DPS Meter Megathread

Noaani wrote: »

@neuroguy

neuroguy wrote: »

"bosses/dungeons/raids will become more difficult and give better loot the better you perform".

I actually completely dislike the notion of encounters becoming more difficult the better you perform. This gives guilds a reason to do a poor job on lower tier encounters in a dungeon, in order to make the higher tier encounters easier. They may get less loot, but it also means the difficulty threashold to killing these encounters is far lower.

When you are talking about open world content - where if we don't kill it now another guild will come along and challenge us for it - the idea will be to get "the kill", not to get the hard mode kill.

As such, this system is going to lead to every guild in the game cheesing their way to the hardest encounters in order to get the easiest version of the hardest encounters, so that they can kill them first and deprive other guilds of hard content.

It really is a fucked up system.

The *ONLY* way it will work is if it is only applicable to instanced content. If it is only applicable to instanced content, you now have a system where by guilds are not just rewarded for getting the kill, but in how well they get the kill.

This means the argument of "you did well if the mob dies" is no longer applicable. Players will want more objective data with this system in the game than without it, as they would want to know why they only got 1 drop instead of 3, and what they can do next time to make sure they get 3.

Well I mean you're making tons of assumptions here. First is how you think all guilds, or even the majority of guilds, thinks. You need to get better gear to take on harder content. Not all content needs to be "easy" unless it ramps up because you performed better. Some content will be inherently harder than others, regardless of the performance adjusted level of difficulty.

Another big assumption is the player density in these open world dungeons. We won't really know anything about this until they start larger scale testing I imagine. My argument isn't "you did well if the mob dies", my argument is that you will receive feedback regarding the group's performance by the dynamic difficulty of the content. I think a lot of other people provided tons of great reasons why not having a DPS meter is good. And yeah players will want answers and they won't have exact numbers to get those answers, but if you're suggesting that not having a DPS meter will leave players baffled and without a clue as to why they didn't get to a higher tier of boss difficulty + loot I mean that's just ridiculous. You can probably do more dps by getting better gear or optimizing your build, dodge more stuff etc and yeah it won't be as easy to do all these things without a DPS meter and thus begins creative problem solving. You don't need a DPS meter to tell you what you need to do better, but you may want a DPS meter to baby you through improving your build, however that doesn't make it necessary in any way shape or form. The bottom line is that no game is unplayable, and no encounter is too complicated to improve performance on without a DPS meter, it is a luxury and they've designed content around making it easy to live without this luxury it feels like.

In any case it is not clear how this ramp in difficulty will work because Steven has also mentioned that he hates scaling content. It did sound like there would be new/different abilities and behaviors the boss may have access to depending on the difficulty tier but I mean if it has more HP or does more damage, a lot of people (myself included) would consider that a form of scaling so I'm not sure what the implementation of this boss difficulty tiers will look like.

neuroguy wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

@neuroguy

neuroguy wrote: »

"bosses/dungeons/raids will become more difficult and give better loot the better you perform".

I actually completely dislike the notion of encounters becoming more difficult the better you perform. This gives guilds a reason to do a poor job on lower tier encounters in a dungeon, in order to make the higher tier encounters easier. They may get less loot, but it also means the difficulty threashold to killing these encounters is far lower.

When you are talking about open world content - where if we don't kill it now another guild will come along and challenge us for it - the idea will be to get "the kill", not to get the hard mode kill.

As such, this system is going to lead to every guild in the game cheesing their way to the hardest encounters in order to get the easiest version of the hardest encounters, so that they can kill them first and deprive other guilds of hard content.

It really is a fucked up system.

The *ONLY* way it will work is if it is only applicable to instanced content. If it is only applicable to instanced content, you now have a system where by guilds are not just rewarded for getting the kill, but in how well they get the kill.

This means the argument of "you did well if the mob dies" is no longer applicable. Players will want more objective data with this system in the game than without it, as they would want to know why they only got 1 drop instead of 3, and what they can do next time to make sure they get 3.

Well I mean you're making tons of assumptions here. First is how you think all guilds, or even the majority of guilds, thinks. You need to get better gear to take on harder content. Not all content needs to be "easy" unless it ramps up because you performed better. Some content will be inherently harder than others, regardless of the performance adjusted level of difficulty.

Another big assumption is the player density in these open world dungeons. We won't really know anything about this until they start larger scale testing I imagine. My argument isn't "you did well if the mob dies", my argument is that you will receive feedback regarding the group's performance by the dynamic difficulty of the content. I think a lot of other people provided tons of great reasons why not having a DPS meter is good. And yeah players will want answers and they won't have exact numbers to get those answers, but if you're suggesting that not having a DPS meter will leave players baffled and without a clue as to why they didn't get to a higher tier of boss difficulty + loot I mean that's just ridiculous. You can probably do more dps by getting better gear or optimizing your build, dodge more stuff etc and yeah it won't be as easy to do all these things without a DPS meter and thus begins creative problem solving. You don't need a DPS meter to tell you what you need to do better, but you may want a DPS meter to baby you through improving your build, however that doesn't make it necessary in any way shape or form. The bottom line is that no game is unplayable, and no encounter is too complicated to improve performance on without a DPS meter, it is a luxury and they've designed content around making it easy to live without this luxury it feels like.

