DPS Meter Megathread

Just because someone tells you what would be best or how to something, that doesn't mean you are capable or willing. Unless, I suppose, they are walking you through it step by step. I don't see raid leaders having that type of time.

So players will still need a good understanding of their abilities and the game. At which point, they probably don't need the tracker, although they might want one to make the game easier.

In the end, I am still for deteriorating tracker-items.

I just don't think a tracker is necessary for the most difficult content creatable. If it is, then it seems like the game is playing with the tracker, which to me, would be a different type of game.

Dygz wrote: »

noaani wrote: »

Raids already do this.

No. What raids do is dictate your build.

Well, actually, yes.

There are exactly two scenarios in which a raid leader will dictate a build to a player.

The first is because the raid leader doesn't know what they are doing. They see other raid leaders dictate to their raid and they think that is how raid leaders are supposed to act. They see videos of raids on YouTube or Twitch and try to emulate the behavior they see - being totally ignorant of the fact that the people they were watching were playing up for the audience.

This kind of behavior is 100% limited to pick up raids - because such leaders can't get a raid full of people to follow them.

Essentially, this kind of raid leader is the raid level equivalent of the issue in groups of ninja looting. You don't judge all groups based on ninja-looting, because you know full well that the way to avoid it is to get yourself in to a community (whether makeshift or formal) that runs content together often. Once in such a community, ninja-looting is essentially a thing of the past.

Same for raids. If you get yourself in to a community that raids together often, you get away from raid leaders that don't know what they are doing. Once you get in to a regular raiding community, raid leaders start to realize that the player is more important than the numbers. When you hit an encounter that doesn't have a DPS check, doesn't do all that much damage, but does ask something of members of your raid that is non-standard for any class in the game, you quickly realize that the people are all that matters.

---

However, as mentioned above, there is a second time a raid leader may dictate a build to you. This is when the content dictates a build to the raid leader.

Raids are not simply larger groups.

In groups, you have a tank, a healer, some DPS and support. Everyone's role is basically set, and doesn't really vary from these basics.

This is also how things start off in raids. However, the thing with raid content is that it asks things of players and classes that are non-standard. This is what separates raid content from group content - not the number of people present.

There may be raid encounters that requires a rogue to tank, there may be raid encounters that requires a mage to solo tough encounters (tough for soloing at least), there may be raid encounters that require a single group within that raid to break off and act as an independent group, there may be raid encounters that require healers to spec for DPS, there may be raid encounters that require a very high degree of in combat mobility for specific people.

If you are going on a raid and you are a rogue, if that encounter requires a rogue to tank and the raid leader looks to you to fulfill this requirement of the content, you either make that happen or admit to yourself that you are not well suited to raid content.

If you are a healer and the encounter has adds that only take damage from healers, if the raid leader asks you to spec for DPS, then you spec for DPS. The raid leader is putting the core mechanic in your hands - at least in part. This isn't a time for you to complain that it isn't what you are there for, it is your time to shine, to show that you aren't a one trick pony.

If you are a healer that can has proven they are able to handle this situation, and this situation is 6 boss encounters in to a raid zone, the raid leader won't care if you afk follow the raid up to that point as long as you perform that task - because the content demands it.

Not being willing to perform the task that the raid encounter asks of you is no different to a solo healer expecting someone else to do all the damage to the solo content because they are a healer and they will play the way they want to play - and that way involves only healing. In the same way solo content asks different things of you than what group content asks of you, raid content asks for different things from you again - although raids have the scope to ask of you every single thing that group or solo content could ask of you, if the encounters are designed in that manner.

Most of the time on a raid, you perform your basic role - however, when you are required to perform a different role, you are expected to perform that role without issue.

If you want to spec for a role and stay within that role, then raids are simply not for you, because that is not what raids are about. Nor is it what they should be about - we have single group content for that.

Azathoth wrote: »

Just because someone tells you what would be best or how to something, that doesn't mean you are capable or willing. Unless, I suppose, they are walking you through it step by step. I don't see raid leaders having that type of time.

So players will still need a good understanding of their abilities and the game. At which point, they probably don't need the tracker, although they might want one to make the game easier.

In the end, I am still for deteriorating tracker-items.

I just don't think a tracker is necessary for the most difficult content creatable. If it is, then it seems like the game is playing with the tracker, which to me, would be a different type of game.

