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

Noaani

dygz wrote: »

When the modder gets banned.

How can Intrepid ban someone if they don't know that person is using an add on?

It's *REALLY* easy to make it impossible for for anyone else to ever see exactly what it is you are running on your computer.

Literally the only way Intrepid would even know specific add on exists is if someone streams themselves using it - at which point all they would know is that one person is using it, and they have no way of detecting if any other player is using it.

As I've said many times in this thread, add ons don't need to interact with the game client directly. If a program is running on your computer but not interacting with the games client, literally all Intrepid can ever do is pull the name the program is running under - though even that would see them lose many thousands of subscribers - and there are ways to alter the name a program is running under at will.

I've recently seen programs that pull from another games in game text as I've outlined above as being possible. They would take a small amount of work to get working in AoC, work that couldn't begin until we have a finalized UI, but it absolutely will happen if there is no other solution.

One again though, Intrepid can't ban players for using something that Intrepid can't see.

dygz wrote: »

It's not really even about having many possible builds - it's about having more than one viable strategy to defeat bosses. Elitist players who just want the fastest, most efficient strategy as determined by combat tracker stats don't care if there are more than one viable strategy.

How well do you think a raid of 40 people just doing their own thing would compare to a raid of 40 people that are dedicated to working as a single unit towards a common goal?

Because that is what a raid is. You forgo your individual ambitions in order to further the progress of the whole. You sometimes do things that are not entirely enjoyable to you, because in doing that thing, you are furthering the progress of the hole, and you get more enjoyment out of progressing the whole than you get out of progressing the individual.

In return, you get to be a part of a group of 40 people that are also forging their own individual ambitions in order to further the whole.

It isn't about elitism at all, and those that think raiding is about elitism don't know raiding well at all.

Raiding is teamwork. Not everyone is cut out to be a part of a whole, rather than the focus of it, so not everyone is cut out to raid.

AoC will have challenging raid content. This is a given. When tackling this content, raids as a whole will decide on the best method for that specific raid. There may be other strategies, but that day, in that zone, against that encounter, on that pull, that raid is only using one - and so every member of that raid on that pull against that encounter in that zone on that day had better do what they are supposed to do otherwise they are wasting the time of the other 39 people present.

The interesting thing I've found with raiders is that they have more alts than most people would think. Not alts for raiding, as only guilds in games with overly easy combat systems ask raiders to have multiple raid ready characters - in the games I play, combat is too intricate for a player to be able to easily switch from one class to another and still be fully competent. Rather, the alts most raiders have are alts that they enjoy - it could be a race they really like, a class or build they wanted to try, a character on a different server or at a different level to play with a friend, or in some games I've played, characters locked at a specific level in order to be able to participate in nostalgic content at an appropriate level.

I bring this up to illustrate that while raiders forgo the individual ambition for the greater good, they only do that during the time in which they need to raid (and the time they need to spend becoming raid ready). Outside of raids, these players still run builds on characters just because they wanted to be an ice mage, they still play races just because they like them, they still craft because they enjoy making items - but then when it's time to raid, they set that down in order to become a small part of a greater whole.

Noaani

azathoth wrote: »

For me it's not that I think Ashes should not have one, just that they aren't planning on having one and that seems sufficient to me. I guess my main argument would be, if IS doesn't want one in Ashes there shouldn't be one.

I think both sides of this issue have merits and the addition of a DPS/ACT would likely not effect me at all. Except for (maybe) making bad players better because they just min/max specs based on DPS/ACT. This would likely happen anyways though.

Having a meter tell you that you could do better is different than trying, failing, and wanting to do better. Although, in many cases, I can see a player wanting to try and fail and then using a meter to determine why. I am not a power gamer, a min/max builder, or someone that feels their character needs to be the best or in a certain percent of the best, so I will likely never fully understand the use of said meters.

Honestly, I would agree with the above if I didn't know for a fact that without a combat tracker implemented in to the game, players will make one that IS have little control over.

That would be the worst outcome for all involved. It would be bad for the casual player, as there would be builds posted with them having no understanding of how someone even worked out how effective a given build is. It would be bad for the non casual player, as they would have to us what ever tools get developed or risk falling behind the curve. It would be bad for IS as they would hve to try and figure out a way to detect players using the tool, and fail miserably to do so.

Dygz

noaani wrote: »

How well do you think a raid of 40 people just doing their own thing would compare to a raid of 40 people that are dedicated to working as a single unit towards a common goal?

