If the game is released without one, people will use a third party one that will be ready some time during beta. Thus, when Intrepid release theirs, no one will care as we will all be using one we are happy with.
Basically, if they don't have one at release, there is no point in them attempting to release one later.
If it is a ban-able to run a dps meter that is a massive deterrent ,a lot of people won't want to risk getting their account banned especially if they have put hundreds of hours into building that specific character, this does make the issue of people leaving the game due to bans because of a dps meter and will affect IS's bottom line.
If guilds are saying you must use a dps meter then they are putting themselves in a very risky position.
XLGames are at a point now where they are unable to alter the 5 or 6 main classes that people play in that game, because people would rather leave the game than attempt to find a new workable build.
The game is at a complete and perpetual standstill.
Now this is an issue worth noting I apologise because my opinion earlier is based on pure speculation o holds no sway. Maybe a fix for this is to have an always evolving meta, but that does cause issues because we don't have metrics to evaluate the evolving meta, and will just be annoying.
But if IS is balancing combat on group combat and the interlinking of various classes and specialisation (for example you build your character to counter specific builds and there is counter to every build, aka: anti mage tank, anti assassin cleric, anti debuff bard, so on and so forth).
Maybe they can make a place for each class within the meta with hard and soft counters for all builds.
I think during the alphas and betas we will see if it is viable to have outlier classes that force people to consider whether using the 'best build' as dictated by the current meta is going to have a higher amount of people playing counters to that specific build. this kind of dynamic may make a shifting meta required. this is in relation to pvp and pve is a different issue all together but if pve is open world then pvp may be a requirement. (p.s. that is more of an issue relating to metas not ACTs)
This discussion is just going in circles
So maybe we should try moving the discussion into what those kind issues that could spawn from having no ACT, and see if people can come up with solutions to those issues. try and make this productive.
some notable ACT problems that I've seen mentioned
star indicates that it has potential to happen with or without a inbuilt ACT
a)* elitism/exclusion.
b) inability evaluate pve performance without ACT.
c)* 3rd party add-on creators making undetectable ACTs that will be used.
d)* stagnating meta from reluctance in deviating from established wisdom .
e) ACT breaks immersion.
f) *potential for classes being excluded due to community established norms .
g) *overabundance of ACT info leads to classes quickly becoming excluded.
h)* people breaking ToS to use an 3rd party ACT if one isn't included.
i) people being forced to use an ACT due to competitive demand.
j) private ACT leads to information being demanded making it redundant.
k) guild ACT (I find this to be one of the best solutions but it does have issues).
l) no ACT leads to raids not being complex enough to be fun. (debatable)
m) *toxic environment.
n) *beginners find it intimidating if asked for full combat stats (barrier to entry).
o) players leaving the game after bans from using 3rd party ACTs.
p) ACTs might ruin the thematic appeal of the game for some people.
q) verifying the viability of builds is difficult. (if builds are situational also a *)
r) DPS yards (these won't really be that helpful in my opinion)
these are issues I see on both sides of the argument its not an exhaustive list but its a start. All of these are pretty legit problems, some from a community side and some from an engineering side.
My final opinion is:
If there is going to be a ban on all ACTs people will need some form of feedback to establish how they rank against other players or there will be a massive portion of the player base using 3rd party ACTs. IS probably cannot ban 30% of their player base for using them if it becomes an established norm.
In the end it is all at the discretion of IS, I hope they can find a solution that can satisfy most peoples needs.
My final opinion is:
If there is going to be a ban on all ACTs people will need some form of feedback to establish how they rank against other players or there will be a massive portion of the player base using 3rd party ACTs. IS probably cannot ban 30% of their player base for using them if it becomes an established norm.
In the end it is all at the discretion of IS, I hope they can find a solution that can satisfy most peoples needs.
This is basically the opinion I have on the matter too, I just consider the notion of a built in combat tracker to be the solution that best fits.
I'll quickly go over my thoughts on the list above.
A. Since this will happen with or without a combat tracker, I don't see why it is an issue in this discussion. While people use combat trackers as a tool in that behavior, there is no reason to think that the presence of a combat tracker increases the occurance of this kind of thing happening.
