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

Azathoth wrote: »

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.

Even in a game where combat trackers are a thing, they aren't needed for the vast majority of content. It is usually only a half dozen or so encounters per content cycle that a competent raid would actually need to look at it to figure out what is going on.

I've yet to see any single group content in any game where a combat tracker is needed (though this is possible to create, should a developer wish to do so). It is this lack of *need* for a combat tracker for anything but the highest end content in games where developers know players have access to a tracker that makes me think that it is perfectly viable adding a combat tracker in to the game on the guild level - I've never seen a non-guild raid reach content where a combat tracker is actually needed.

---

A well designed high end encounter in a game where combat trackers are a thing is like you are trying to decipher a code, and do a puzzle at the same time. You are trying to figure out what the developer wants you to do, but also trying to figure out a better way to do the encounter than what the developer had in mind - I've yet to see a complex raid encounter where I haven't seen at least three vastly different viable strategies to use on it.

This kind of thing isn't for everybody, which is why most raids only really rely on a small handful of people to actually do all of this groundwork on any specific encounter. When getting up to a complex encounter - one the raid is unable to kill on our first night against it - I usually task two or three people (which I try to rotate between those with an interest and aptitude in problem solving) with working out a few different things to try before next weeks attempt at the same thing.

In regards to your final statement, that's probably as true as anything could be. Some people are all about just trying and trying again - and within reason, I fit in to that category as well.

When I am in a raid that comes up to a new encounter, I'm happy to spend a few hours just pounding against it to see if we can kill it.

My thing is, if I am leading a raid of 40 people, and we come back to that encounter and spend another 3 hours trying and then trying again, that is 120 people/hours I have used up when I could have instead simply planned a bit better. We should have gathered enough info from the encounter the first night we went up against it to be able to come up with a finesse approach rather than a brute force approach.

To me, if there is planning that can be done before hand to make things go better on the night, it should be done.

However, that isn't really my argument for a combat tracker - my main argument for it is the fact that it opens up more content possibilities.

Blackhearted

I need a computational device because its mandatory, ACTs are not.
ACT is a QoL tool designed to make things easier, you even point that out urself when ure talking about raid preparation.

Leaving ACT out of the game does not limit what developers can create, it only means players need to outsmart the developers instead of reaching a certain dps.

Once again I can see a clear nudge in ur posts towards making the game easier through ACT.
Even the example u gave, claiming impossible without ACT seems very simple only requiring a little organizing.

The whole point of not having ACT is to shift the goal from quickly reaching the end into enjoying the journey.
If there is will, there is a way.

Noaani

@blackhearted

There seem to be some basic concepts you fail or refuse to grasp here, the first and most important being that developers develop to the ability of players and player characters.

A combat tracker adds to player ability, and so developers develop with that in mind.

Your insistence that they don't is puzzling. It's like you think the developers of a game sit in a locked room and just pump out content without giving a thought to who is to take it on, and what they have at their disposal. If these developers don't look at what tools are available, what else do they not look at? Number of people expected to take on the content? level of content? Expected gear of characters taking it one? Expected class mix?

Hell, good developers even take in to account what type of wiki the community may have developed for the game when designing quests and such.

If you think the developers of a product that cost tens of millions of dollars to make don't think about these things, and take them all (including available tools) in to account when designing content for the game, then I'm really not sure how to respond to that without insult - but I will say that such a notion is a direct insult to those developers.

If you try and raid in any game that has a combat tracker developed for it, but don't use that combat tracker, you will not get far. This is because the content in that game (at least at the top end) is designed to need it. It isn't a QoL tool, it is a requirement. Developers saw that players have them, and so in order to still challenge players, they develop content with it in mind.

Now, to be fair, I don't think you actually believe developers don't develop based on what players and payer characters can do. I think you are far too smart to actually believe that. What I think is that you just don't want to see a combat tracker in Ashes, and are trying really hard to make it seem like they are just for lazy players, rather than being an integral part of the higher end raiding scene.

Your last sentence is really interesting. If there is will, there is way. There is already a combat tracker in development for Ashes because there is the will for it. It will be GW2 all over again if Intrepid aren't careful.

consultant

Well it could be that the actuall dungeouns are designed around obvious buffs debuffs and really obvoius game mechanics were the way to success is not to hard to figure. So it is mostly clear to the players what they are suppose to be doing. If that is the case then well combat trackers would be a little redundant.

Clear and obvious buffs debuffs enrages and game mechanics does not mean less fun just less complicated and more people would be apt to raid.

But another option is somethig telling you why died. League of Legends has that and expresses it in bars graphs not numbers do not think something like that would have any toxic effect that I can see.

Noaani

consultant wrote: »

Clear and obvious buffs debuffs enrages and game mechanics does not mean less fun just less complicated and more people would be apt to raid.