It is an expectation that everyone on a raid know how their class works.

The person figuring out what is going on isn't micro-managing every spell that every person in the raid casts - in fact, they are hardly even looking at what the raid is doing. This person is focused almost 100% on what the encounter is doing.

There seems to be some confusion here though.

Once you get to raids, combat trackers aren't really needed for looking at what people on your raid are doing. The expectation is that by the time the raid starts, every member of your raid understands their base function and are able to perform it to an acceptable degree.

The only four times when a combat tracker is used to look at the raid is:
1; friendly competition, which is usually within people in the same raid.
2; when the encounter asks something of someone in your raid that is non-standard for their class. A combat tracker is very useful here.
3; when things go wrong when the raid as a whole thinks they know the encounter. This is for problem solving.
4; assessing the ability of a new recruit, but only if the raid is taking on content that dictates a minimum level of performance - though this is usually done on a run specific to this end, where the player in question is placed in various situations.

The most useful thing a combat tracker does isn't about looking at your own raid, it is that it will tell you what the encounter is doing (or has done).

Any raid leader that is looking at what the members of their raid did after a successful encounter (unless success wasn't expected) is literally always someone you don't want leading your raid.

As to the comment about content designed with a combat tracker being able to be made harder than content designed without one - a raid is able to actually deal with (whether heal through, cure, joust or block) more AE's than you can expect that same raid to keep track of.

Now, some developers put cues in the encounter on when they are about to use an AE/ability. This is cool, there is absolutely a skill in being able to observe the encounter and react to what it is doing.

This absolutely is and should be a mechanic that raid designers use.

However, so is using timed AE's and abilities. Abilities that get used without any warning - other than the fact that they are used every ** seconds.

Being able to deal with this is a different skill, one that is at least as valid as being able to observe the encounter's behavior.

Where a combat tracker assists in this specific situation is it allows the person charged with tracking the AE's to be able to work out the timer on each AE that needs to be tracked (not all do), and set a timer in the combat tracker rather than using a different program on their computer or phone.

The challenge here isn't actually in timing the AE, it is in gathering the information needed to be able to time the AE. Once that information is gathered and once the decision is made as to what to do for each AE, the actual challenge of the raid has been overcome. The fact that you are still using the combat tracker to time the AE doesn't mean you are using the combat tracker to make the encounter easier (as the encounter is exactly the same if you use a phone app).

In an encounter with 15 timed AE's, if there is a combat tracker the challenge is in dealing with the AE's. If there is no combat tracker the challenge is in dealing with 15 timers - not an enjoyable experience.

However, third party combat trackers usually allow you to import a file specific to an encounter that has the timers on all the AE's ready to go. This kind of thing I dislike, as no one in the raid has had to do the ground work to learn the encounter, learn which AE's need to be dealt with, and then figure out what method is best for dealing with each AE.

This is just one more part of the reason I want a first party combat tracker - because if there is one, there is less of a need for a third party one, and as such there is a greater chance that a third party one won't exist, meaning there won't be the opportunity to just download the info needed for the encounter.

I would consider seeking out 'what the encounter is doing' via a reader, and then designing the raid around that as cheap play. Literally, the goal would be to have a script to play by so as not to risk death.

To me it's the difference between thinking a combat is hard and desiring to beat it through practice and skill improvement, and thinking a combat is hard and going to a Wiki and looking up the easiest way to defeat the combat. I can't ever be on board with this. Imo, it is lazy game play.

I am also not a min/max type of RPG Character builder, so I will never be on board with needing a Meter to tell determine if your character should wield the Magical Sword versus the Battle Ax and Shield.

Again, I am for a deteriorating one that requires in game actions/motives and upkeep. If IS decides to put one in it's not like I wouldn't play Ashes. It's just that I would prefer to play a game and learn for myself, then play a game, use a tool to tell me how to do it better, and then follow someone else's script or win every time. If I am always wining, the game isn't challenging, and I check out.

Exactly!

Azathoth wrote: »

Just because someone tells you what would be best or how to something, that doesn't mean you are capable or willing. Unless, I suppose, they are walking you through it step by step. I don't see raid leaders having that type of time.

So players will still need a good understanding of their abilities and the game. At which point, they probably don't need the tracker, although they might want one to make the game easier.

In the end, I am still for deteriorating tracker-items.