In any case it is not clear how this ramp in difficulty will work because Steven has also mentioned that he hates scaling content. It did sound like there would be new/different abilities and behaviors the boss may have access to depending on the difficulty tier but I mean if it has more HP or does more damage, a lot of people (myself included) would consider that a form of scaling so I'm not sure what the implementation of this boss difficulty tiers will look like.

Oh of course there are some assumptions made, but they are not overly hard to imagine ones.

To the first assumption - guilds will not just look at getting gear for themselves, but also doing what they can to exclude rival guilds from getting gear.

This is, after all, a game where PvP matters. Any gear you can deprive your rival of is functionally the same as getting gear yourself - at least in regards to that rivalry. If a guild is in a position where they accept slightly lesser rewards than would otherwise be on the table, but in doing so means there rival guild gets nothing, it is a no-brainer as to what the best thing to do there would be.

As to player density, if a dungeon has a raid encounter in it, then it should be an easy assumption that there will be room for multiple raids - like, 3 or 4.

After that suggestion, your post seems to assume that top end PvE content should be about guessing, rather than knowing. There should be nothing at all in the game that is left to a guess - that is the antithesis of player agency. This is literally true - not just hyperbolically true or subjectively true. Player agency is the notion that players will be presented with options, and will have full understanding of the consequences of those options. Anything that is left to chance or left as a guess for players is not player agency.

Now, despite appearances, I am not actually arguing for a combat tracker to exist. I am arguing for a combat tracker to be built directly in to the games client. This game will have combat trackers - all MMO's do (even ones people don't think have them, like Archeage). Even Intrepid know that there will absolutely be ways for combat trackers to exist in this game - they said they think they have taken out most avenues by which this data can be collected, which means they know they have not taken out all of them.

It is also worth noting that Steven has not come up against a top end PvE community in any game he has played. He doesn't understand the difference in the resolve of a top end PvE player over a top end PvP player.

If your argument is that the "game shouldn't have a combat tracker because..." then I hate to say it, but you've lost that argument before you make it. I'm not even really that interested in a debate along those lines.

I am happy to point out why combat trackers are useful in general, especially to people that have outright incorrect assumptions about them (many people conflate trackers with all addons, and think combat trackers will lead to WoW Armory style websites and such). Pointing this out may well be mistaken as me arguing that combat trackers should indeed exist - but that is not the case. It should be looked at as me saying why they will exist in one form or another, in order to provide a frame around my argument as to why they should be built in to the games client directly.

So, while the correct use of a combat tracker is a discussion I am happy to engage in, my actual argument is that the combat tracker should be built in to the games client, so that Intrepid can place some restrictions on it.

If combat trackers are left to third parties, there will be no restrictions. If combat trackers are built in to the game, there can be restrictions. This is why the suggestion I have been making in this thread for a year now (that has been modified over that year) has many restrictions - they are designed to alleviate the issues (both real and pecieved) that players have with them, leaving a suggestion that is far better for the bulk of players than what we will have if Intrepid do nothing.

Noaani wrote: »

@Chunks
There will always be a small sunset of any games classes or builds that players deem acceptable, and another subset that players deem unacceptable. This is not a consequence of combat trackers - as Archeage has shown us.

This meta absolutely will exist, and if players want to be accepted in to groups and such, they will run builds that players deem to be acceptable. Based on that, I would assume most players want those acceptable builds to be actually good (since most players will have no real choice other than to use them). The only wau to ensure the builds in a games meta are actually good builds is to make use of a combat tracker.

Additionally, if someone comes up with a build that is not a part of the games meta - not one of that subset of classes that players deem acceptable - the only way they can prove that the build they have come up with should be accepted is to use a combat tracker.

You're accidently agreeing with me here, and backing up my points on most fronts. We concur that a meta will exist regardless, but you're saying a tracker would establish a meta and would be the only possible standard for marking a build as viable. Your idea hinges entirely on the concept that the general playerbase will take the time and have the comprehension skills to use the tracker correctly instead of a flat damage meter.
I take issue with these assumptions. The reality is, most people want the quick and dirty access to what they can easily relate to; most often being efficient damage output. They'll assume it's the best option and blindly build identically. Most MMO players are not innovators. They take the easiest route to success. You clearly have spent some time playing these genre. You know how these people are lol.

The concept that tracking this information will make it very easy to establish a viable meta is a very safe bet. And I'm against that happening. Out of 64 classes, you're on board with 85% of players using like 4 or 5 of those classes because the numbers told them to. The byproduct of that being the remaining demographic playing a solo game. Access to those numbers will allow theorycrafters to have concrete data to reference. I understand the benefit to it, but there is more to lose than to gain in this game for that topic. Namely, a varied playerbase.

It's super frustrating that you're just blatantly telling me that we should use tracking to form a slim standard for how to play the game, and everybody else is up creek, paddle 10 miles behind down river because they didn't build that way. The game should be accessible as virtually any player build. You're saying that players being pushed out of content because their level 50 character that took them two months to level up doesn't fit the min/maxed vision of how the game needs to be played. You cannot have an exclusive meta that you are supporting AND tell me that the underrepresented builds deserve help. You are asking for the problem to crop up and then say the player base deserves a solution.