B. To me, this is one of about five arguments as to why combat trackers should be included as standard in all MMO's.
C. This is inevitable, with or without a built in tracker. All Intrepid can do (and should do, imo) is reduce the attractivness of third party trackers by making a tool built in to the game that serves the desired functions.
D. This is another of the five core arguments as to why a combat tracker should be included as standard.
E. I am all for a combat tracker that only provides information to players upon request, in a specific UI window that can not be open during combat. This would only be achieved with a first party tool, and can still be done in a way where all actual required information is available to players.
F. This will happen with or without combat trackers. Players will post what builds they think are the best, and other players will believe them and use that information to exclude others. None of this requires combat trackers in order for it to happen.
G. Much like F, this will happen regardless of if that information is out there or not. The only difference is, if there are trackers, classes get excluded because they are not up to par, as opposed to because some players think they are not up to par.
H. Knowing the background of some of the people working on trackers right now, I don't think Intrepid would ever be able to detect their work - even if Intrepid had it in their hands to examine. As an aside - based on a potential new method that is being looked at - if Intrepid were determined to keep combat trackers out of the game, they may have to not allow the game to be played on several generations of Intel desktop processors.
I. This is why I would like it to be resctricted to people that are already wanting to compete.
J. Agreed, while the idea was initially good, it doesn't take long to find holes in it that are too large to reconcile.
K. Also agreed. It has issues, but it is the option with the fewest and smallest issues.
L. I would rather use the phrasing "raids not being as complex as would otherwise be possible, which makes them less varied, and thus over all less fun".
M. Ashes is a game where people can kill each other and take their stuff (corruption, caravans). Players can destroy a players town, then rob them of their possessions they have at home. I don't see how someone saying "your DPS is low", even with various adverbs and adjectives added to it, can be considered toxic in that environment.
N. Agreed, another advantage to having it as a guild tool - it is then on guilds to teach players how to use it, as that is the first opportunity players would have had.
O. I don't see this as an issue, see H.
P. The people that this would apply to wouldn't likely be the kind of people that would join a guild that is wanting to take on top end PvE raid encounters.
Q. In terms of PvP, this is true, and will always be true. A combat tracker can give you a really good idea of where the build sits in terms of DPS, survivability, and many other things. If you are making a built to counter a specific build though, the only metric that matters is going out and trying to kill someone playing your target build.
R. I am not sure what these are.
The first 20 or so pages of this thread - which a year ago were two or three separate threads - were basically discussions that bought up most of these issues. It was these issues and the discussion around them that bought the idea of the guild based combat tracker to light. Again, it isn't perfect, but it is better for the majority of players than having no first party tracker, and several completely undetectable third party trackers that players are able to use as they see fit.
I honestly welcome as many people to come up with as many issues as they can see in regards to combat trackers - not so much because I think the proposal that was made many months ago doesn't have holes in it, but because there may be some holes that are able to be plugged.
Hi, I'm new to this thread but I've skimmed through about half of it. I haven't really seen this properly adressed so i wanted to get your opinion on this @noaani .
I just cannot agree with the argument that third-party trackers will be an unavoidable part of the game. I'm sure that if some guys can come up with a program to measure player performance, a studio full of developers can think up some ways to counteract this. Of course it all depends on the community, that has to actively report and disencourage this rule-breaking behaviour.
I also don't see how a guild based dps-meter is better for the majority of players. Do we have any information about the percentage of players that are for/against combat trackers? All I have seen was a small poll on reddit, that showed 55% against them. Subjecting the majority of players to a tool that negatively affects their gameplay experience surely has more possible downsides for them, than having some top players use forbidden third-party trackers to gain a competitive edge.
1
Options
NixalMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Did anyone create a poll on that matter? Could be quite interesting to see how many support either way.
[ ] I don't care
[ ] I want a DPS Meter
[ ] I don't want a DPS Meter
I just cannot agree with the argument that third-party trackers will be an unavoidable part of the game. I'm sure that if some guys can come up with a program to measure player performance, a studio full of developers can think up some ways to counteract this
If "some guys" come up with it, sure.
The people building one of the two tools that I am following though are - between them - working at the forefront of various aspects of computer security.