I just don't think a tracker is necessary for the most difficult content creatable. If it is, then it seems like the game is playing with the tracker, which to me, would be a different type of game.

Right.
I hope that it's a good understanding of your own abilities along with a good understanding of how to support the abilities and augments chosen by your teammates.

Azathoth wrote: »

I would consider seeking out 'what the encounter is doing' via a reader, and then designing the raid around that as cheap play. Literally, the goal would be to have a script to play by so as not to risk death.

To me it's the difference between thinking a combat is hard and desiring to beat it through practice and skill improvement, and thinking a combat is hard and going to a Wiki and looking up the easiest way to defeat the combat. I can't ever be on board with this. Imo, it is lazy game play.

I am also not a min/max type of RPG Character builder, so I will never be on board with needing a Meter to tell determine if your character should wield the Magical Sword versus the Battle Ax and Shield.

Again, I am for a deteriorating one that requires in game actions/motives and upkeep. If IS decides to put one in it's not like I wouldn't play Ashes. It's just that I would prefer to play a game and learn for myself, then play a game, use a tool to tell me how to do it better, and then follow someone else's script or win every time. If I am always wining, the game isn't challenging, and I check out.

There is a problem with having raid content be about skill improvement and such - top end raiders already have this under control by the time they start taking on raids.

If it is just about the players and their ability to use the skills and spells their class comes with, then raids will all be killed the day they first appear on a server.

This is exactly what group content is for.

You run group content to learn/master the abilities your class comes with - and once you have them mastered you go on raids where you use them at that already mastered level, and are then asked by the content to do other things. There is no new learning curve just because there are 32 more people.

Raids, good ones at least, ask you to do things that AREN'T a part of your classes skill set. They are puzzles more than combat targets.

Dygz wrote: »

Azathoth wrote: »

Just because someone tells you what would be best or how to something, that doesn't mean you are capable or willing. Unless, I suppose, they are walking you through it step by step. I don't see raid leaders having that type of time.

So players will still need a good understanding of their abilities and the game. At which point, they probably don't need the tracker, although they might want one to make the game easier.

In the end, I am still for deteriorating tracker-items.

I just don't think a tracker is necessary for the most difficult content creatable. If it is, then it seems like the game is playing with the tracker, which to me, would be a different type of game.

Right.
I hope that it's a good understanding of your own abilities along with a good understanding of how to support the abilities and augments chosen by your teammates.

If this is what you want from content, then group content should be where you look. This is exactly what good group content should require from players, and nothing more.

By the time you get to raids, all of that should be considered the basics, and players are then asked for more from the content.

Edit to add; it is entirely possible that Ashes won't have raid content designed in the manner I'm suggesting. If it doesn't, it will follow games like Archeage rather than WoW or EQ2, both of which have the type of content I am talking about. In those latter games, even today, there is a thriving raiding scene.

In Archeage, a game where the raid targets are literally just group targets but with more HP, there is no PvE raiding scene at all.

Hopefully this helps you both understand why this is a fight I'm not willing to let go of.

Pretty sure we both understand, but will continue to disagree with you.

Dygz wrote: »

Pretty sure we both understand, but will continue to disagree with you.

So you're saying you understand that what you are asking for from raid content is literally what single group content exists to provide?

Asking for what you are from raid content is the same as asking for single geoup content to be about individual players just going in and doing their own thing, with no regard for anyone else.

You and I both know that solo content is supposed to cover that kind of play style.

I assume we also both understand that single group content is where players are supposed to figure out how to work together - the only thing we differ on - at a base level - is that you seem to think that raid content is just group content but with more people, whereas I think raid content should provide a challenge different to what geoup content provides.

The kind of raid content you seem to be after (group content but with more people) actually should exist. It should be the entry level content to raids.

What no one has seemed to be able to answer is exactly wherethe challenge in raiding is supposed to come from if nit from complexity. Adding more HP to an encounter doesn't make it harder, it makes it longer. Making an encounter do more damage doesn't make it harder, it just means you add another healer. A DPS check doesn't make an encounter harder, it just increases the gear required.

I believe the challenge should come from complexity. I just don't believe a tool is needed to provide genuine challenging content. I also do not believe a tool needs to be implemented to make that content easier.

The key term here, for me, is needed. Desired and wanted maybe, but not needed.

noaani wrote: »

So you're saying you understand that what you are asking for from raid content is literally what single group content exists to provide?

