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.
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?
0
Options
AzathothMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited August 2019
"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.
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.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
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.
0
Options
AzathothMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
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):
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.
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.
+1 Skull & Crown metal coin
2
Options
ArgentDawnMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
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
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.
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.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited August 2019
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.
0
Options
AzathothMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
No. You feel as though a combat tracker is necessary for harder content. That does not make it a fact.
It's no different than someone struggling with an incredibly hard game, and deciding rather or not to check the wiki for an easy fix.
If the tracker is telling you what damage types are occuring and when (somehow I guess you wouldn't be able to know), what damage works best (because again, somehow you don't know), when spawns occur, when certain modes occur, etc., it is telling you how to win.
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.
I mean, you seem to agree that a develooer can make content that is on the verge of what players are capable of. You seem to agree that a combat tracker woukd make such content easier. You seem (I think) to agree that a developer coukd then make content harder based on the assumption of a tracker.
What I dont get is that if all of this is the case, then that second encounter has to be something players can't do without a tracker. If it is for what ever reason, then the first encounter can't have been on the verge of what players can do. If it was for sone reason, then the combat tracker can't have made the content easier.
I don't see how these three things could both be true, and am just trying to understand where our points differ.
0
Options
AzathothMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
The part that it is needed or necessary, as previously stated.
The part that it is needed or necessary, as previously stated.
Oh I get that, I'm just trying to break it down one more level to figure out why.
As above, to me, if the three statements are all true (1, content can be made to the verge of player capability, 2, combat trackers make content easier and 3, content can then be designed to player + tracker verge), then I can't see how anyone (other than dygz, who says whatever he wants wherther it is possible or not) can believe that it isn't possible to make content that does infact need a tracker.
I can understand not wanting it, I can understand thinking it's a bad idea, but I can't understand someone agreeing with those three statements yet not agreeing that it is possible to make such content.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited August 2019
Developers can make content on the verge of what players are capable of without the players having access to a "combat tracker". The developers don't need the players to have access to combat trackers to make content on the verge of what players are capable of handling. And, the Ashes devs don't want to give players access to a "combat tracker". Especially not a DPS meter.
Developers can make content on the verge of what players are capable of without the players having access to a "combat tracker". The developers don't need the players to have access to combat trackers to make content on the verge of what players are capable of handling. And, the Ashes devs don't want to give players access to a "combat tracker". Especially not a DPS meter.
That isn't the question I am asking.
If developers are able to develop content that is on the verge of what players can do without a combat tracker (as you just stated), and if a combat tracker makes content easier (as you have stated before), then it stands to reason that if those same developers take the combat tracker in to account, they are able to make harder content. And since the content they had already made was on the verge of what players were able to take on without a tracker, this new content must then be past what players can take on without a tracker.
Now, I understand that sometimes you get lost when the grown-ups are talking, but the discussion I am having here with Azathoth is about what is and is not possible, it is not about what Intrepid are or are not doing.
That said, where is your quote saying that Intrepid don't want players having a combat tracker?
There is a cap of actions players can do that is set by the game, i.g. gcd in wow, and ticks in rs. You cant expect more actions from a player than the game allows.
Thus all games have a difficulty cap.
Gcd in WoW is set to make the combat more realistic and to allow skills to have visional effects.
Im expecting AoC to have locked animations to replace gcd but the effect is basically the same.
"You're seeking for perfection, but your disillusions are leading to destruction.
You're bleeding for salvation, but you can't see that you are the damnation itself." -Norther
There is a cap of actions players can do that is set by the game, i.g. gcd in wow, and ticks in rs. You cant expect more actions from a player than the game allows.
Thus all games have a difficulty cap.
Gcd in WoW is set to make the combat more realistic and to allow skills to have visional effects.
Im expecting AoC to have locked animations to replace gcd but the effect is basically the same.
While this is sort of true (raids can hand players items that need to be used during encounters that are GCD independent), it isn't the combat system that determines raid difficulty - it is what the encounter asks of the players outside of the combat system.