I would happily put my money on them over a dedicated IT security firm (or, like, Intel). I don't consider a company that specalizes in making games to have any real shot, to be perfectly honest.
I agree that it should be an official poll. The next question would be if it makes sense to do such a poll now or later.
Much like the multiboxing poll, it makes no sense to do it while people are still in a WoW mindset.
The number of people that voted in that poll based on not wanting 40 player botters in Ashes - desipite Intrepid outright saying botting is not an option - is disapointing.
Imagine how frustrating it would be to have challenging PvE content, wipe, and have no way to evaluate what went wrong or who underperformed to try and fix it.
I'm okay with content that is designed to be casual or almost as a tutorial (dungeons, leveling, professions, etc.) to not have some evaluation metric since I understand that "elitism" should be avoided in content that was never really designed to be a challenge, but I think you can't have any meaningful challenge and withdraw that kind of information.
I could see an argument for not having one built in-game for the sake of saving dev resources (i.e. rely on ye 'ol playerbase to fill the DPS metter gap because the majority of players would prefer the devs put time into something they care about more), but if any content is going to have tight DPS checks then the players will find a way to measure performance. Even if the studio manages to keep up with banning people using 3rd party tools to measure it, people will swap to other forms (e.g. do you have X title from the last hard fight, or can you kill this mob in X seconds?).
If people are afraid of meters because they're afraid it will gate them from raids...I'm sorry to break it to you, but if they're actually really hard it's unlikely you're going to be able to slip in and get carried regardless of if they have a built in meter. You have to pull your own weight in challenging content because nobody wants to spend tens/hundreds of hours dying to stuff because some players think they should be able to play all content without putting in the necessary effort.
That being said I do think people using it to bash other players should be heavily punished. Reforming the group without a player or two because they can't pull their weight is fine (or better yet giving them some feedback around their numbers) as long as it's done in a cordial way, but if anyone resorts to insulting/belittling people over it then punish them. The only downside to this is the game needs enough staff to handle tickets generated for this and they need to be willing to punish players who cross lines.
I'm on board with what the devs are thinking. Mods and DPS meters kinda suck and I'm looking forward to a more immersive experience without them.
I'm on board with having the game designed in a way where that is something you can actually do.
If the game leaves combat trackers up to third parties, you will be expected to have one running eventually.
If the game has one built in to the client, but where only some guilds will opt to use it, people will not expect you to have one running unless you are in such a guild - at which point it would only work on members of that guild.
So really, the only way for players that absolutely don't want to have to deal with a combat tracker in Ashes to actually be able to have that be the case is if Intrepid implement one in a limited fashion in to the games client.
I would happily put my money on them over a dedicated IT security firm (or, like, Intel). I don't consider a company that specalizes in making games to have any real shot, to be perfectly honest.
I actually thought about your answer for a while and came to the conclusion that I simply don't know enough about programming and IT-security to debate what you're saying. I guess I'm relying more on the community to counteract the usage of third-party software. If Intrepid takes a firm stance against it, the majority of the playerbase will accept that the even playing-field for AoC doesnt involve combat-trackers. I would assume that players would report others for breaking those rules and then we gotta see how those cases could be handled.
I would happily put my money on them over a dedicated IT security firm (or, like, Intel). I don't consider a company that specalizes in making games to have any real shot, to be perfectly honest.
I actually thought about your answer for a while and came to the conclusion that I simply don't know enough about programming and IT-security to debate what you're saying. I guess I'm relying more on the community to counteract the usage of third-party software. If Intrepid takes a firm stance against it, the majority of the playerbase will accept that the even playing-field for AoC doesnt involve combat-trackers. I would assume that players would report others for breaking those rules and then we gotta see how those cases could be handled.
To be fair, I don't know that much about IT security either - all I know is the work they have done in the past, most of which I had previously heard about via things like Level-1 news.
---
The only other game that has taken a firm stance against them similar to how Ashes is, was GW2.
You are now free to use third party trackers in GW2.
This is the reality that Intrepid will find themselves in sooner or later if they maintain their current stance.
I am truly interested to hear more about this topic and to wait for the next alpha release. What many people here do not realise is that this is not about if there are going to be third party tracker tools, but on how many intrusive restrictions intrepid will introduce to slow down the creation of such tools.