It doesn't inherently mean less fun, no. Some very simple encounters like this can be a whole lot of fun.

Almost all games have them, usually as entry level encounters to a specific type of content (entry level group content, entry level raid content etc).

Thing is, games move on from there really quickly, because it doesn't take players long to master those encounters. If a developer didn't move on past those base encounters, it would leave the game with almost no variety in encounters.

while those individual encounters may be fun the first dozen or so times, when you are up against 10 encounters a week that use the same base mechanic simply because there are only a half dozen base mechanics, then the whole game is boring, not just the encounter.

Dygz

noaani wrote: »

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

hahahaha
I hope you know - as I know - that repeating yourself is not going to be any more convincing.
I understand what you're saying. We disagree on what we want in the game.
Nothing I post here is intended to bring clarity to you or to try to convince you to change your mind.

Where we do agree is that players will make mods for DPS meters and combat trackers in any case.

Dygz

noaani wrote: »

If you think the developers of a product that cost tens of millions of dollars to make don't think about these things, and take them all (including available tools) in to account when designing content for the game, then I'm really not sure how to respond to that without insult - but I will say that such a notion is a direct insult to those developers.

If you try and raid in any game that has a combat tracker developed for it, but don't use that combat tracker, you will not get far. This is because the content in that game (at least at the top end) is designed to need it. It isn't a QoL tool, it is a requirement. Developers saw that players have them, and so in order to still challenge players, they develop content with it in mind.

bwahahahaahhahahahahahahahahahaha!!
Apparently, the Ashes devs have thought about this, consider DPS meters and combat trackers to be a type of QoL that they don't want Ashes players to have and have chosen not to include them in their game.

consultant

Well when my dps was low I was trolled on cause of low dps but eventually it got better and well toons still trolled on me just nothing to do with dps so really do not see what the real difference is as far as dps meters go.

I actaully got trolled more for not having the cookie cutter set up more than anything else in the game. Not while doing pve content cause dps was acceptable just anyone that clcked on my toon and checked out my gear and set up.

Dygz

Ashes will have too many configs of racial, religious and social augments -in addition to weapon abilities and race/subclass combinations- for there to be cookie-cutter builds. Some people will try to have flavor-of the-month builds, but the content is too dynamic for that to really be meaningful - especially since boss fights change between sessions, rather than remaining static.
More important to know how to -and be able to- support and synergize with your teammates' combat tactics and abilties.

Blackhearted

ACT in its core only offers a method to unravel meta faster for higher dps and a faster problem solving during raids.
Both of these mechanics in their core lead players to reach the end as soon as possible and are designed for saving time.

I see developers having a choice regarding their content. They have to choose between having content that has a gear cap and when that is overcome the dungeon is basically finished
Then there is the second method, they create content that could take months to solve as players would struggle finding optimal dps builds and mechanics to help them bypass that dps cap.

Ashes team seems to be going for the latter.
That way they enable the possibility for more meaningful content, which seems to be one of the foundation pillars of this game.. When was the last time u had to ask how someone got an cool item in a game? When was the last time u fought a boss that u didnt hold self-evident to beat?

Even if someone created a 3rd party ACT for Ashes, it would never have reliable data.
You could maybe test ur dps on a dummy, but then it wouldnt be valid in raiding situations. They could have it read dmg numbers, ashes could force the screen to show everyones damage numbers or hide them completely and the program wouldnt work or it would be too unreliable to be used as a guideline.

boomervoncannon

My question is, will the dps meter show how much of your damage was due to buffs from the bard or other buffing classes, and will those support classes get credit on the dps meter for all damage caused because of their buffs, damage prevented because of buffs or debuffs, or amounts healed?

No? Then the dps meter is of uneven value and a poor tool for measuring contribution to a group.

Moreover, when I slow, stun or hold a mod so that it doesn't do any damage at all, how will the dps meter take that into account?, since my experience is most gamers have a pronounced tendency not to perceive things that don't happen, even when the thing not happening is a positive.

Imo dps meters are for the kind of nerds who get their enjoyment out of the NBA by studying player and team statistics instead of appreciating the athletic brilliance that goes into creating those statistics. People doing this are mostly focusing on the wrong things. If you're a good party leader, you know who is carrying their weight and who isn't without it.

Noaani

Dygz wrote: »

noaani wrote: »

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

hahahaha
I hope you know - as I know - that repeating yourself is not going to be any more convincing.
I understand what you're saying. We disagree on what we want in the game.

This is true, but the thing is, you and I are unlikely to have much cross over in terms of what content we partake in.

If you were to say "In the solo and casual group content that is the only PvE content I am really likely to participate in, I'd like to not have a combat tracker present", then I'd happily agree with you.

On raids though, it's different.