This is what I do not want for this game. It is why I am attracted to this game. Everybody should be able to play how they like without concern for repercussion of their fantasy build. They should be able to experiment. To play what fits them. Having a meta form based on the optimal numbers is at the absolute, most direct odds with that.

As to the point you make about "big number vs. little number", a tool should not be blamed if it is used incorrectly.

A part of the reason I would like to see a combat tracker built in to the client of Ashes is because then Intrepid can provide actual information and training on how to use it properly, and it can be something that is openly discussed on the games forum, reddit and discord. This means there is more good information on how to use a tracker properly that is available to all players, which means more and more players will use it properly.

If it is a third party application (which is what is going to happen if it is not built in to the client), then players have every excuse to not know how to use it properly.

We just discussed it but I'm in for a round two. Most players will not take the time or care enough about these things to use a tool like that "correctly". If anything, the existence of it will motivate them to go explore the internet to see "what's the best class/build for Ashes of Creation" and then they can congratulate themselves on their damage meter numbers. I believe not having the meters will encourage them to just play the game on their own terms.

In fact, that has me now wondering, what metric do you use to decide a meta? If you have all this varying data tracking an abundance of things, sometimes with context, sometimes without, how do you apply some unknown algorithm to create this meta? For the most part, these numbers will be too all over the place and in a game like Ashes (as compared to WoW or FFXIV that's more sedintary fights) difficult to identify what exact story they represent. It feels like a shallow defense for these metrics being accessible, because in all likelihood it is just going end up being a story of "how much did damage did they do, how much damage did their defensives absorb/did the player receive" Without a second-to-second replay of everything happening in that encounter with a heatmap, there's no way you can collect any kind of data on how that build may have played dynamicly. Thus, we have the simplest form of risk/reward.

The only way a combat tracker will narrow the ways players can interact with each other is if combat trackers show us all that the game only has a single best option that is suited to all situations.

If that is what combat trackers show us, that is not the fault of the combat tracker, it is the fault of the developer.

Should that happen, the entire playerbase has every right to stand up to Intrepid and demand they fix it.

I think the situation can be avoided altogether. There WILL be a single best, all purpose build. There will be. That is just the nature of this, and any game. There will always be an optimal way to fill a particular pair of shoes. This seems like the wrong game for the mainstream demographic to try to min/max. There is room for it, for a particular demographic of players, and those players will be informed and skilled enough to discover it without using provided numbers and data. The players who aren't invested in the min/max pursuit will feel less pressure to follow without numbers constantly staring back at them from the UI.

Just a side benefit, as well; in the case that a class/build is extremely dominant, Intrepid being the only ones with access to the data can silently address the issue before it reaches the general player base. That way, players won't start following a cookie cutter design before a nerf hits and dramatic outcry begins.

If you reread what you said, you are telling me that you're pushing for a standard that players will have to accept or not participate in, enabled by this information tracking. Until you're (you are closing statement, btw) closing statement, at least.
We may be in agreement about the outcome, I really can't tell from seemingly mixed messages tbh, but we are on opposite sides of the fence on how to reach it. I think not having damage meters will avoid the problem. You think it will solve the problem that I think we can avoid to begin with.

.... I think.

Noaani wrote: »

As to player density, if a dungeon has a raid encounter in it, then it should be an easy assumption that there will be room for multiple raids - like, 3 or 4.

After that suggestion, your post seems to assume that top end PvE content should be about guessing, rather than knowing. There should be nothing at all in the game that is left to a guess - that is the antithesis of player agency. This is literally true - not just hyperbolically true or subjectively true. Player agency is the notion that players will be presented with options, and will have full understanding of the consequences of those options. Anything that is left to chance or left as a guess for players is not player agency.

Now, despite appearances, I am not actually arguing for a combat tracker to exist. I am arguing for a combat tracker to be built directly in to the games client. This game will have combat trackers - all MMO's do (even ones people don't think have them, like Archeage). Even Intrepid know that there will absolutely be ways for combat trackers to exist in this game - they said they think they have taken out most avenues by which this data can be collected, which means they know they have not taken out all of them.

It is also worth noting that Steven has not come up against a top end PvE community in any game he has played. He doesn't understand the difference in the resolve of a top end PvE player over a top end PvP player.

If your argument is that the "game shouldn't have a combat tracker because..." then I hate to say it, but you've lost that argument before you make it. I'm not even really that interested in a debate along those lines.

I am happy to point out why combat trackers are useful in general, especially to people that have outright incorrect assumptions about them (many people conflate trackers with all addons, and think combat trackers will lead to WoW Armory style websites and such). Pointing this out may well be mistaken as me arguing that combat trackers should indeed exist - but that is not the case. It should be looked at as me saying why they will exist in one form or another, in order to provide a frame around my argument as to why they should be built in to the games client directly.

So, while the correct use of a combat tracker is a discussion I am happy to engage in, my actual argument is that the combat tracker should be built in to the games client, so that Intrepid can place some restrictions on it.

If combat trackers are left to third parties, there will be no restrictions. If combat trackers are built in to the game, there can be restrictions. This is why the suggestion I have been making in this thread for a year now (that has been modified over that year) has many restrictions - they are designed to alleviate the issues (both real and pecieved) that players have with them, leaving a suggestion that is far better for the bulk of players than what we will have if Intrepid do nothing.