If you are in an encounter - any encounter - and for the entire duration of that encounter you chain class based abilities as fast as the GCD allows, you are fighting entry level raid content.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
A combat tracker with .001 second accuracy isn’t necessary by any stretch.
What would be nice to have, is game-appropriate hints when mechanics are approaching. Obvious indications for mechanics. Clear differences in the effects of certain damage types (blunt, piercing, tangible magic, intangible magic). Logical manifestions of buffs, debuffs, and CC.
A person in this world should be able to feel immense energy powering up a spell. A skilled warrior should be able to see the enemy preparing a heavy strike. An enfeebled enemy should be have more muted movement.
If these things are made obvious, there isn’t a necessity for a combat tracker.
As far as I’m concerned, if a player or a group of players, wants to min-max their efficiency beyond the scope of what is required, they should be doing it on their own time, not using a system that feeds them information often without adequate context.
Maybe an attack does X health in damage if you miss a mechanic, it’s a one shot on non-tanks. There are two options here.
1) There is a combat tracker that’s tells a group exactly how much damage the attack does. The raid lead directs his team to have x+100 health and they are free to ignore that mechanic from now on.
2) The exact amount of damage done is not obvious. The raid lead considers pushing up his groups health numbers until they can survive the miss, but they would have to wipe a lot before they could figure out what exactly X is. They decide it’s not worth the penalties and instead improve enough to not miss the mechanic.
Some people prefer to push for option 1, where gear stats and a dps focus tend to be more important.
Option 2 is what I consider healthier, where the lack of knowledge requires either dedication to figure out at the risk of gear degradation and exp debt, so it’s more encouraged to improve via skill instead of number crunching.
A combat tracker with .001 second accuracy isn’t necessary by any stretch.
What would be nice to have, is game-appropriate hints when mechanics are approaching. Obvious indications for mechanics. Clear differences in the effects of certain damage types (blunt, piercing, tangible magic, intangible magic). Logical manifestions of buffs, debuffs, and CC.
A person in this world should be able to feel immense energy powering up a spell. A skilled warrior should be able to see the enemy preparing a heavy strike. An enfeebled enemy should be have more muted movement.
If these things are made obvious, there isn’t a necessity for a combat tracker.
I agree for the vast majority of content.
However, the all powerful dragon that is the hardest encounter in Verra should be able to cast a spell with just a thought.
Making obvious things obvious is great. The problem comes when everything is obvious. If everything is obvious, then eveything is obvious.
As far as I’m concerned, if a player or a group of players, wants to min-max their efficiency beyond the scope of what is required, they should be doing it on their own time, not using a system that feeds them information often without adequate context.
Maybe an attack does X health in damage if you miss a mechanic, it’s a one shot on non-tanks. There are two options here.
1) There is a combat tracker that’s tells a group exactly how much damage the attack does. The raid lead directs his team to have x+100 health and they are free to ignore that mechanic from now on.
2) The exact amount of damage done is not obvious. The raid lead considers pushing up his groups health numbers until they can survive the miss, but they would have to wipe a lot before they could figure out what exactly X is. They decide it’s not worth the penalties and instead improve enough to not miss the mechanic.
Some people prefer to push for option 1, where gear stats and a dps focus tend to be more important.
Option 2 is what I consider healthier, where the lack of knowledge requires either dedication to figure out at the risk of gear degradation and exp debt, so it’s more encouraged to improve via skill instead of number crunching.
Combat trackers are not supposed to provide context.
They are an objective source of data, and it is up to the user to know enough about what they are doing to provide the context themselves.
A combat tracker that provides context then becomes a combat assistant.
People that are all about stats and gear and DPS with a combat tracker are all about stats and gear and DPS without one as well. These people are almost always mid range raiders at best, as you need context to be at tye top - pure numbers won't get you there.
Of course, I don't really care what you're asking.
Then don't reply.
This is even more true when you quote a post of mine that isn't even directed at you.
I mean, what kind of a person interrupts a conversation between two other people to address one of those people, answers a question that wasn't even asked, and then says "but I don't care about what you are asking".