Dygz wrote: »

noaani wrote: »

If you think the developers of a product that cost tens of millions of dollars to make don't think about these things, and take them all (including available tools) in to account when designing content for the game, then I'm really not sure how to respond to that without insult - but I will say that such a notion is a direct insult to those developers.

If you try and raid in any game that has a combat tracker developed for it, but don't use that combat tracker, you will not get far. This is because the content in that game (at least at the top end) is designed to need it. It isn't a QoL tool, it is a requirement. Developers saw that players have them, and so in order to still challenge players, they develop content with it in mind.

bwahahahaahhahahahahahahahahahaha!!
Apparently, the Ashes devs have thought about this, consider DPS meters and combat trackers to be a type of QoL that they don't want Ashes players to have and have chosen not to include them in their game.

Dygz wrote: »

Where we do agree is that players will make mods for DPS meters and combat trackers in any case.

Please explain to me how these two statements can co-exist.

You and I agree that there will be a combat tracker in Ashes - players will make that happen. If you and I can see that, then Intrepid can as well. As they are developing a multi-million dollar product, surely they would be smart enough to take the fact that a combat tracker will exist in to consideration. It isn't about what Intrepid do or do not want so much as what players will make happen.

I still maintain that the best solution for everyone - even for you, Dygz - is for there to be a built in combat tracker at the guild level, where guilds give up options that would be beneficial to other playstyles to get hold of, and that only works on members of your own guild that you are grouped with.

It is the only way I can think of at all to keep a combat tracker out of solo and casual group content.

Dygz wrote: »

Ashes will have too many configs of racial, religious and social augments -in addition to weapon abilities and race/subclass combinations- for there to be cookie-cutter builds.

In my experience, the more builds are possible in a game, the more rigid the player base is in sticking to a build someone else has made.

There won't be a half dozen or so builds that people pick from, but there absolutely will be builds that people post and the plurality (if not outright majority) of people will follow.

Path of Exile is a great example of this - it has more possible builds than any other game (online or not) that I've ever seen - and most players will run an entire season on someone else's build.

Strangely (and as a bit of an aside), I get most of my enjoyment from that game by making my own builds. I don't play PoE at the top end, and have no intention of ever doing so. Rather than wanting to be the best I possibly can be, I get more enjoyment out of creating a build based on the gear I've picked up. It's one of the reasons I'm able to point at the Bartle system is load of shit - because there is no way I would play Archeage, EQ2 or Ashes in that way.

Noaani

blackhearted wrote: »

ACT in its core only offers a method to unravel meta faster for higher dps and a faster problem solving during raids.
Both of these mechanics in their core lead players to reach the end as soon as possible and are designed for saving time.

I see developers having a choice regarding their content. They have to choose between having content that has a gear cap and when that is overcome the dungeon is basically finished
Then there is the second method, they create content that could take months to solve as players would struggle finding optimal dps builds and mechanics to help them bypass that dps cap.

Ashes team seems to be going for the latter.
That way they enable the possibility for more meaningful content, which seems to be one of the foundation pillars of this game.. When was the last time u had to ask how someone got an cool item in a game? When was the last time u fought a boss that u didnt hold self-evident to beat?

The question about the item is an argument against wiki's and such, something I expect to fully exist for Ashes as much as any other MMO out there.

As for the encounter question; EQ2.

As far as I am concerned, that was the most recent release with raid content that even get's a pass mark from me.

The fact that Intrepid have hired several people from that game is the main reason I am excited for Ashes.

There were encounters in that game that could take several days to just figure out the basic strategy - and then take several nights worth of raiding on top of that to execute it.

Even if someone created a 3rd party ACT for Ashes, it would never have reliable data.
You could maybe test ur dps on a dummy, but then it wouldnt be valid in raiding situations. They could have it read dmg numbers, ashes could force the screen to show everyones damage numbers or hide them completely and the program wouldnt work or it would be too unreliable to be used as a guideline.

I assume you and I agree that the game client will give accurate feedback on any damage caused by or dealt to your own character.

If that information is displayed to the player in any way - floating numbers or chat box text - then there is a program out there that will be able to convert that to a file that ACT can read.

This gives players an accurate account of what they have done, but so far you are right in that it won't be accurate in terms of a group or raid.

Thing is, there are other combat trackers out there (I used one briefly many years ago) that has one member of the raid set up a server, and everyone downloads a client that connects to that server. Instead of everyone having their own combat tracker that can only accurately track their own combat, the whole raid has one combat tracker that accurately tracks the whole raid.

The one of these I used briefly many years ago also had built in voice chat - back when vent and TS were the only real options (before mumble even). Also tracked raid attendance to assist with DKP allocation, was actually an over all useful utility program.

I've not seen anything like this first hand for over a decade, so I'm not saying I know that there is something in development that will work for Ashes (unlike a combat tracker in general), but a program like one that I used that long ago will easily deal with the issue you pointed out above (which, granted, was a very good point).