The only reason why these tools will not exist in some form is if this game is going to be just a social experiment where gameplay actually doesnt matter
I am truly interested to hear more about this topic and to wait for the next alpha release. What many people here do not realise is that this is not about if there are going to be third party tracker tools, but on how many intrusive restrictions intrepid will introduce to slow down the creation of such tools.
While this is true, we are only really talking about slowing it down from early beta through to late beta before it is ready.
I don't think Steven understands the dedication of top end PvE players - he's never played a game with top end PvE content, so this is understandable.
It all depends on how many people are going to be playing, if the playerbase is going to be really big then the top end outlier is going to be gigantic - especially with so many build paths they are planning to have
You don’t have to boot the person to make it a toxic environment...
In business, the companies that micromanage fail, companies that work as a team, trust, and empower their people succeed. Groups of players is no different (and I’ve lead both).
That L2 tracker was likely against the ToS as I don’t recall it being allowed by NCSoft. I.e. folks could get banned if caught.
Just assume "booting someone" is shorthand for all forms of toxic behavior, as they all exist in the same capacity - one player choses to be toxic towards another for reasons that are essentially abstract (and more often than not, abstract reasons that don't originate from the game).
It is absolutely true that in business, groups that trust their team are more successul than those that don't. Thing is, teams with access to large amounts of relevant objective data do better than teams that don't.
The best teams are those that work well together, trust each other, but have access to objective data as well.
I see no reason why objective data has to have any direct or indirect impact on trust between people.
While it may technically be possible that players would get banned if they were known to use that specific tracker, NCsoft can't detect it at all, and there are no players that have reported being banned from using it.
The fact is though, that this tracker exists points out that the notion of no tracker in Ashes is simply not a potential reality. The only possible outcomes are third party tracker, or first party tracker.
Intrepid can either close their eyes and ignore the fact that several of these will exist, or they can take steps to ensure Ashes has the best possible outcome for the most possible people in regartds to trackers.
Right now, they seem to be simply closing their eyes and ignoring the fact that they will exist and a very large percentage of players will use them. I think this is the worst possible thing for this game in regards to trackers.
Sure, companies that have key and screen capture devices installed on their employer’s computers where management uses said data are more effective, but have higher turnover rate. The difference between a company and game though, is you have to find a new job to live, you don’t have to continue playing the game if you decide you leave a guild for being toxic. I.e folks are more likely to stick with the game if they have strong personal relationships in that game.
So again I ask, why introduce something That will result in toxicity for a certain percentage of players versus not bring it in when all you lose by not having it is some speed in the combat discovery process?
So again I ask, why introduce something That will result in toxicity for a certain percentage of players versus not bring it in when all you lose by not having it is some speed in the combat discovery process?
Any toxicity that can come purely from dps meter is the initial "label" poorly optimized characters are going to have, any guild toxicity from elitism is going to remain even with dps meters gone - you know the goal for any guild is to find likeminded people to enjoy the game with
Also the speed of discovery process is not going to be an issue, but the whether ppl speeding up the discovery process are going to banned for doing so
Sure, companies that have key and screen capture devices installed on their employer’s computers where management uses said data are more effective, but have higher turnover rate.
That is entierly dependent on how that data is used - just as the effect of combat trackers on a games population is completely dependent on the rest of the game.
If management use that data to help people improve at their jobs (especially if it is a career or commission position), people are generally happy.
On the other hand, if management use that data for exclusionaly purposes, then that turnover will be high.
This basically just adds to my point that it is the game as a whole (or the workplace as a whole) that causes issues, not the data collection.
So again I ask, why introduce something That will result in toxicity for a certain percentage of players versus not bring it in when all you lose by not having it is some speed in the combat discovery process?
I'm not answering that question directly, because I refute the premise it is built on.
There is no reason at all to assume that if combat trackers are added to Ashes, it will increase the over all amount of toxicity.
In order for this argument to hold weight, we would need to be able to look at any MMO, look at the toxicity level and look at the combat tracker level, and there would need to be some correlation.