It is not literally true. You're trying to apply the concept of "player agency" where it does not belong. Then loot tables and damage ranges and critical strikes are also not adherent to "player agency" because there is RNG involved... that doesn't make sense. Player agency and the exact DPS numbers you pump out are unrelated concepts. It's not about guessing, it's about having to solve problems more intuitively and creatively. When you play sports in real life, you don't get numbers on how much force and velocity you moved your body to throw a baseball, and yet we all manage to get better and figure out how to improve.

Also, if there is room for 3-4 raids, it still provides zero information about the density of people in that space. That is a variable that will fluctuate but we have no idea what the average density will be.

I don't really have an "argument" I shared my opinion and you replied to it stating twice now "if this is your argument..." so to me it sounds like you have a point you're trying to make, which I honestly am not sure what it actually is. Are you saying we should be given combat trackers because they are inevitably going to exist? That's a silly argument that provides no information as to what they would positively add to the game, and if a feature does not have a positive impact on the game, and many people point out the negative impacts they have, I don't see why they should add it at all. Or are you perhaps saying they should exist in some form so third parties don't create them in another form? That doesn't make sense because if you're saying this information exists and people will create it, then they will create it to fit their specifications whether Intrepid provides us one or not, and it doesn't matter how they restrict or regulate the built in combat tracker so then we go back to the first question... if it doesn't add anything positive to the game what's the point?

I think if you hav a point to make, just make it clear and address this: what positive impact could a built in combat tracker provide the game that would outweigh the many negatives stated in this thread?

Edit: I also agree with pretty much everything @Chunks said above. I just don't understand why you think people NEED a DPS meter or combat tracker to be able to min/max. People will have access to tooltip information and can make spread sheets, it isn't that hard to theorycraft optimal crap and I'm sure it'll be on youtube pretty fast. But to make it easily accessible in game to test and quantify DPS only improves these "positives" if you think about it that way slightly while it brings with it all of the negatives pointed to above. People will know what the best builds are from theorycrafters that don't need DPS meters, but without DPS meters you can't have a witch hunt of suboptimal builds/DPS rotations as easily, I don't see what the problem is. You just need rudimentary coding skills and some experience with spreadsheets to try to figure out what's optimal, a DPS meter just brings about a lot of negative social interactions.

Chunks wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

@Chunks
There will always be a small sunset of any games classes or builds that players deem acceptable, and another subset that players deem unacceptable. This is not a consequence of combat trackers - as Archeage has shown us.

This meta absolutely will exist, and if players want to be accepted in to groups and such, they will run builds that players deem to be acceptable. Based on that, I would assume most players want those acceptable builds to be actually good (since most players will have no real choice other than to use them). The only wau to ensure the builds in a games meta are actually good builds is to make use of a combat tracker.

Additionally, if someone comes up with a build that is not a part of the games meta - not one of that subset of classes that players deem acceptable - the only way they can prove that the build they have come up with should be accepted is to use a combat tracker.

You're accidently agreeing with me here, and backing up my points on most fronts. We concur that a meta will exist regardless, but you're saying a tracker would establish a meta and would be the only possible standard for marking a build as viable. Your idea hinges entirely on the concept that the general playerbase will take the time and have the comprehension skills to use the tracker correctly instead of a flat damage meter.
I take issue with these assumptions. The reality is, most people want the quick and dirty access to what they can easily relate to; most often being efficient damage output. They'll assume it's the best option and blindly build identically. Most MMO players are not innovators. They take the easiest route to success. You clearly have spent some time playing these genre. You know how these people are lol.

I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion you have here.

Yes, most people will just follow build guides. Most people can't be bothered coming up with a build of their own.

The few people that actually want to run a different build and also expect to be able to group up with others are likely the same people that know how to correctly use a combat tracker - so I am not sure where you are seeing the issue.

You don't need the bulk of players to be able to use a tracker effectively, only the ones that want to break away from teh meta - which as you yourself say, most people can't be bothered with.

The concept that tracking this information will make it very easy to establish a viable meta is a very safe bet. And I'm against that happening. Out of 64 classes, you're on board with 85% of players using like 4 or 5 of those classes because the numbers told them to. The byproduct of that being the remaining demographic playing a solo game. Access to those numbers will allow theorycrafters to have concrete data to reference. I understand the benefit to it, but there is more to lose than to gain in this game for that topic. Namely, a varied playerbase.

The game has 8 classes.

Each of those classes has 8 build trees that a player can use one of each. Saying that each of these is it's own distinct class is like saying a fire mage in WoW is a distinct class. The fact that they are named does not detract from the fact that they are simply something that players of the actual class can just spec in to almost at will.

Now, since Ashes is a PvP game, the meta is as much about countering other players and builds as it is countering PvE content.

If a given build is popular, people will go out and use combat trackers to come up with counters to it from various classes. Then when these counter-builds become popular, people will go out and use combat trackers to build counters to those counter-builds. This cycle will repeat, and at any point, any of the previous builds will remain a viable option based on what other builds people are using at the time.