I haven't ever talked about partying or raiding as everyone doing their own thing rather than working as a unit.
Or even as one person doing their own thing rather than working as a unit.

noaani wrote: »

Because that is what a raid is. You forgo your individual ambitions in order to further the progress of the whole. You sometimes do things that are not entirely enjoyable to you, because in doing that thing, you are furthering the progress of the hole, and you get more enjoyment out of progressing the whole than you get out of progressing the individual.

I disagree that you forgo your individual ambitions in order to further the progress of the whole.
Rather you try to synchronize ambitions to further the progress of the whole. Sometimes doing things you don't entirely enjoy shouldn't need to include using abilities that are counter to the RP of the character you've built just to fit a cookie-cutter build or strategy as determined by meta tools that weren't implemented by the devs.
Helping progress an individual in the group can lead to enjoyment for the whole. I think you know that.
Also, helping an individual play their character the way they like in a manner that helps the whole can also bring enjoyment for the whole. Typical of RPGs in general, but gets easily lost in MMORPGs.

noaani wrote: »

In return, you get to be a part of a group of 40 people that are also forging their own individual ambitions in order to further the whole.

Hahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahhahahahahahahhaa.
Yeah...No. That is elitist thinking.
I get to be part of your group. hahaahahahahaahahahahahahaha

noaani wrote: »

It isn't about elitism at all, and those that think raiding is about elitism don't know raiding well at all.

Thinking that someone gets to be a part of your group is the epitome of elitist thinking.
It's also the wrong focus. It's not about trying to be part of a group, rather it's about defeating the threats using the abilities of the character you've built. That's what RPGs are all about.

noaani wrote: »

Raiding is teamwork. Not everyone is cut out to be a part of a whole, rather than the focus of it, so not everyone is cut out to raid.

Raiding is teamwork. The notion that not everyone is cut out to raid is more elitist thinking.

noaani wrote: »

AoC will have challenging raid content. This is a given. When tackling this content, raids as a whole will decide on the best method for that specific raid. There may be other strategies, but that day, in that zone, against that encounter, on that pull, that raid is only using one - and so every member of that raid on that pull against that encounter in that zone on that day had better do what they are supposed to do otherwise they are wasting the time of the other 39 people present.

Ashes will have challenging raid content. Since the devs are not supporting DPS meters, that means that challenging raid content can be defeated without DPS meters.

noaani wrote: »

I bring this up to illustrate that while raiders forgo the individual ambition for the greater good, they only do that during the time in which they need to raid (and the time they need to spend becoming raid ready). Outside of raids, these players still run builds on characters just because they wanted to be an ice mage, they still play races just because they like them, they still craft because they enjoy making items - but then when it's time to raid, they set that down in order to become a small part of a greater whole.

Blackhearted

Remove action combat cause some1 could write an undetectable script.

The only reason people want an ACT is because they cant figure out how to play without?

Noaani

blackhearted wrote: »

Remove action combat cause some1 could write an undetectable script.

The only reason people want an ACT is because they cant figure out how to play without?

A script is easy to spot as it interacts with the game client.

An attempt to stop something that can easily be spotted and dealt with is not a reason to put or not put something in to the game. An attempt to stop something that would otherwise be inevitable and undetectable however, is a good reason to do so.

As to why someone would run a combat tracker; it's because actual good players - as opposed to those that just think they are good - know that they are the only way to squeeze out that last one or two percent. Without one you can think you are running a good build - with one you can know.

Azathoth

If you need a combat tracker to mine that last one or two percent difference, I don't think that makes you a good player. It might mean you are proficient with understanding the classes and the tool used, but assuming that makes a good player is odd. A good player is more than a maxed out character creator.

I am a good player, I know I am a good player, and I have never needed a meter to prove it to myself.

Noaani

dygz wrote: »

Hahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahhahahahahahahhaa.
Yeah...No. That is elitist thinking.
I get to be part of your group. hahaahahahahaahahahahahahaha

Spoken like someone that has no actual clue at all about the multiplayer aspect of MMO's.

If you join a raid or guild, you don't get to be a part of my group, you get to be a part of our group.

That is how the real multiplayer part of MMO's work.

People that treat a group, raid or guild as "there's" don't ever do well.

dygz wrote: »

Ashes will have challenging raid content. Since the devs are not supporting DPS meters, that means that challenging raid content can be defeated without DPS meters.

If content is challenging for those without a combat tracker, it will not be challenging for those with a combat tracker - and there WILL be players with a combat tracker whether Intrepid know about it or not.

Dygz

I guess you don't understand basic English - that "your" can be plural.
Although that is really beside the point because the word of emphasis is get - as if joining a group is supposed to be a privilege that people like you allow others.
FYI, there is way more to the multiplayer aspect of MMORPGs than just grouping.

