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

Dygz

In RPPGs, min/maxing is rarely required to survive. It's just an option for players who like to be as efficient as possible.

Azathoth

I don't understand the mind set of only min/max characters should be able to function. "Go to a fantasy (even a "high fantasy") setting and become an adventurer - you'll either min/max or have a very short career."

How can you even justify that statement as an only option (i.e. min/max or die/retire early)?

I have played many characters in many high fantasy settings that had harsh systems or game masters. I have never made effort to min/max a character, and my characters seem to last most if not the whole game (no more or less than any other). Versatility is very important, and the min/max character is usually not as versatile. Any claim that a versatile character 'has' to be a min/max character by default is unfounded (just a preliminary proclamation).

Again with these absolutes. It makes me think you don't have a point, but instead just want to be able to min/max. Although that is a valid play style, as valid as any other, that doesn't make it the only viable option.

The more you use these types of statements the harder it is to see your point as reasonable, and the more reason I have to support IS in not adding a tool. A good min/max type, as you have said plenty before, will do this themselves anyways.

Noaani

seaber wrote: »

Player 26 can assess their own performance, if they have the necessary skills to do so, without a combat tracker.

The bartle types are just categories. I know dygz seems to use them like horoscopes but that's not what they are. Horoscopes are: you are x therefore y. Bartle types are: you are x.

There is no way to actually assess your performance without some form of tool (in game or third party) to give you objective data. Without actual objective data, it is impossible to accurately assess anything other than peoples feelings and opinions on a topic.

The big issue with the Bartle system is that people change based on the design of the game they are playing. I've played games where the content I enjoyed most was top and raiding, and I've played games where the content I enjoyed the most was exploration - yet I've never played a game where I enjoy both.

On top of exploration and high end raiding, I've played games where I enjoyed the crafting system the most, games where I enjoyed the resource production system the most, games where I enjoyed the lore the most and games where I enjoyed just socializing with others the most.

The system works well enough if the player answering has a single game in mind, but the scores I get when I have ESO, EQ2 or Archeage in mind are totally different from each other.

The problem with it as a system is actually not that dissimilar to the problem with a combat tracker. People take the test once, and assume that is them. That is incorrect use of the system, just as looking at DPS alone is misuse of a combat tracker.

Noaani

azathoth wrote: »

Again with these absolutes. It makes me think you don't have a point, but instead just want to be able to min/max. Although that is a valid play style, as valid as any other, that doesn't make it the only viable option.

I'm fairly sure I've made my point in this thread.

Nothing that I have talked about in the last few posts in regards to D&D has any real relation to a combat tracker in Ashes. It was just an aside in reply to the comment made that maybe Steven hates min/maxers in D&D.

seaber

noaani wrote: »

There is no way to actually assess your performance without some form of tool (in game or third party) to give you objective data. Without actual objective data, it is impossible to accurately assess anything other than peoples feelings and opinions on a topic.

The actual objective data should be available in a combat log. A combat tracker just displays that same data in a different way

Nagash

15 pages later and nothing has changed, tune in next time when we see if intrepid has changed their mind.

Wandering Mist

nagash wrote: »

15 pages later and nothing has changed, tune in next time when we see if intrepid has changed their mind.

Yeah I stopped replying to this thread awhile ago, as the argument just keeps going in circles.

.......Dammit Nagash, you made me reply to this thread again, you fiend!!!!

Noaani

seaber wrote: »

noaani wrote: »

There is no way to actually assess your performance without some form of tool (in game or third party) to give you objective data. Without actual objective data, it is impossible to accurately assess anything other than peoples feelings and opinions on a topic.

The actual objective data should be available in a combat log. A combat tracker just displays that same data in a different way

If that combat log is available, then Advanced Combat Tracker will be able to read it and the whole discussion is needless.

Indeed, it is that data that the debate in this thread is about. The tool specifically is unnecessary in the context here - if the data is there, the tool already exists.

For some reason though, some people think there could be bad situations arise from the access to objective data.

Dygz

The debate is about IS supporting a tool that aggregates the combat data in a manner that allows for quick analysis in between battles. Especially a tool that provides quick analysis of the entire party/raid.

wanderingmist wrote: »

The majority of players I've met don't know how to use them properly which results in toxicity due to their ignorance.

mic drop

Noaani

dygz wrote: »

wanderingmist wrote: »

The majority of players I've met don't know how to use them properly which results in toxicity due to their ignorance.

mic drop

Hardly.