This is the singular way a game can have the most varied meta - make it so the meta reacts to the meta, not to new content.

In a PvE only game, the meta is often fairly static based on the content people are working on. In a PvP game though, as long as new builds can be objectively assessed, the meta changes often based on what other players are doing.

As to that remaining portion of the population that would be playing solo - if they are not following the meta, they will be in the same place with or without a combat tracker. I mean, you have said youself that a meta will exist either way - and the only reason they would be left out is because they are not following the meta. There is nothing in that situation that a combat tracker would change - eithe way.

It's super frustrating that you're just blatantly telling me that we should use tracking to form a slim standard for how to play the game, and everybody else is up creek, paddle 10 miles behind down river because they didn't build that way. The game should be accessible as virtually any player build. You're saying that players being pushed out of content because their level 50 character that took them two months to level up doesn't fit the min/maxed vision of how the game needs to be played. You cannot have an exclusive meta that you are supporting AND tell me that the underrepresented builds deserve help. You are asking for the problem to crop up and then say the player base deserves a solution.

This is what I do not want for this game. It is why I am attracted to this game. Everybody should be able to play how they like without concern for repercussion of their fantasy build. They should be able to experiment. To play what fits them. Having a meta form based on the optimal numbers is at the absolute, most direct odds with that.

If we are able to objectively assess the games combat, and deduce that there is only a single narrow standard on how it should be played, you do not blame that objective data for this.

If you build a bridge, then I come along and use a calculator to show you that your bridge will collapse if the wind is just right, you do not blame the calculator.

In both situations, we all tell the person that designed the broken thing to fix it.

As to the point you make about "big number vs. little number", a tool should not be blamed if it is used incorrectly.

A part of the reason I would like to see a combat tracker built in to the client of Ashes is because then Intrepid can provide actual information and training on how to use it properly, and it can be something that is openly discussed on the games forum, reddit and discord. This means there is more good information on how to use a tracker properly that is available to all players, which means more and more players will use it properly.

If it is a third party application (which is what is going to happen if it is not built in to the client), then players have every excuse to not know how to use it properly.

We just discussed it but I'm in for a round two. Most players will not take the time or care enough about these things to use a tool like that "correctly". If anything, the existence of it will motivate them to go explore the internet to see "what's the best class/build for Ashes of Creation" and then they can congratulate themselves on their damage meter numbers. I believe not having the meters will encourage them to just play the game on their own terms.

These people will still look around for a build. They are not doing that because they can't be bothered with a combat tracker, they are doing that because they can't be bothered to think.

In fact, that has me now wondering, what metric do you use to decide a meta? If you have all this varying data tracking an abundance of things, sometimes with context, sometimes without, how do you apply some unknown algorithm to create this meta? For the most part, these numbers will be too all over the place and in a game like Ashes (as compared to WoW or FFXIV that's more sedintary fights) difficult to identify what exact story they represent. It feels like a shallow defense for these metrics being accessible, because in all likelihood it is just going end up being a story of "how much did damage did they do, how much damage did their defensives absorb/did the player receive" Without a second-to-second replay of everything happening in that encounter with a heatmap, there's no way you can collect any kind of data on how that build may have played dynamicly. Thus, we have the simplest form of risk/reward.

An individual player doesn't decide the meta - the meta is just what people in the game are doing. The meta doesn't even need to be "right" (as is the case in Archeage, and was for years the case in GW2). All the meta needs in order to be considered the meta, is to be popular.

However, I would suggest that it is in all players best interests if the meta is also good.

The only way a combat tracker will narrow the ways players can interact with each other is if combat trackers show us all that the game only has a single best option that is suited to all situations.

If that is what combat trackers show us, that is not the fault of the combat tracker, it is the fault of the developer.

Should that happen, the entire playerbase has every right to stand up to Intrepid and demand they fix it.

I think the situation can be avoided altogether. There WILL be a single best, all purpose build. There will be. That is just the nature of this, and any game. There will always be an optimal way to fill a particular pair of shoes. This seems like the wrong game for the mainstream demographic to try to min/max. There is room for it, for a particular demographic of players, and those players will be informed and skilled enough to discover it without using provided numbers and data. The players who aren't invested in the min/max pursuit will feel less pressure to follow without numbers constantly staring back at them from the UI.

Just a side benefit, as well; in the case that a class/build is extremely dominant, Intrepid being the only ones with access to the data can silently address the issue before it reaches the general player base. That way, players won't start following a cookie cutter design before a nerf hits and dramatic outcry begins.

If you reread what you said, you are telling me that you're pushing for a standard that players will have to accept or not participate in, enabled by this information tracking. Until you're (you are closing statement, btw) closing statement, at least.
We may be in agreement about the outcome, I really can't tell from seemingly mixed messages tbh, but we are on opposite sides of the fence on how to reach it. I think not having damage meters will avoid the problem. You think it will solve the problem that I think we can avoid to begin with.

.... I think.

I completely disagree that there will be a single best build.

If your server has a lot of tank/summoners on it, but mine has a lot of tank/mages on it, then the build we consider to be the best for the class we are playing may well be vastly different. You may want one to take out tank/summoners easily, while I want one to take out tank/mages easily.