We understand that that’s your perspective and...
We disagree.

Azathoth wrote: »

I believe the challenge should come from complexity. I just don't believe a tool is needed to provide genuine challenging content. I also do not believe a tool needs to be implemented to make that content easier.

The key term here, for me, is needed. Desired and wanted maybe, but not needed.

In terms of actual need, it absolutely is possible to make content where you do actually need some form of application that is able to time many different things. As I've said (though unsure if I have illustrated well enough) it is easy for a raid to "deal" with more mechanics than the raid can actually keep track of.

Dealing with the mechanics is the hard part of the raid - or more specifically, deciding how the raid is going to deal with each specific element (as there are always multiple ways that things can be dealt with). When an encounter gets to this point, it is then a case of either a combat tracker, or someone literally sitting there with a dozen timers of what ever description they can find.

Obviously this isn't entry level content, but if the alternative to a combat tracker is a dozen timers, then I am happy using the word "need" in the absolute that it denotes.

The other time I personally consider a combat tracker necessary (and is something I haven't even mentioned in this thread up till now) is it is the only real way us players have of checking the combat system.

I mean, players can look at their abilities and calculate and predict builds based on that - but without a combat tracker there is no real way to know that an ability is actually doing what it says it is doing - short of spending literal hours combing through on screen logs (been there, found massive issues, won't do it again).

After Archeage and all the issues found with the abilities in that game (that are still not fixed), I know a LOT of MMO players that simply won't play an MMO if the developer isn't willing to let players see this kind of information. The consensus between this group of players being that if the developer doesn't want a combat tracker used, they must be hiding something - whether a purposeful deceit or a lack of competence.

This is actually the main reason behind one of the two groups I know of that are making a combat tracker that doesn't need a log file and why it is being built in a way to make it easily portable to other MMO's.

Dygz wrote: »

noaani wrote: »

So you're saying you understand that what you are asking for from raid content is literally what single group content exists to provide?

We understand that that’s your perspective and...
We disagree.

So what IS raid content to you then?

And further, where is it you think encounter difficulty should come from? You seem to only want it to come from the learning curve of working with others in your raid, is this true?

Additionally, what is it that you think separates single group and raid content from each other, other than number of people present?

"In terms of actual need, it absolutely is possible to make content where you do actually need some form of application that is able to time many different things. As I've said (though unsure if I have illustrated well enough) it is easy for a raid to "deal" with more mechanics than the raid can actually keep track of."

Sure, it is possible to make content that some people believe is so hard they need a tool outside of game mechanics and communication to succeed at. That doesn't make it a necessity, that makes it a tool some people will feel is needed because they can't figure out the content.

If each individual member of the raid were responsible for their part, and paid attention, and were skilled (since, as you said it wouldn't be entry level stuff) then they should be able to *track, time, adapt and report back what they learned after each attempt.

Again none of this is needed, it is desired to by some to make the game easier.

You can keep claiming the tool is "needed" but it's not. You can claim that very difficult raid content requires the tool, but it doesn't.

You want a tool to make difficult content easier. Regardless of how you spin that.
I am okay with an in game tool that deteriorates, requires resources, and adds to other aspects of the game besides making the content easier.

*Edit: from 'that'

Azathoth wrote: »

You want a tool to make difficult content easier. Regardless of how you spin that.

So are you saying the developers at Intrepid are unable to make content that is on the edge of what players are capable?

Either they are, or they aren't.

I chose to believe the developers will be competent. I wouldn't be here otherwise.

If they are capable, and adding in a combat tracker makes the content easier, then the developers will simply make the content harder to compensate.

If the original content would have been on the verge of what players are capable of (ie, good design for the last few raid encounters of a content cycle), what is the content after they take the tracker in to account?

It simply isn't logical to say I want a first party tool to make content easier, when that same first party are the ones dictating the difficulty of said content.

If I wanted a combat tracker to make things easier, I'd just use a third party one that will be available if there is no (or an inadequate) first party option. That way the content wouldn't be designed with it in mind (at least to start), but I'd have one anyway.

I think the Ashes devs are able to make content that is on the edge of what players are capable of without having the players rely on combat trackers.
We already know that you will be using the third-party combat trackers.

I never said anything about IS ability to design content.