I mean, it's just bizarre. Obsessive perhaps.
0
Options
Wandering MistModerator, Member, Founder, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Of course, I don't really care what you're asking.
Then don't reply.
This is even more true when you quote a post of mine that isn't even directed at you.
I mean, what kind of a person interrupts a conversation between two other people to address one of those people, answers a question that wasn't even asked, and then says "but I don't care about what you are asking".
I mean, it's just bizarre. Obsessive perhaps.
Obsessive like an 18 page discussion thread about dps meters?
Of course, I don't really care what you're asking.
Then don't reply.
This is even more true when you quote a post of mine that isn't even directed at you.
I mean, what kind of a person interrupts a conversation between two other people to address one of those people, answers a question that wasn't even asked, and then says "but I don't care about what you are asking".
I mean, it's just bizarre. Obsessive perhaps.
Obsessive like an 18 page discussion thread about dps meters?
(sorry, couldn't resist)
Almost.
Was wondering who was going to be first in with a comment along these lines!
This thread is nothing compared to the bridge blocking thread from Archeage though. That thread had exactly the desired effect, eventually - Trion changed their policy, and then XL redesigned the worst zones to remove the bottlenecks.
If Trion and XL eventually listen to reason, I'm sure Intrepid will too.
0
Options
AzathothMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
In all honesty @noaani and myself have been able to maintain an open, unheated/name-calling dialogue. After 17 pages we have not resorted to direct insults. That might be a first for this type of thread on these forums.
In all honesty @noaani and myself have been able to maintain an open, unheated/name-calling dialogue. After 17 pages we have not resorted to direct insults. That might be a first for this type of thread on these forums.
It's funny how easy it is to treat others with respect when they do the same, even when you don't agree on every detail!
I've actually been thinking about the idea of the destructible tracker more, and I have a suggestion that would make it more interesting to me (even if not 100% logical in-game).
Players are able to build or acquire the tracker and the item lasts a week. The method for this is totally open as far as I am concerned (may be give it to a crafting class that otherwise lacks consumables).
From there, it looks at your account wide achievements to determine what it will and will not do for you.
If you have a member of X archetype at the level cap, it will parse members of that archetype - if you do not, it will not. If you want to be able to parse what everyone in your group is doing, not only do you need to obtain this item weekly, but you also need to have one of each class at the level cap (Not sure how many character slots we will have - this could be an issue).
From there, the tracker also looks at what encounters you have beaten. If you want the tracker to be able to time AE's for you, you need to defeat an encounter that uses timed AE's as a mechanic. Not AE's where he emotes before he casts - that is it's own mechanic. Once you have defeated an encounter using timed AE's as a mechanic (or perhaps a few of them), then AE timing is open on your tracker, but where you still need to manually set the timer for each AE you want timed (as opposed to being able to just import the settings).
This can then repeat for every major mechanic that the developers put players up against. They can also make it so that it is used as a form of horizontal progression - the mob that unlocks mechanic X uses a lot of mechanic Y, and without a tracker able to help with mechanic Y, he is too hard to defeat.
There can also be a separation between solo, group and raid content so that all players gain a combat tracker progression path.
To me, this just adds to everyone's end game experience, but as it is also a slow experience getting the full use of your tracker, you have to actually make use of it and learn about what it does and doesn't do - similar to how we all earn our class abilities slowly. This means people that otherwise wouldn't will now be in a situation where they can actually learn about the tracker, what it does and doesn't do.
The net result is fewer people not knowing how to make proper use of a combat tracker, more people knowing how to use it properly, a LOT of work needed for players to be able to use it fully, an enhanced form of end game horizontal character progression, and also provides a boost to a crafting class that may otherwise be lacking.
To me, this is a win for literally every player.
The only question I have is whether or not it would stop people that would use a third party combat tracker or not.