That is a bare minimum in order for this to be a valid argument. We could then suggest that there needs to be some causation, not simply correlation - but I don't feel the need to go that far.
The issue with that though, it that even just correlation isn't there.
WoW - high toxicity, high combat tracker.
Archeage - high toxicity, low combat tracker.
EQ2 - low toxicity, high combat tracker.
No correlation between combat tracker and toxicity level of games, ergo that argument holds no weight (this is a point to be made to Steven as much as anyone).
The correlation that can be found in those games though (and one that seems to apply to all MMO's that I've looked in to), is that there is a correlation between toxicity and automated group forming systems.
Rather than the question you asked, I would rather ask if there is no correlation between combat tracker usage and over all toxicity in games, what reason is there to not add a combat tracker?
I didn't read all 52 pages of this thread so if this has been suggested before, my apologies. An interesting take on DPS meters could be for 'certification' at pre-set check points (e.g. every 5 levels, or every bump in gear score.)
You can make it a personal mini game with the target dummy as the only place the dps meter will work, and if you do enough damage to pass a threshold that would be set inline with the damage you need to do in group play, you get 'certified.' At that point, it could be as simple as flipping a flag on the players account saying he is qualified to do the minimal dps for x content and that he/she has proven it. Makes it easier for auto grouping also as anyone that gets chosen has already qualified for doing enough damage to pass the content - maybe not God tier damage, but enough to do the content.
This lets 'elite' players push the limits, but doesn't interfere with pub groups as people know that at least for damage, there is enough of it in the group.
WoW - high toxicity, high combat tracker.
Archeage - high toxicity, low combat tracker.
EQ2 - low toxicity, high combat tracker.
This seems like some highly subjective "data" you're basing your argument on. On top of that the toxicity-level of a game obviously is influenced by a ton of factors. Your sample of mmo toxicity-level doesnt disprove correlation whatsoever. All it proves is that people can be toxic even without combat-trackers. You would have to single out the effect of combat-trackers, while all other variables stay the same. To my knowledge there is no data to allow that.
And even if combat-trackers arent the direct cause of toxicity, they surely do enable it. I just dont see how removing such an easy-to-use tool of attacking someone elses performance wouldnt remove that instance of toxic behaviour.
I personally believe by not having a dps meter, it will be a more healthy environment. People won't get fingers pointed at them for their damage, which more often then not happens. It also potentially eliminates the chance of getting talked down to for playing a spec that could do less damage. My personal opinion but i fully back Intrepid and their current stance.
I really don't care about their being a dps meter in the game or not. However, so we're all clear, if there is content or mechanics that favor or require dps checks for progression, loot rights, whatever.... segments of the community WILL exclude classes and players whose build or ability do not support success whether there is a dps meter or not. Having an overt dps meter... or not... will not change that reality.
First come the damage meters, then comes the complaints. Without being able to gauge the PVE difficulty or mechanics I would say NO to the dps meters. There might not even be and hard dps checks in the fights, they might revolve around survival or situational awareness. We don't even know how the positioning of any of the big fights would be or the range of our abilities, which could even put them outside of a realistic approach to a meter log. I think the game would be much healthier without them. However, having said that I'll primarily be playing for the PVP so,.
Stay strong and keep all addons out of game. Nothing good come out of gear scores or dps meters ever. when you give meta slavers to much information whack fun out of players. Happened before and happens again. If you give pass for dps meters you will end up balancing all classes to do same dps instead of making them better, fun and interesting to play. If you don't keep em out of game you will have forum full of people whining because they don't do same dps as class x until you balance them even. Everyone will be forced to use same subclass and use same skills just to meet those requirements. Let people keep variety in game.
Some people may want to reach same goals by taking sustain route they are bit slower but safer. some people want to take tankier subclass so they can off tank single mobs when tank doesn't have time. all those ways will lead to same result with little difference in speed and huge difference in fun because it's fun to build something that fits for you and be good with it. Or does someone really think it's fun to be forced to watch guides how to play your class as meta dictates because you don't reach high enough numbers. There will be point when you are forced to do that if we let dps meters and addons in game. Please let fights and learning be ingame experience.
Comments
If guilds are saying you must use a dps meter then they are putting themselves in a very risky position.