I don't care whether or not content is challenging to people with a combat tracker.

Noaani

dygz wrote: »

I guess you don't understand basic English - that "your" can be plural.

Yes it can. "Your" is used in reference to the second person, or the second and third person, but never to the first person. When referring to the first person, it is always "my" or if including either the second person or a third person, "our".

In an MMO, any group, guild or raid you are in is by this very definition "our". The only time a group, guild or raid can ever be referred to as "your" is if you are not in it.

Although that is really beside the point because the word of emphasis is get - as if joining a group is supposed to be a privilege that people like you allow others.

If someone joins a group I am a part of, or if myself and someone else decide to form a group and invite others, it is as much my privilege as it is anyone else's.

That seems to be the thing you don't understand, in a group, raid or guild, everyone is equal. Yes there are leaders, but leaders are only there because everyone (generally) agrees they should do the leading. That doesn't make the group, raid or guild "theirs" though.

I don't know what kind of experiences you've had in the past to make you think this isn't the case.

I don't care whether or not content is challenging to people with a combat tracker.

Yes, but you also don't care about the top end raid content, so your opinion on the matter is akin to my opinion on achievements.

Damokles

This thread is pure gold xD
War waged on all sides, side discussions here and there. I love it!

(This post has probably the most comments of all newer threads btw)

Dygz

noaani wrote: »

In an MMO, any group, guild or raid you are in is by this very definition "our". The only time a group, guild or raid can ever be referred to as "your" is if you are not in it.

At least you seem to understand that much.

noaani wrote: »

That seems to be the thing you don't understand, in a group, raid or guild, everyone is equal. Yes there are leaders, but leaders are only there because everyone (generally) agrees they should do the leading. That doesn't make the group, raid or guild "theirs" though.
I don't know what kind of experiences you've had in the past to make you think this isn't the case.

Everyone cannot be considered to be equal when the group includes people who think not everyone is cut out to raid.
I am not talking about ownership or leadership. You are.

noaani wrote: »

Yes, but you also don't care about the top end raid content, so your opinion on the matter is akin to my opinion on achievements.

The devs care about top end raid content but their opinion is that DPS meters lead to toxicity, so they are not supporting DPS meters. That's the opinion that counts most.
I just happen to agree with it.

https://www.theaocdungeon.com/threads/interview-with-steven-sharif-ashes-of-creation-community-podcast-024-bcg.105/
Steven: The sheer nature of our PvP systems and how we emphasize a legendary item/economy in Ashes, is all but going to demand certain performances from the competitive player base. I think where there is opportunity to excel and succeed past the performance of your competitors, it is when it becomes competitive. I don't believe the DPS meters are necessary. It might require more investigation to gather the information, but it won't be as wide spread as DPS meters and such tools. The key is to form bonds of community cooperation, and we don't want to import tools that hinder that.

Noaani

dygz wrote: »

I am not talking about ownership or leadership. You are.

You're talking about me thinking it is a prigilege for you to join my group, I'm pointing out that not only is this not true, but from my perspective, there is never a "my" group, as in order for me to be in a group someone else needs to be there, thus it is "our" group.

Basically, you are claiming an elitist attitude where none exists.

The devs care about top end raid content but their opinion is that DPS meters lead to toxicity, so they are not supporting DPS meters. That's the opinion that counts most.
I just happen to agree with it.

Thing is, Intrepid can develop around what they want to happen, or what the community will make happen. They can't develop around both.

The community **WILL** have several combat trackers. That is inevitable, regardless of what Intrepid do or do not put in to the game. There will be some that are implemented in a way that is against the EULA (and I hope players using them get banned), but there will also be some that are done in ways that are not against the EULA - and thus players using them can't and won't get banned.

Knowing this, there is a simple question. Should Intrepid bury their head in the sand and ignore a player developed combat tracker that will still cause all the same issues they are trying to prevent, or should they themselves instead implement one in a manner that minimizes those issues?

Which is why I suggested adding in a combat tracker as an optional guild perk. It is the least problematic method of appeasing those that want a tracker while keeping out the decisiveness that some players can cause due to misuse of a tracker - and to be sure, it is the player misuse of it that causes problems, not the tracker itself.

I am using Intrepids reasoning for my argument for a combat tracker, you are using their conclusion. To me, their reasoning is sound. If you assume that they are talking about WoW style DPS meters in their conclusion, then I'm actually still all for that. I don't consider a live, on screen display to be necessary or even desirable - it is the analysis at the end of the fight that is.

Azathoth

@noaani stated "If content is challenging for those without a combat tracker, it will not be challenging for those with a combat tracker - and there WILL be players with a combat tracker whether Intrepid know about it or not."