@Nagash but that wasn't a civilized place to be. Heated is an understatement. Wasn't it even forcibly closed at the end?
it took the destruction of the old forums to kill that thread
The dead do not squabble as this land’s rulers do. The dead have no desires, petty jealousies or ambitions. A world of the dead is a world at peace
1
Options
AzathothMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I like the thought of a deteriorating tracker, and if only last a week an decays to nothing that would be fine. I haven't placed much thought into those mechanics outside of what I previously listed.
Allowing it to look at the account information and provide related feedback while teaching players it's overall use would be a bonus.
Comments
We disagree.
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. 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?
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'
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.
We already know that you will be using the third-party combat trackers.
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):
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:
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.
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
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. 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.
You think a lot of weird stuff that isn't true - that's not news.
It's no different than someone struggling with an incredibly hard game, and deciding rather or not to check the wiki for an easy fix.
If the tracker is telling you what damage types are occuring and when (somehow I guess you wouldn't be able to know), what damage works best (because again, somehow you don't know), when spawns occur, when certain modes occur, etc., it is telling you how to win.
I mean, you seem to agree that a develooer can make content that is on the verge of what players are capable of. You seem to agree that a combat tracker woukd make such content easier. You seem (I think) to agree that a developer coukd then make content harder based on the assumption of a tracker.
What I dont get is that if all of this is the case, then that second encounter has to be something players can't do without a tracker. If it is for what ever reason, then the first encounter can't have been on the verge of what players can do. If it was for sone reason, then the combat tracker can't have made the content easier.
I don't see how these three things could both be true, and am just trying to understand where our points differ.
As above, to me, if the three statements are all true (1, content can be made to the verge of player capability, 2, combat trackers make content easier and 3, content can then be designed to player + tracker verge), then I can't see how anyone (other than dygz, who says whatever he wants wherther it is possible or not) can believe that it isn't possible to make content that does infact need a tracker.
I can understand not wanting it, I can understand thinking it's a bad idea, but I can't understand someone agreeing with those three statements yet not agreeing that it is possible to make such content.
That isn't the question I am asking.
If developers are able to develop content that is on the verge of what players can do without a combat tracker (as you just stated), and if a combat tracker makes content easier (as you have stated before), then it stands to reason that if those same developers take the combat tracker in to account, they are able to make harder content. And since the content they had already made was on the verge of what players were able to take on without a tracker, this new content must then be past what players can take on without a tracker.
Now, I understand that sometimes you get lost when the grown-ups are talking, but the discussion I am having here with Azathoth is about what is and is not possible, it is not about what Intrepid are or are not doing.
That said, where is your quote saying that Intrepid don't want players having a combat tracker?
Thus all games have a difficulty cap.
Gcd in WoW is set to make the combat more realistic and to allow skills to have visional effects.
Im expecting AoC to have locked animations to replace gcd but the effect is basically the same.
You're bleeding for salvation, but you can't see that you are the damnation itself." -Norther
If you are in an encounter - any encounter - and for the entire duration of that encounter you chain class based abilities as fast as the GCD allows, you are fighting entry level raid content.
What you're asking is irrelevant.
What would be nice to have, is game-appropriate hints when mechanics are approaching. Obvious indications for mechanics. Clear differences in the effects of certain damage types (blunt, piercing, tangible magic, intangible magic). Logical manifestions of buffs, debuffs, and CC.
A person in this world should be able to feel immense energy powering up a spell. A skilled warrior should be able to see the enemy preparing a heavy strike. An enfeebled enemy should be have more muted movement.
If these things are made obvious, there isn’t a necessity for a combat tracker.
As far as I’m concerned, if a player or a group of players, wants to min-max their efficiency beyond the scope of what is required, they should be doing it on their own time, not using a system that feeds them information often without adequate context.
Maybe an attack does X health in damage if you miss a mechanic, it’s a one shot on non-tanks. There are two options here.
1) There is a combat tracker that’s tells a group exactly how much damage the attack does. The raid lead directs his team to have x+100 health and they are free to ignore that mechanic from now on.
2) The exact amount of damage done is not obvious. The raid lead considers pushing up his groups health numbers until they can survive the miss, but they would have to wipe a lot before they could figure out what exactly X is. They decide it’s not worth the penalties and instead improve enough to not miss the mechanic.