Now this is an issue worth noting I apologise because my opinion earlier is based on pure speculation o holds no sway. Maybe a fix for this is to have an always evolving meta, but that does cause issues because we don't have metrics to evaluate the evolving meta, and will just be annoying.
But if IS is balancing combat on group combat and the interlinking of various classes and specialisation (for example you build your character to counter specific builds and there is counter to every build, aka: anti mage tank, anti assassin cleric, anti debuff bard, so on and so forth).
Maybe they can make a place for each class within the meta with hard and soft counters for all builds.
I think during the alphas and betas we will see if it is viable to have outlier classes that force people to consider whether using the 'best build' as dictated by the current meta is going to have a higher amount of people playing counters to that specific build. this kind of dynamic may make a shifting meta required. this is in relation to pvp and pve is a different issue all together but if pve is open world then pvp may be a requirement. (p.s. that is more of an issue relating to metas not ACTs)
This discussion is just going in circles
So maybe we should try moving the discussion into what those kind issues that could spawn from having no ACT, and see if people can come up with solutions to those issues. try and make this productive.
some notable ACT problems that I've seen mentioned
star indicates that it has potential to happen with or without a inbuilt ACT
a)* elitism/exclusion.
b) inability evaluate pve performance without ACT.
c)* 3rd party add-on creators making undetectable ACTs that will be used.
d)* stagnating meta from reluctance in deviating from established wisdom .
e) ACT breaks immersion.
f) *potential for classes being excluded due to community established norms .
g) *overabundance of ACT info leads to classes quickly becoming excluded.
h)* people breaking ToS to use an 3rd party ACT if one isn't included.
i) people being forced to use an ACT due to competitive demand.
j) private ACT leads to information being demanded making it redundant.
k) guild ACT (I find this to be one of the best solutions but it does have issues).
l) no ACT leads to raids not being complex enough to be fun. (debatable)
m) *toxic environment.
n) *beginners find it intimidating if asked for full combat stats (barrier to entry).
o) players leaving the game after bans from using 3rd party ACTs.
p) ACTs might ruin the thematic appeal of the game for some people.
q) verifying the viability of builds is difficult. (if builds are situational also a *)
r) DPS yards (these won't really be that helpful in my opinion)
these are issues I see on both sides of the argument its not an exhaustive list but its a start. All of these are pretty legit problems, some from a community side and some from an engineering side.
My final opinion is:
If there is going to be a ban on all ACTs people will need some form of feedback to establish how they rank against other players or there will be a massive portion of the player base using 3rd party ACTs. IS probably cannot ban 30% of their player base for using them if it becomes an established norm.
In the end it is all at the discretion of IS, I hope they can find a solution that can satisfy most peoples needs.
I'll quickly go over my thoughts on the list above.
A. Since this will happen with or without a combat tracker, I don't see why it is an issue in this discussion. While people use combat trackers as a tool in that behavior, there is no reason to think that the presence of a combat tracker increases the occurance of this kind of thing happening.
B. To me, this is one of about five arguments as to why combat trackers should be included as standard in all MMO's.
C. This is inevitable, with or without a built in tracker. All Intrepid can do (and should do, imo) is reduce the attractivness of third party trackers by making a tool built in to the game that serves the desired functions.
D. This is another of the five core arguments as to why a combat tracker should be included as standard.
E. I am all for a combat tracker that only provides information to players upon request, in a specific UI window that can not be open during combat. This would only be achieved with a first party tool, and can still be done in a way where all actual required information is available to players.
F. This will happen with or without combat trackers. Players will post what builds they think are the best, and other players will believe them and use that information to exclude others. None of this requires combat trackers in order for it to happen.
G. Much like F, this will happen regardless of if that information is out there or not. The only difference is, if there are trackers, classes get excluded because they are not up to par, as opposed to because some players think they are not up to par.
H. Knowing the background of some of the people working on trackers right now, I don't think Intrepid would ever be able to detect their work - even if Intrepid had it in their hands to examine. As an aside - based on a potential new method that is being looked at - if Intrepid were determined to keep combat trackers out of the game, they may have to not allow the game to be played on several generations of Intel desktop processors.