What wanderingmist said above is a reason for a well designed combat tracker as much as it is an argument against one at all.

Every third party combat tracker I've seen has been made by and for people that know how to make use of them. They are not designed for people that don't know what they are doing.

Have an actual company - rather than just some guy who has few hours free once a week - actually put some effort behind a good design for a combat tracker, a design that helps players find the information they need, rather than the information they think they want, and it at least partially solves the issue.

Sadly, if Intrepid don't implement one in to the game, there will be a third party one, and players that don't know what they are doing will misuse it.

Pooka

Pooka thinks there's nothing wrong with an ACT. Pooka believes that an ACT brings both negatives and positives to games. Pooka thinks the good outweighs the bad for the progress of a server, but that's Pooka's opinion.

consultant

Well do not know if it has already been posted on this thread cause it is 15 pages long but ....

Think some kind of little combat tacker would be pretty cool. In some of the better guilds people that do less dps and have worst gear might be prefered cause they know the fight better do interupts do offhealing cc mobs.

Thing is not all about dps interupts and cc and buffs and debuffs and not standing in the fire is really important actually in some cases more important than just dps. So if there was a very simple combat tracker
that kept tracke if interupts and stuns and avoiding damage. Which is in fact really important and would make better players cause players would be inclined to do more since they have performance report.

So if a class had the ability to cure poison and they were in a dungeoun that had monsters that poisoned then the amount of times that they used that ability would show up.

Dygz

Knowing the fight better won't really be possible since battles will dynamically change between sessions.
I'm hoping what players will be learning is how to synergize with each other's weapon abilities, adventurer abilities and augments. And I'm hoping every primary archetype has a group ability similar to the Summoner group summons.

I don't think we need to see the raw data for number of times cure poison was used. We will know if people need to be cured more often in any case - and then work out strategies to either avoid being poisoned or methods of curing poison more often. Even without a tool that calculates ability usage.

Noaani

Dygz wrote: »

Knowing the fight better won't really be possible since battles will dynamically change between sessions.
I'm hoping what players will be learning is how to synergize with each other's weapon abilities, adventurer abilities and augments. And I'm hoping every primary archetype has a group ability similar to the Summoner group summons.

This part, I totally agree with.

EQ2 is the only MMORPG I have played with real synchronization needed between classes in order to be most effective, and it made the game far better than it would have been otherwise.

I don't think we need to see the raw data for number of times cure poison was used. We will know if people need to be cured more often in any case - and then work out strategies to either avoid being poisoned or methods of curing poison more often. Even without a tool that calculates ability usage.

This is totally dependent on content.

Intrepid could make a mob (or many mobs) that have several poison effects that they use, but where one of them needs to be left on the player, while the other one needs to be cured quickly or the player dies.

Such content simply couldn't exist unless players have access to combat analysis, because players need to be able to understand anything out of the ordinary that may be thrown up against them. This again is my point - a combat tracker allows the developers options that wouldn't be viable without one, leading to them being able to make more varied - thus more engaging - content.

I mean, sure, Ashes could have simple, ordinary, boring content where a cure is a cure and everything is black and white - or it could try to have actual interesting content where players need to sometimes do something other than what they are normally required to do.

Dygz

We won't need to see the raw data to determine the different types of effects of poison abilities from mobs.
Just like we won't need to see the raw data from DPS meters/combat trackers to know the different types of effects of poison abilities from Adventurer archetypes.

We won't need a "combat tracker" to tell whether something is resistant to poison or resistant to a cure.
Players will figure that stuff out without a combat tracker. It's just not going to be instant, detailed analysis and assessment. And, yes, there will be more guesswork as assessments are made.

Noaani

Dygz wrote: »

We won't need to see the raw data

Again, as I have been saying, this is 100% dependent on how the content is designed.

Without a combat tracker, developers can develop X.

With a combat tracker, developers can develop X, Y and Z.

If Y and Z are to be put in to the game, a combat tracker WILL be needed to defeat them, as they will be designed to be hard to defeat WITH a combat tracker.

On the other hand, if a combat tracker does not exist, Y and Z can not exist either as they would be impossible.

X could exist just fine with or without a combat tracker.

To some players, X is enough. They will see content X, see no combat tracker and wonder why anyone would want one.

To other players though, players like me, we will look at content X, and wonder where content Y and Z are.

An argument against a combat tracker is an argument against content Y and Z.

I don't think I can make it any more plain than this.