You have specified several times that the devleopers would only be able to make high end challenging content if they implement a tracker (for example):

noaani wrote: »

Azathoth wrote: »

Still not a big fan of the 'trackers allow creators to develop more complex content'

I'm not sure why, both Blizzard and SoE said they needed to do exactly this over a decade ago.

It's the difference between a math exam where you have a calculator, and a math exam where you don't. If you were writing those exams, you'd be foolish to not make the exam where calculators are able to be used somewhat harder.

I think the game can be made very difficult and have that level increase as characters level. I think the time invested with characters will increase player skill level with that time spent.

Do I think most players will want very difficult content all the time? No. Sometimes? Maybe.
I do believe there are players that prefer that all the time.

I think there is a balance between too difficult for the majority if players and not challenging for the top players.

I don't think a tool is needed for that.
In which case, I am saying IS could very well creat content that challenges most of their players without needing a tracker.

I am confused about the quote you psoted:

noaani wrote: »

Azathoth wrote: »

You want a tool to make difficult content easier. Regardless of how you spin that.

So are you saying the developers at Intrepid are unable to make content that is on the edge of what players are capable?

Either they are, or they aren't.

Also, it is very logical for a developer to make a tool to make their game easier. This has been done for years through cheat codes (have to be programmed into game), easy mode settings, and so on.

Developers know some players will struggle with content.

Again, I am for these being in the game as deteriorating items.
I don't think they are 'needed' because need is too strong of a term. Wanted would be accurate.
I don't think the devs need to implement this tool to allow them freedom to create difficult content.
I think requesting this tool is similar to requesting cheat codes or an easy mode. Because it tells you how to be better or how to defeat the encounter. Instead of relying on yourself or the community.

ArgentDawn

I love damage meters and use them whenever I can, all right data gathered into a neat file with break downs on % for substats is awesome. *stacked 300 crit and only saw a .8%* swap to attack speed etc. It can show how people died, healing output, time active in the fight, interrupts used etc.

I'm 100% for combat meters, are they necessary? Obviously not UNLESS enemies are set on a time limit before they kill you or retreat. Meters or not I have no problems removing people from runs for under performing. I can't tell you how many times I've focused a tank to see if they are rolling cooldowns or the healers are falling behind. Fight taking longer than normal? You know dps is lower check resource management of dps classes and watch for rotation errors, this obviously requires more knowledge about each class but is easy once you recognize movements and abilities/buffs

Azathoth wrote: »

I never said anything about IS ability to design content.

You have specified several times that the devleopers would only be able to make high end challenging content if they implement a tracker

Making content that is challenging for a pick up raid is easy - take a group encounter, bump up it's HP and give it an AE stun, most pick up raid leaders will be stumped by this already.

However, it stands to reason that if a company is able to make an encounter that is on the edge of what players can manage without a combat tracker, then give them a combat tracker and make content on the edge of what players can manage with it, then the latter content will be objectively harder, even if not subjectively harder.

Thus it stands as basic logic that the hardest content can only be made in a game with a combat tracker.

---

Rather than a balance between too difficult for the majority of players and too easy for the top end (balance which by definition can't exist), there is different content for them. Intrepid have already said they want content that a single digit percentage of players will kill, and this is the content I am talking about. The other raid content is for everyone else, those specific few encounters though, they are for the top end raider.

---

A combat tracker doesn't tell you how to beat an encounter.

An encounter is a puzzle. When you first take on this encounter, all the pieces of the puzzle are upside down. All a combat tracker does is let you turn those pieces over. Now, on simple encounters, those pieces are all very large and all have straight, flat edges. Once they are turned over the puzzle is basically done. Complex encounters are puzzles with pieces that have complex shapes, and just because the pieces are up the right way, doesn't mean the players know how to do the puzzle just yet - they have so far only managed the first step of the encounter.

Dygz wrote: »

We already know that you will be using the third-party combat trackers.

This doesn't really work.

Will I use a third party combat tracker if there is no first party option? maybe, but chances are if that is the case, I wont play the game long enough to really care (why do Intrepid want to hide their back end numbers? what are the hiding?).

Thing is though, I'm arguing FOR a first party tracker.

Personally, I think the reason you are against one is because you want to use a third party tracker, and don't want them to be a common tool so that you gain a greater advantage out of it.

I know you're arguing for a first-party tracker, but the devs aren't providing that, so you will be using the ones third-parties make. Or trying to, in any case.
You think a lot of weird stuff that isn't true - that's not news.