Blackhearted

The problem with this is that once players find that optimal setup (which would take days, maybe weeks at a stretch), the content is all laid flat.

This may seem like an self evident statement, but I feel it is worth stating; without adding complexity to encounters, encounters are simple
/quote

@noaani

The whole point of the message u quoted is that they can develop content exactly similar to a game where ACT is enabled for players. Optimal builds wont take days or weeks but months, finding some mechanics to help raids bypass mechanics that punish low dps would be mandatory.

You should read my post again with more thought and then reply again...
Even the wiki part is false, I said how someone got...
Im not talking about taking a few days to finish raids but perhaps even months or missing a boss because the node was broken, being motivated to defend the node because u want to finish the raid.

Dygz

Yeah. Ashes' raid tactics change from session to session, so... using a combat tracker to help figure out strategy is unlikely to work well. If it's taking "days" to assess a strategy from a combat tracker, probably better to pay attention to what the actual mobs are doing and then adjust party combo synergies accordingly than trying to look for the player with the lowest dps. Or lowest gear score for that matter.

Wololo

lmao this thread is insane
but a good read
so can yall agree dps meters is a bad idea now ?

and that it holds more players off raiding then it gets players into it

adds fuel to the fire

Azathoth

Wololo wrote: »

lmao this thread is insane
but a good read
so can yall agree dps meters is a bad idea now ? and that it holds more players off raiding then it gets players into it adds fuel to the fire

Yes, because agreeing is what we do here

Azryil

Wololo wrote: »

so can yall agree dps meters is a bad idea now ?

I wouldn't count on it

Noaani

blackhearted wrote: »

The problem with this is that once players find that optimal setup (which would take days, maybe weeks at a stretch), the content is all laid flat.

This may seem like an self evident statement, but I feel it is worth stating; without adding complexity to encounters, encounters are simple
/quote

@noaani

The whole point of the message u quoted is that they can develop content exactly similar to a game where ACT is enabled for players. Optimal builds wont take days or weeks but months, finding some mechanics to help raids bypass mechanics that punish low dps would be mandatory.

You should read my post again with more thought and then reply again.
Even the wiki part is false, I said how someone got...
Im not talking about taking a few days to finish raids but perhaps even months or missing a boss because the node was broken, being motivated to defend the node because u want to finish the raid.

Optimal builds will take weeks at the longest, days if people are motivated and focused, or hours once the tracker that is in development for another game is altered to work for Ashes (which may happen in beta).

These things may not be made public straight away, but the composition of most builds on a raid will be figured out in beta.

If the developers of Ashes develop the game with the theory that players won't have access to a combat tracker, and create all of the games supposed high end content around this notion, it will be a very disappointing game indeed.

As well as helping players figure out the best builds (or a good build based on what they want from their character), they also help players manage encounter abilities.

There are many raid encounters from many games that would simply be unmanageable without a tracker of some form. Players are able to deal with a lot more than they are able to mange in terms of encounter mechanics. If the limit of mechanics is what players are expected to be able to manage, then those encounters will not be easy to deal with (read; not challenging).

I'm not sure what your distinction in regards to the item question you had is. When I want to know how someone got an item in an MMO, I look up the item on that games wiki. It tells me how to get the item - that is what wiki's do. If there is some other hidden meaning to your question, let me know, because I can't find it.

Noaani

Dygz wrote: »

Yeah. Ashes' raid tactics change from session to session, so... using a combat tracker to help figure out strategy is unlikely to work well. If it's taking "days" to assess a strategy from a combat tracker, probably better to pay attention to what the actual mobs are doing and then adjust party combo synergies accordingly than trying to look for the player with the lowest dps. Or lowest gear score for that matter.

You realize that a combat tracker provides information in real time, right? So I have information on an encounter as I am fighting it.

To a raid, synergies are just abilities. Unless there is specific reason to nee to use a specific ability at a specific time, then players are free to use what abilities they see fit, when they see fit.

As synergies are just abilities, the above applies to them as well. If we need something specific, we will make that happen, raids already do this and the notion of synergies won't change a single thing in that regard.

In terms of figuring out raid content though, if there is an ability (or synergy) needed as a key component of killing a specific raid encounter, and that ability (or synergy) is present on the raid, most raids would kill that encounter on their third pull - the first to figure out the mechanic, the second to figure out the frequency, the third to execute (note; if it is not a mechanic that instantly kills the raid, the frequency may be figured out on the first pull, meaning the second pull will be the execution).

More likely than that is the need for a raid to have a specific number of a specific class with a specific augment (or perhaps a specific number of any of a few different classes each with their own specific augment that all perform a similar function).

Point is, if the resources to kill an encounter are present in the raid, that raid can expect to kill the encounter unless the encounter is overly complex.

Child Item