I. This is why I would like it to be resctricted to people that are already wanting to compete.
J. Agreed, while the idea was initially good, it doesn't take long to find holes in it that are too large to reconcile.
K. Also agreed. It has issues, but it is the option with the fewest and smallest issues.
L. I would rather use the phrasing "raids not being as complex as would otherwise be possible, which makes them less varied, and thus over all less fun".
M. Ashes is a game where people can kill each other and take their stuff (corruption, caravans). Players can destroy a players town, then rob them of their possessions they have at home. I don't see how someone saying "your DPS is low", even with various adverbs and adjectives added to it, can be considered toxic in that environment.
N. Agreed, another advantage to having it as a guild tool - it is then on guilds to teach players how to use it, as that is the first opportunity players would have had.
O. I don't see this as an issue, see H.
P. The people that this would apply to wouldn't likely be the kind of people that would join a guild that is wanting to take on top end PvE raid encounters.
Q. In terms of PvP, this is true, and will always be true. A combat tracker can give you a really good idea of where the build sits in terms of DPS, survivability, and many other things. If you are making a built to counter a specific build though, the only metric that matters is going out and trying to kill someone playing your target build.
R. I am not sure what these are.
The first 20 or so pages of this thread - which a year ago were two or three separate threads - were basically discussions that bought up most of these issues. It was these issues and the discussion around them that bought the idea of the guild based combat tracker to light. Again, it isn't perfect, but it is better for the majority of players than having no first party tracker, and several completely undetectable third party trackers that players are able to use as they see fit.
I honestly welcome as many people to come up with as many issues as they can see in regards to combat trackers - not so much because I think the proposal that was made many months ago doesn't have holes in it, but because there may be some holes that are able to be plugged.
I just cannot agree with the argument that third-party trackers will be an unavoidable part of the game. I'm sure that if some guys can come up with a program to measure player performance, a studio full of developers can think up some ways to counteract this. Of course it all depends on the community, that has to actively report and disencourage this rule-breaking behaviour.
I also don't see how a guild based dps-meter is better for the majority of players. Do we have any information about the percentage of players that are for/against combat trackers? All I have seen was a small poll on reddit, that showed 55% against them. Subjecting the majority of players to a tool that negatively affects their gameplay experience surely has more possible downsides for them, than having some top players use forbidden third-party trackers to gain a competitive edge.
[ ] I don't care
[ ] I want a DPS Meter
[ ] I don't want a DPS Meter
The people building one of the two tools that I am following though are - between them - working at the forefront of various aspects of computer security.
I would happily put my money on them over a dedicated IT security firm (or, like, Intel). I don't consider a company that specalizes in making games to have any real shot, to be perfectly honest.
The problem with polls is the lack of coverage.
Player generated polls get a few dozen people, at the most.
Developer polls get a few thousand.
Much like the multiboxing poll, it makes no sense to do it while people are still in a WoW mindset.
The number of people that voted in that poll based on not wanting 40 player botters in Ashes - desipite Intrepid outright saying botting is not an option - is disapointing.
I'm okay with content that is designed to be casual or almost as a tutorial (dungeons, leveling, professions, etc.) to not have some evaluation metric since I understand that "elitism" should be avoided in content that was never really designed to be a challenge, but I think you can't have any meaningful challenge and withdraw that kind of information.
If people are afraid of meters because they're afraid it will gate them from raids...I'm sorry to break it to you, but if they're actually really hard it's unlikely you're going to be able to slip in and get carried regardless of if they have a built in meter. You have to pull your own weight in challenging content because nobody wants to spend tens/hundreds of hours dying to stuff because some players think they should be able to play all content without putting in the necessary effort.
That being said I do think people using it to bash other players should be heavily punished. Reforming the group without a player or two because they can't pull their weight is fine (or better yet giving them some feedback around their numbers) as long as it's done in a cordial way, but if anyone resorts to insulting/belittling people over it then punish them. The only downside to this is the game needs enough staff to handle tickets generated for this and they need to be willing to punish players who cross lines.
I'm on board with having the game designed in a way where that is something you can actually do.
If the game leaves combat trackers up to third parties, you will be expected to have one running eventually.