If there is the ability to actually objectively assess builds, then things like the inter-guild political state of a server can and will affect the meta of that server.

Without the ability to objectively assess builds, the meta will be the same for the game, and will be either agonizingly slow to change, or simply won't change at all (as per Archeage).

Of every MMO ever released, this game stands to have the most unique situations where a player or a guild would want to min/max things.

If there is a single class that is able to be the rock while every other class is scissors, then that is obviously broken. It wouldn't take a combat tracker to point that out - combat trackers are only needed to point out the subtle things, not hte smack around the case obvious things like one class is able to dominate every other class.

If that happens, the game is broken with or without a combat tracker.

neuroguy wrote: »

When you play sports in real life, you don't get numbers on how much force and velocity you moved your body to throw a baseball, and yet we all manage to get better and figure out how to improve.

Top end players do.

Sport science is a multi-billion dollar industry.

Also, if there is room for 3-4 raids, it still provides zero information about the density of people in that space. That is a variable that will fluctuate but we have no idea what the average density will be.

Have you played games with open raid dungeons? I have, for years.

If you are in a dungeon and you know the boss is up (spotters and spawn timers are a thing), then you know where you are heading. If there is a guild in front of you, you have a clear shot to where ever that guild is - because they killed everything between the entrance and where you are. Base population in raid zones takes 3 or 4 times longer to respawn (by necessity) than base population in a single group zone, so chances are if the boss is not down, there is a clear path to the guild that has been clearing their way to it.

If there is another guild able to take the encounter on, they will be there.

to me it sounds like you have a point you're trying to make, which I honestly am not sure what it actually is.

This thread is essentially the point I am trying to make.

I will break it down for you though.

There are a small number of valid reasons some people do not want a combat tracker. These reasons are not in regards to why a combat tracker shouldn't exist, but rather why they shouldn't have to use one (or have one used on them).

There are a small number of reasons as to why combat trackers are very good - if not actually essential - for the health of the game. However, not all players need combat trackers for this to be true.

One of those reasons is that a combat tracker is the only way players can review Intrepids combat system. Players with a combat tracker will always be able to find more bugs and issues in a combat system than any amount of QA or testing a developer can do, because as of 3 months after launch, top end players know the combat system better than the people that made it. They know how they think it functions, we know how it actually functions - this is why developers use top end guilds to test content - their developers are simply not capable of using the combat system they created as well as top end players can.

I have yet to see a game where a combat tracker was not used to point out seemingly impossible to notice bugs with the game, that developers have then fixed. This in itself is reason to want combat trackers in any game - assuming the issues that some players have can be dealt with. Even if you forget that they will exist, this is reason for all players to want them to exist.

So, the idea now is to deal with those issues from above.

Players don't want to be forced to use a combat tracker and they don't want others using combat trackers on them. These two things are the root cause of everything players have against combat trackers. If you make these two things not possible, the actual issues people have with combat trackers go away.

So, the suggestion made eliminates these things from happening. In order to use a combat tracker, or to have someone use a combat tracker on you, you would need to actively allow it - by joining a guild that has taken that specific perk in place of a perk that would be more suited to PvP guild, casual guilds, crafting guilds, casual guilds, etc. Since most players tend to join guilds with players that enjoy playing the game in the same manner as each other, this means that the people that enjoy using combat trackers are likely to all be in only a few guilds, and those few guilds are likely to pick the combat tracker perk over the others.

So now you have a game where people that want to use combat trackers can, and people that don't want to use them and/or don't want others to use combat trackers on them are able to have that as well.

This has eliminated the actual issues people have with combat trackers, while still leaving them in the hands of the people that want to use them, and will use them well for the benefit of the whole game (and for their guild, of course).

Now, when you start talking about a games meta and such, literally the only impact combat trackers will have on it is that they will allow builds to be assessed faster, and the builds that exist can be known to be fairly good, rather than assumed to be. Players that follow the meta will follow it, players that don't, won't. Combat trackers do not alter these things.

Speeding up the games meta is a fantastic thing, if you want the game to have a varied meta at least. The faster a new build can be created to counter an existing popular build, the better.

I just don't understand why you think people NEED a DPS meter or combat tracker to be able to min/max. People will have access to tooltip information and can make spread sheets, it isn't that hard to theorycraft optimal crap and I'm sure it'll be on youtube pretty fast.

I have, in several games (and several times over in some games) used combat trackers to point out to developers that the tool tips on abilities were wrong.

If you want to rely on tool tips to work things out, that's perfectly fine. All I ask is that you not get in my way when I attempt to make sure that data in your tool tips is actually accurate.

@Noaani

Yeah sure, when people's livelihoods and income is dependent on sports performance you can justify that sort of science but like we both agree, people who want it can probably create the tool anyways.

I don't even understand how else to communicate with you on the player density point. We do not know how many people will exist in the world around each dungeon/raid and how frequently you will bump into one another. You can claim otherwise, but this information is simply non-existent because there is no populated server to provide this information.

I don't really see the point in this conversation anymore, but if you already know people will create something like this (DPS meter/combat tracker), then just use it and let those who want to use it seek it out and use it too. The simple fact of its in-game sanctioned availability has a lot more social consequences than you think.