I don't think that is a fair statement, and it could also be read as "Content is only challenging to players that rely on meters when they don't have them."

So, just because some players are willing to break the EUA and ruin any difficulty for themselves, IS should just give them what they want? I don't think IS should make effort to implement anything in their game they do not want to simply because people are willing to break the agreement and add it themselves.

If you decide to break the EUA and add a DPS/ACT and use it to outperform and make the game "too easy" and become bored with game in said state, that is on you. Not IS and not the community.

This is a very odd perspective... Why make rules and decide not to include things when people will just break the rules and add them? Why have rules if people will break them? These types of arguments are, imo, pointless.

Dygz

I'm really talking about you thinking it's a privilege to join a group. Which is why I clarified a few times that "get" is the key word - that is what's indicative of the elitist attitude. You wrote, "You get to be a part of a group" as if being part a group is a privilege. My use of the word "your" was referring to "belonging" - a group that you belong to - not a group that you own, control or lead. And even that was hyperbole.
Which, again, is why I clarified for you several time that the key word that indicates elitism is "get".
Your belief that not everyone is cut out to raid is also indicative of elitism.

Thinking that there is a question of whether IS should implement combat trackers is like questioning whether the devs should create an RP server. You can ask that question if you wish.
The answer is the devs are not going to implement either of those.

Everyone agrees that it's the misuse of the tool that causes problems, not the tool itself. Which is typical of tools that are banned due to rampant misuse.

I don't assume that the Ashes devs are talking about WoW style DPS meters - just as I don't assume that Ashes raids will be like WoW raids or raids in previous MMORPGs. Just as I don't think combat will be like combat in previous MMORPGs. The devs are talking about what promotes toxicity in previous MMORPGs.
We both agree that analysis at the end of the fight is desirable, we just don't agree that DPS meters/combat trackers should be implemented as a tool for that analysis - despite the fact that "top end raiders" think it's necessary.
Just as some people think that an RP server is necessary. We know that some people will try to create their own RP server, too. That doesn't mean the devs are going to create one.
Highly unlikely that people thinking they should will change their minds.

BlackBrony

I have to agree on the fact that most people asking for a DPS Meters are being unable to think outside the box. We have no idea how raids will be. For all we know it could be a puzzle raid where you have to jump in different tiles at different intervals to activate guns that would damage the boss.
So, if we don't know this, asking for a meter doesn't make sense.
Everyone seems to be picturing Raids ala Wow/other games, and maybe that's not the case. I don't possess that kind of imagination, but I can certainly think of raids where DPS is not the most important thing or won't change the time needed to clear a raid.

Noaani

azathoth wrote: »

@noaani stated "If content is challenging for those without a combat tracker, it will not be challenging for those with a combat tracker - and there WILL be players with a combat tracker whether Intrepid know about it or not."

I don't think that is a fair statement, and it could also be read as "Content is only challenging to players that rely on meters when they don't have them."

So, just because some players are willing to break the EUA and ruin any difficulty for themselves, IS should just give them what they want? I don't think IS should make effort to implement anything in their game they do not want to simply because people are willing to break the agreement and add it themselves.

If you decide to break the EUA and add a DPS/ACT and use it to outperform and make the game "too easy" and become bored with game in said state, that is on you. Not IS and not the community.

This is a very odd perspective... Why make rules and decide not to include things when people will just break the rules and add them? Why have rules if people will break them? These types of arguments are, imo, pointless.

There will be combat trackers that don't break the EULA.

All Intrepid can do is ban software that directly interacts with the game client. They can't outright ban third party software, as this would include Mozilla and Chrome - and even Windows (as Microsoft is a third party, and Windows is software made by that third party).

They also can't ban software that captures in game images - otherwise we wouldn't be able to take screenshots or videos of the game.

So, using things that Intrepid **HAVE** to allow, players are able to get all the information they need and fed that in to ACT. All without breaking the EULA, all without doing any more than the average casual streamer would do.

So then it becomes the issue I said before - do you ignore what is inevitable because it isn't 100% what you want, or do you work with the inevitable to get things as close to what you want as is ever going to be possible.

The idealouge may want Intrepid to stick to their ideals (funny that). They would say that there should be no combat tracker even if one exists that doesn't break the EULA, and can't be tracked by Intrepid even if they did alter the EULA.

The realist, on the other hand, wants Intrepid to live in the real world.

Noaani

dygz wrote: »

I'm really talking about you thinking it's a privilege to join a group.

Of course it is a privilege to join a group.

Thinking you have the right to join a group - any group - sounds elitist to me.

And by definition, if it is not a right, then it is a privilege.