If the game has one built in to the client, but where only some guilds will opt to use it, people will not expect you to have one running unless you are in such a guild - at which point it would only work on members of that guild.
So really, the only way for players that absolutely don't want to have to deal with a combat tracker in Ashes to actually be able to have that be the case is if Intrepid implement one in a limited fashion in to the games client.
---
The only other game that has taken a firm stance against them similar to how Ashes is, was GW2.
You are now free to use third party trackers in GW2.
This is the reality that Intrepid will find themselves in sooner or later if they maintain their current stance.
The only reason why these tools will not exist in some form is if this game is going to be just a social experiment where gameplay actually doesnt matter
― Plato
I don't think Steven understands the dedication of top end PvE players - he's never played a game with top end PvE content, so this is understandable.
― Plato
Sure, companies that have key and screen capture devices installed on their employer’s computers where management uses said data are more effective, but have higher turnover rate. The difference between a company and game though, is you have to find a new job to live, you don’t have to continue playing the game if you decide you leave a guild for being toxic. I.e folks are more likely to stick with the game if they have strong personal relationships in that game.
So again I ask, why introduce something That will result in toxicity for a certain percentage of players versus not bring it in when all you lose by not having it is some speed in the combat discovery process?
Any toxicity that can come purely from dps meter is the initial "label" poorly optimized characters are going to have, any guild toxicity from elitism is going to remain even with dps meters gone - you know the goal for any guild is to find likeminded people to enjoy the game with
Also the speed of discovery process is not going to be an issue, but the whether ppl speeding up the discovery process are going to banned for doing so
― Plato
If management use that data to help people improve at their jobs (especially if it is a career or commission position), people are generally happy.
On the other hand, if management use that data for exclusionaly purposes, then that turnover will be high.
This basically just adds to my point that it is the game as a whole (or the workplace as a whole) that causes issues, not the data collection.
I'm not answering that question directly, because I refute the premise it is built on.
There is no reason at all to assume that if combat trackers are added to Ashes, it will increase the over all amount of toxicity.
In order for this argument to hold weight, we would need to be able to look at any MMO, look at the toxicity level and look at the combat tracker level, and there would need to be some correlation.
That is a bare minimum in order for this to be a valid argument. We could then suggest that there needs to be some causation, not simply correlation - but I don't feel the need to go that far.
The issue with that though, it that even just correlation isn't there.
WoW - high toxicity, high combat tracker.
Archeage - high toxicity, low combat tracker.
EQ2 - low toxicity, high combat tracker.
No correlation between combat tracker and toxicity level of games, ergo that argument holds no weight (this is a point to be made to Steven as much as anyone).
The correlation that can be found in those games though (and one that seems to apply to all MMO's that I've looked in to), is that there is a correlation between toxicity and automated group forming systems.
Rather than the question you asked, I would rather ask if there is no correlation between combat tracker usage and over all toxicity in games, what reason is there to not add a combat tracker?
You can make it a personal mini game with the target dummy as the only place the dps meter will work, and if you do enough damage to pass a threshold that would be set inline with the damage you need to do in group play, you get 'certified.' At that point, it could be as simple as flipping a flag on the players account saying he is qualified to do the minimal dps for x content and that he/she has proven it. Makes it easier for auto grouping also as anyone that gets chosen has already qualified for doing enough damage to pass the content - maybe not God tier damage, but enough to do the content.
This lets 'elite' players push the limits, but doesn't interfere with pub groups as people know that at least for damage, there is enough of it in the group.
Spladian
And even if combat-trackers arent the direct cause of toxicity, they surely do enable it. I just dont see how removing such an easy-to-use tool of attacking someone elses performance wouldnt remove that instance of toxic behaviour.
Some people may want to reach same goals by taking sustain route they are bit slower but safer. some people want to take tankier subclass so they can off tank single mobs when tank doesn't have time. all those ways will lead to same result with little difference in speed and huge difference in fun because it's fun to build something that fits for you and be good with it. Or does someone really think it's fun to be forced to watch guides how to play your class as meta dictates because you don't reach high enough numbers. There will be point when you are forced to do that if we let dps meters and addons in game. Please let fights and learning be ingame experience.