Metas don't get determined by player creativity much once people start using DPS meters, they are determined by patch notes. You don't counter PvP builds with DPS meters, there are too many variables. DPS meters do not accelerate the meta, they just make it more visible and people will base invites to guilds and parties on those numbers. But anyways, if you don't agree we can just agree to disagree at this point.

neuroguy wrote: »

I don't even understand how else to communicate with you on the player density point. We do not know how many people will exist in the world around each dungeon/raid and how frequently you will bump into one another. You can claim otherwise, but this information is simply non-existent because there is no populated server to provide this information.

We don't need to know any of this.

Top end raid encounters in an open world setting are rare in regards to spawn timer - perhaps one spawn every 4 - 10 days or so.

In games that have this, guilds will know the spawn window, as well as any other conditions that may be set (such as only spawning in a specific window on any given day).

As such, when it spawns, every guild on the server that is interested in the encounter will know about it, and most will head towards it.

The encounter essentially functions as a beacon to draw these guilds to that specific location at that specific time.

It isn't a case of bumping in to each other, it is a case of these guilds will all be running to the exact same location, to take on the exact same encounter, at the exact same time.

This is how top end raiding in an open world setting goes.

This is why we don't need any data on how frequently groups or raids will bump in to each other - they will all be rushing the same encounter.

Metas don't get determined by player creativity much once people start using DPS meters, they are determined by patch notes.

In PvE games, sure.

You don't counter PvP builds with DPS meters, there are too many variables.

Correct, this is why I don't talk about "DPS meters", I talk about combat trackers. Combat trackers can provide you with hard data on those variables.

DPS meters do not accelerate the meta, they just make it more visible and people will base invites to guilds and parties on those numbers. But anyways, if you don't agree we can just agree to disagree at this point.

Actually, it is forums, reddit and discord that make a meta more visible, not a combat tracker. The more the playerbase is connected to each other outside of the game, the more visible the games meta will be.

People that will refuse others in a group or guild will do so on the games meta as much as they will on the results of a combat tracker. They are just interested in the act of refusing, they don't care about the reason.

Great Brae wrote: »

So you want a meta in a game being designed to avoid meta's?

@Great Brae

The only possibility that Ashes will not have a strong meta is if only the playerbase is small that nobody will care. If you have big playerbase the meta is inevitable

Kenpachi

IMO if they don't put one in the game itself, then people will find a way to make one for the game. For example FFXIV. Either way, If they do or don't add one I'm fine.

Chunks wrote: »

You're accidently agreeing with me here, and backing up my points on most fronts. We concur that a meta will exist regardless, but you're saying a tracker would establish a meta and would be the only possible standard for marking a build as viable. Your idea hinges entirely on the concept that the general playerbase will take the time and have the comprehension skills to use the tracker correctly instead of a flat damage meter.
I take issue with these assumptions. The reality is, most people want the quick and dirty access to what they can easily relate to; most often being efficient damage output. They'll assume it's the best option and blindly build identically. Most MMO players are not innovators. They take the easiest route to success. You clearly have spent some time playing these genre. You know how these people are lol.

You are right here, players will blindly attach themselves to the "best popular build" and that is because of the internet - forums, reddit, youtube, twitch. If there is hypothetically no dps meter possible then playerbase will use a common easy to kill monster that you can find on any server and make videos to time how long it takes to kill it - which is another form of measuring dps.

What I see you have problem with here is the possibility of people misusing meters and not the actual correct use of it.

The concept that tracking this information will make it very easy to establish a viable meta is a very safe bet. And I'm against that happening. Out of 64 classes, you're on board with 85% of players using like 4 or 5 of those classes because the numbers told them to. The byproduct of that being the remaining demographic playing a solo game. Access to those numbers will allow theorycrafters to have concrete data to reference. I understand the benefit to it, but there is more to lose than to gain in this game for that topic. Namely, a varied playerbase.

First, there are only 8 classes because the 64 "ashes classes" are just a sum of all specs, where you spec into any of the base 8 classes (renamed to archetypes in here). Also theorycrafters have limited space to theorycraft and legitimate their ideas unless they create full blown simulations for their builds and even then they mostly have them for tank&spank situations and then they leave upon players to weight the mobility and minimum utility they need for any encounter.

It's super frustrating that you're just blatantly telling me that we should use tracking to form a slim standard for how to play the game, and everybody else is up creek, paddle 10 miles behind down river because they didn't build that way. The game should be accessible as virtually any player build. You're saying that players being pushed out of content because their level 50 character that took them two months to level up doesn't fit the min/maxed vision of how the game needs to be played. You cannot have an exclusive meta that you are supporting AND tell me that the underrepresented builds deserve help. You are asking for the problem to crop up and then say the player base deserves a solution.

Let me ask you, do you want every customization choice in Ashes to be a viable and correct one? Do you really want any choice you make not matter to how well you are doing, but to only influence the visuals you are performing on the screen?

In every building game you need the option to make bad builds, but a designer needs to ensure that every class (in here one of the 8 base archetypes) has at least 1viable meta build.

This is what I do not want for this game. It is why I am attracted to this game. Everybody should be able to play how they like without concern for repercussion of their fantasy build. They should be able to experiment. To play what fits them. Having a meta form based on the optimal numbers is at the absolute, most direct odds with that.

