - specifically raid content - is impossible for characters not at the level cap even though there are no hard blocks preventing this. Usually, it is a need for a specific level of a survivability stat - whether armor, resistance or just HP - that is unattainable until you hit the level cap either due to stat allocation per level, or due to the required amount of that specific stat only being available on gear that is max level.

But then I have played games where content has gone undefeated until the last week of expansion cycles.

While I see an argument against it, to me, if content requires gear or abilities that are only likely to be obtained at the level cap - or if the path to get that item or ability is so long that a player will likely level to the cap while perusing it - then I consider the content that requires that item or ability to be end game by default.

I totally agree with the notion that "end game" content is content that is only available at max level, rather than content that is also available at max level (which I would usually simply refer to as "content"). However, my definition of this is more along the lines of whether a character not at the level cap is able to be of actual use rather than just dead weight on a raid.

Now, to be fair I am not saying that all raid content in Ashes would be considered end game. I have no doubt there would be raids where someone a level or two below the cap could participate and be of value. However, that content is not the challenging content that Steven has talked about in the past, as if a sub-level cap character is able to be of use, then a level cap player would be of even more use, thus the content wouldn't be challenging.

kriin

If the game comes with a simple dps meter that only shows dps then I dont really want it. If it shows other things like hps/buffs/debuffs/cc and etc... of self/group/raid then yes I want it.

If you find your self kicked out of a pug for doing low dmg its most likely the leader is an immature kid. Its not a group you want to be in anyways. If its a raid youre kick out of it depends on how it was handled. When applying for a raid guild and you get turned down because of low dps/hps or etc... then a good raid leader will give you advice on how to improve and tell you to come back for another trail when youre ready. When looking at your dps/hps or etc they should take into account of your gear since that can be gotten in raid.

Ive played eq2 for many years and mostly all are mature adults. There wasnt any discrimination when using ACT (combat parser). Everyone used it for self improving or to analyze the bosses in raids/difficult dungeons.
Ive played other games (f2p) but havnt reached end game and havent seen people using combat parsers so I cant understand why players are hating parsers. You guys must be unlucky to come across those who abuse it.

Wandering Mist

@noaani FFXIV tried to fix the problem of low level raids being made redundant by having them mandatory for the main story, and offering increased rewards for players who queued for them who have already done them. It's a disaster in my opinion, at least in that game.

The problem with such a system is that it forces together 2 types of players that would normally not do a dungeon together. On the one side you have the players who enjoy the story and are progressing through it for the first time. These players will naturally want to go slower and explore a bit as they go. On the flip side you have players who have done it before and are just there for the rewards. They want to go through as fast as possible including skipping through the cutscenes and running past the trash mobs to trigger each cutscene.

As a new player going through the story for the first time, it was a complete nightmare and turned what was supposed to be the epic conclusion of the story into a mad dash as I desperately tried to keep up with the players who knew the route and were intent on going as fast as possible.

Noaani

Yeah, I've played a few games that tried to offer incentives to established players to run low level content, ostensibly to help lower level players through that content, though I honestly think it is as much about adding one more activity to the daily grind of established players.

I wasn't aware FFXIV did this, but Archeage forces people to group with lower levels for instances in almost exactly the same manner. That is what I had in mind when I said I have not seen a satisfactory way to make it happen.

To me, it comes across as a cheap way to force boring content on to the established player, and highlights to the new player that they won't be able to enjoy the game as it was originally intended until they reach the level cap, as up until that point they will have higher level players running every dungeon with them (little do they know that when they hit the level cap in that game, low level dungeons are about all that most players run).

Wandering Mist

noaani wrote: »

Yeah, I've played a few games that tried to offer incentives to established players to run low level content, ostensibly to help lower level players through that content, though I honestly think it is as much about adding one more activity to the daily grind of established players.

I wasn't aware FFXIV did this, but Archeage forces people to group with lower levels for instances in almost exactly the same manner. That is what I had in mind when I said I have not seen a satisfactory way to make it happen.

To me, it comes across as a cheap way to force boring content on to the established player, and highlights to the new player that they won't be able to enjoy the game as it was originally intended until they reach the level cap, as up until that point they will have higher level players running every dungeon with them (little do they know that when they hit the level cap in that game, low level dungeons are about all that most players run).

Are higher level players synced for low level dungeons in Archeage? And yes I agree it's a cheap way of keeping boring content relevant. WoW does similar things at end-game although they are more subtle about it than FFXIV is.

Noaani

wanderingmist wrote: »

Are higher level players synced for low level dungeons in Archeage?

nope, not at all.

The usual situation is that the high level player tells the new player to wait at the entrance, clears the zone in a few minutes, and then tells the new player to run to the end so they can both get their rewards.

Boring content for both players.

Child Item