Edited to add; content X without a tracker and content Y and Z with one is slightly off scale. It should probably content making use of mechanics in the group x without a tracker, and literally group x! with one.

consultant

Well personally i did not use dps meter much cause I already used onea nd knew my dps was acceptable. As far as not needing a combat tracker. Well what is the proposed way to figure out who in your raid group is not intrupting or cleansing or curing. Guessing the person that died from it might know if there is a poison animation but really could not prove it when the fight is over.

Lack of knowledge causes adds just as much to the toxic environment as not having one so just better to have one.

Blackhearted

Ur argument for ACT is that people are too so stupid to bare without.

Some content is meant to be hard and perhaps even impossible if u are not willing to practise.

@noaani can u provide some practical examples of Y and Z where theyre not possible without ACT?

Noaani

blackhearted wrote: »

Ur argument for ACT is that people are too so stupid to bare without.

That is not even close to what I am saying.

That is akin to saying that no one should need a tool for anything, that people should be able to do every thing without the aide of any thing.

Thing is, there are some thing people can do without tools, and some things people can ONLY do with the right tool.

I want you to try and post to this forum without the aide of a computational device.

You won't be able to do it. It is literally impossible. It's a stupid thing to even ask.

The fact that you can't do that doesn't make you stupid, all it means is that posting to this forum is not within the scope of what any human is able to do without the aide of a microchip. In this case, a computational device is what makes it possible for you to perform that simple task.

Now, when we consider that a combat tracker can simply be considered a computer to aide MMO players in a fight, it is easy (to me) to see how developers can create content that is out of the scope of a human to be able to manage without the aide of a combat tracker.

It isn't that the human is stupid, it is that the content is designed to be taken on with that aide.

Some content is meant to be hard and perhaps even impossible if u are not willing to practise.

Indeed, and EQ2 (the MMO that ACT itself was first developed for) is a prime example of this.

EQ2 had encounters that weren't beaten until the last few weeks of an expansion - several times. It is the pinnacle of raid content that needs practice, patience and perfect execution - and yet it had ACT developed specifically for it.

The reason EQ2 had encounters that were truly hard is because the developers knew exactly what tools the players had access to, and devloped content that was difficult WITH THOSE TOOLS.

can u provide some practical examples of Y and Z where theyre not possible without ACT?

Sure.

An encounter that has a base balance to where it should last 25 minutes, with any one of 10 different varieties of adds spawning every 30 seconds, each of which needs to be dealt with in different ways - some CC'd, some only killed by healers, some only killed at range, some needing to be kept alive for 20 seconds but killed within 25 seconds, etc. Also, between the boss and adds, there are 15 different AE's to contend with, with different damage types, different shapes (cones, donuts etc), some with stuns, some with DoT's. Also, during this fight, there are various doodads (technical term) that need to be activated in various ways, occupying no less than 5 raid members at any given point of the encounter, and sometimes as many as 15. Additionally, the encounter will randomly teleport raid members to a different location - totally at random both in terms of which player and how often. Also, the DPS on the main encounter needs to be fairly steady - any fluctuation up or down and he will enter beast mode. Also, if any player gets below 30% mana it is an instant wipe for the raid - and one type of adds in the encounter has a mana drain that will drain 20% of the targets mana.

Thing is, any single mechanic you can think of can be dealt with by players without a combat tracker. However, developers can put more than one mechanic in an encounter, and all the good encounters have multiple mechanics to them. It is not that hard to create an encounter that literally has too much going on for people to be able to keep track of it all, but when players have a combat tracker, encounters that would otherwise be impossible really are the most fun.

Azathoth

I'm not sure if our ideas of "impossible" and "most fun" match.
A lot of what I am getting out of this debate is:

1) Group does content
2) Group checks ACT and determines the exact method for defeating encounter
3) Group tries encounter again and a) Wins, or b) starts over at (2).

To me that is not fun, nor does it prove the encounter would have been impossible.
To me that is a cheap way of playing
-"What type of damage did the raid boss do at 27 seconds?" Acid, check and prepare for that
-"What shape was the effect at 13 seconds?" Cone, check and prepare for that
-"Out of all the damage types, what was most effective?" Lightning, check and prepare for that

I don't see the point in planning out how to defeat this content and I don't think I need this to do it.
But, as a gamer, I am willing to try and fail multiple times and learn as I go.

I am not against ACT's, nor do I think my statements reflect any particular posters point of view on the matter. It just seems to me, imo, that the main purpose of the tracker is to not have to try harder, but plan better.
I am a try again and get better type. Others are a plan it out and do it right the first time types.

Child Item