Noaani

zorish wrote: »

I have to agree on the fact that most people asking for a DPS Meters are being unable to think outside the box. We have no idea how raids will be. For all we know it could be a puzzle raid where you have to jump in different tiles at different intervals to activate guns that would damage the boss.
So, if we don't know this, asking for a meter doesn't make sense.
Everyone seems to be picturing Raids ala Wow/other games, and maybe that's not the case. I don't possess that kind of imagination, but I can certainly think of raids where DPS is not the most important thing or won't change the time needed to clear a raid.

We know we will have many classes, each with many abilities, each with many augments.

We know players will be able to respec their secondary class, and we know that the secondary class is supposed to add at least 3 augments to each ability. If we assume each of the 8 classes have 30 abilities, that means each player will have access to 720 unique abilities just from their class choice alone, not including the additional augments that may be part of racial or social structures, or even as quest rewards or loot drops (speculation). This means each individual player may have as many as one thousand unique augmented abilities that they have access to, and are only able to select a small fraction at a time to use.

Now, if you think a company is going to put all of that in to one game and then add in content that they themselves have labeled "something for players to strive towards", and then develop said content in a way where all of those character choices are meaningless in favor of being required to jump on to a box, then I'm not sure what to say to you.

Azathoth

Removing the potential to break (or not breaking) the EUA from my argument does not change my point. All it does is removes the potential for punishment.

It still results in, according to the quote, players that use meters/trackers are not (or are less) challenged. So if there is not one in the game, and a third party one is used, and the game becomes too easy, that is a personal problem. The goal was to be overtly effective and then ask for the games difficulty to be raised, but there are many that don't play min/max that would be put off by the content designed to challenge min/max characters only.

There should not be a condition to achieve a meta build before being able to complete content. The variance should rely on players skill levels, not the exact rotation to eke out 1% more. If content is designed specifically for a min/max character at max level with the exact build/equip list or death, that content is designed for a niche group and effectively creates "chosen heroes." (being that only very specific types can complete all the content)

I believe IS should not try and please the masses, but that argument goes both ways too. Not adding a meter/tracker might deter some hardcore players. Open world PvP will deter some PvEs, corruption and limited PvP looting will deter some PvPs. The game is clearly not trying to please everyone, but I think the balanced methodology IS uses is more my style than not.

Noaani

azathoth wrote: »

Removing the potential to break (or not breaking) the EUA from my argument does not change my point. All it does is removes the potential for punishment.

It still results in, according to the quote, players that use meters/trackers are not (or are less) challenged. So if there is not one in the game, and a third party one is used, and the game becomes too easy, that is a personal problem. The goal was to be overtly effective and then ask for the games difficulty to be raised, but there are many that don't play min/max that would be put off by the content designed to challenge min/max characters only.

There should not be a condition to achieve a meta build before being able to complete content. The variance should rely on players skill levels, not the exact rotation to eke out 1% more. If content is designed specifically for a min/max character at max level with the exact build/equip list or death, that content is designed for a niche group and effectively creates "chosen heroes." (being that only very specific types can complete all the content)

I believe IS should not try and please the masses, but that argument goes both ways too. Not adding a meter/tracker might deter some hardcore players. Open world PvP will deter some PvEs, corruption and limited PvP looting will deter some PvPs. The game is clearly not trying to please everyone, but I think the balanced methodology IS uses is more my style than not.

This is all a very WoW-centric view.

In WoW, someone posts a build, then everyone uses that build. Very few people ever question anything, and combat trackers were used more as a measuring stick against that build than as an actual tool (though a measuring stick is a tool too, I guess).

In other games, there isn't such a thing as "the build". Other games - good games - vary the player situation enough that a single build will never be considered the best.

When I played EQ2 for example, none of the top 10 of my class in the game ever used the same build. Some abilities some players said were useless, while others would swear by them (Manaburn was one example). Yet both groups had weeks where they would parse better.

Part of the reason I want some form of tool in Ashes is because I believe the combat `will be varied enough to warrant it. We won't have a WoW type situation where people claim one build is always the best (and watch me destroy that argument if anyone tries to make it).

Instead, what I'm hoping we will have is a multitude of different individual situations, where the only way anyone can know what will work best for them is to figure it out for themselves.

The single worst thing I can think of for Ashes is for there to be no way for players to assess their own builds. If there is nothing at all, then the bulk of players that just want to get in the game and kill stuff will simply look for some cookie cutter board on a wiki or forum somewhere and just use it blindly.

Basically, the way I see it, the simpler a combat system is, the more damage a combat tracker can do. The more complex a combat system, the more damage not having one can do.

Child Item