Some people prefer to push for option 1, where gear stats and a dps focus tend to be more important.
Option 2 is what I consider healthier, where the lack of knowledge requires either dedication to figure out at the risk of gear degradation and exp debt, so it’s more encouraged to improve via skill instead of number crunching.
However, the all powerful dragon that is the hardest encounter in Verra should be able to cast a spell with just a thought.
Making obvious things obvious is great. The problem comes when everything is obvious. If everything is obvious, then eveything is obvious. Combat trackers are not supposed to provide context.
They are an objective source of data, and it is up to the user to know enough about what they are doing to provide the context themselves.
A combat tracker that provides context then becomes a combat assistant.
People that are all about stats and gear and DPS with a combat tracker are all about stats and gear and DPS without one as well. These people are almost always mid range raiders at best, as you need context to be at tye top - pure numbers won't get you there.
This is even more true when you quote a post of mine that isn't even directed at you.
I mean, what kind of a person interrupts a conversation between two other people to address one of those people, answers a question that wasn't even asked, and then says "but I don't care about what you are asking".
I mean, it's just bizarre. Obsessive perhaps.
Obsessive like an 18 page discussion thread about dps meters?
(sorry, couldn't resist)
Almost.
Was wondering who was going to be first in with a comment along these lines!
This thread is nothing compared to the bridge blocking thread from Archeage though. That thread had exactly the desired effect, eventually - Trion changed their policy, and then XL redesigned the worst zones to remove the bottlenecks.
If Trion and XL eventually listen to reason, I'm sure Intrepid will too.
I can be a life devouring nightmare. - Grisu#1819
It's funny how easy it is to treat others with respect when they do the same, even when you don't agree on every detail!
I've actually been thinking about the idea of the destructible tracker more, and I have a suggestion that would make it more interesting to me (even if not 100% logical in-game).
Players are able to build or acquire the tracker and the item lasts a week. The method for this is totally open as far as I am concerned (may be give it to a crafting class that otherwise lacks consumables).
From there, it looks at your account wide achievements to determine what it will and will not do for you.
If you have a member of X archetype at the level cap, it will parse members of that archetype - if you do not, it will not. If you want to be able to parse what everyone in your group is doing, not only do you need to obtain this item weekly, but you also need to have one of each class at the level cap (Not sure how many character slots we will have - this could be an issue).
From there, the tracker also looks at what encounters you have beaten. If you want the tracker to be able to time AE's for you, you need to defeat an encounter that uses timed AE's as a mechanic. Not AE's where he emotes before he casts - that is it's own mechanic. Once you have defeated an encounter using timed AE's as a mechanic (or perhaps a few of them), then AE timing is open on your tracker, but where you still need to manually set the timer for each AE you want timed (as opposed to being able to just import the settings).
This can then repeat for every major mechanic that the developers put players up against. They can also make it so that it is used as a form of horizontal progression - the mob that unlocks mechanic X uses a lot of mechanic Y, and without a tracker able to help with mechanic Y, he is too hard to defeat.
There can also be a separation between solo, group and raid content so that all players gain a combat tracker progression path.
To me, this just adds to everyone's end game experience, but as it is also a slow experience getting the full use of your tracker, you have to actually make use of it and learn about what it does and doesn't do - similar to how we all earn our class abilities slowly. This means people that otherwise wouldn't will now be in a situation where they can actually learn about the tracker, what it does and doesn't do.
The net result is fewer people not knowing how to make proper use of a combat tracker, more people knowing how to use it properly, a LOT of work needed for players to be able to use it fully, an enhanced form of end game horizontal character progression, and also provides a boost to a crafting class that may otherwise be lacking.
To me, this is a win for literally every player.
The only question I have is whether or not it would stop people that would use a third party combat tracker or not.
I can be a life devouring nightmare. - Grisu#1819
it took the destruction of the old forums to kill that thread
Allowing it to look at the account information and provide related feedback while teaching players it's overall use would be a bonus.