This is literally the antithesis for a build based game. What you are asking for is the homogenization of every build in the game to the point where you only choose the visuals and order of pressing buttons to your liking

We just discussed it but I'm in for a round two. Most players will not take the time or care enough about these things to use a tool like that "correctly". If anything, the existence of it will motivate them to go explore the internet to see "what's the best class/build for Ashes of Creation" and then they can congratulate themselves on their damage meter numbers. I believe not having the meters will encourage them to just play the game on their own terms.

This is not how people should solve problems. When people don't know how to drive a car you don't remove all cars from the world, you just forbid the people that do not know how to drive from driving and require a driving licence.

In fact, that has me now wondering, what metric do you use to decide a meta? If you have all this varying data tracking an abundance of things, sometimes with context, sometimes without, how do you apply some unknown algorithm to create this meta? For the most part, these numbers will be too all over the place and in a game like Ashes (as compared to WoW or FFXIV that's more sedintary fights) difficult to identify what exact story they represent. It feels like a shallow defense for these metrics being accessible, because in all likelihood it is just going end up being a story of "how much did damage did they do, how much damage did their defensives absorb/did the player receive" Without a second-to-second replay of everything happening in that encounter with a heatmap, there's no way you can collect any kind of data on how that build may have played dynamicly. Thus, we have the simplest form of risk/reward.

This is what a lot of meters actually can do, you click on it for detailed breakdown any many of these things are broken down in there. You say you want a dynamic play, but you want to restrict players dynamically reacting to builds?

I think the situation can be avoided altogether. There WILL be a single best, all purpose build. There will be. That is just the nature of this, and any game. There will always be an optimal way to fill a particular pair of shoes. This seems like the wrong game for the mainstream demographic to try to min/max. There is room for it, for a particular demographic of players, and those players will be informed and skilled enough to discover it without using provided numbers and data. The players who aren't invested in the min/max pursuit will feel less pressure to follow without numbers constantly staring back at them from the UI.

I fail to see how this is any shape or form an argument against having meters. Saying top end players will know anyway is not an argument for or against meters. If anything what you seem to imply here is that Ashes will have shallow and small customization, that is the only logical reasoning why you would think that players would not need numbers and data.

Just a side benefit, as well; in the case that a class/build is extremely dominant, Intrepid being the only ones with access to the data can silently address the issue before it reaches the general player base. That way, players won't start following a cookie cutter design before a nerf hits and dramatic outcry begins.

If meta is not based in reality on what is actually good, but only what gets most popular at the start then developers will address that, but nothing will happen because players will not care and will stick to the same popular thing. If you cant know the actual performance difference between builds then you are better off doing the same thing as everybody else and only your skill is the factor then.

If you reread what you said, you are telling me that you're pushing for a standard that players will have to accept or not participate in, enabled by this information tracking. Until you're (you are closing statement, btw) closing statement, at least.
We may be in agreement about the outcome, I really can't tell from seemingly mixed messages tbh, but we are on opposite sides of the fence on how to reach it. I think not having damage meters will avoid the problem. You think it will solve the problem that I think we can avoid to begin with.

If by the problem you are meaning "players excluding others based on what build they play" then you can never avoid that. It is literally impossible, if you give players a leeway to pick and choose which player they take for dungeon/raid then you automatically create scenarios where players are excluded by the current meta

.... I think.

And that is great, talking through ideas educates all participants. That is why I want meters to be a part of the game, to have meta builds based on actual data and by proxy for developers to create a well balanced game that is not homogenized, but rich in playstyles and all of them have some real purposeful use in the game.

The want to not have meters seems to me more like the want to hide the developer mistakes and oversights rather than to have a rich and somewhat paper-scissor-rock balanced game

@Tragnar

I think I did a poor job making a firm statement of why I'm against DPS meters outside of those points. Dps meters are used to justify metas and even players' participation.

I am not against one build being better than another. I acknolwedged that it is inevitable. But just because one build is better than another shouldnt apply the mindset that the latter build is literally unplayable. Everything should be viable, even thoughb its not optimal.

Wether we define them as classes or not, the point is there are 64+ paths for a player to take for building their character, and thats before the Schools of Augments. I dont envision any argument that could justify to me that only a quarter or less of those builds would be allow into the VIP Exclusive Season Pass Meta.

And I know there will be a meta. My concern is that DPS Meters will justify players being alienated for deviating from it all levels of play.

Hope this clears up my base ideas/intentions, we see eye to eye on some of these, even if not how we actually apply DPS Meters to them.

As long as travel takes a long time and there will be no portal hubs then I do not think that player should fear deviating from meta, because extreme meta whoring is dominant in WoW only because you have instant travel and cross server grouping where if you don't like someone then you can instantly replace them with another player.

This concern for players being alienated for deviating their builds should be aimed towards instant travel like family summons and stuff like that instead of meters.

If replacing someone practically means you need to wait for them another half an hour or hour then you push meta whoring to the back and people will be more acceptable to bring subpar builds, because ultimately having nonmeta builds is better than having an empty group slot

Total hypotheticals here

let's say most of the viable builds can do 800dps - that's like 50% of all builds
around 45% of builds are just plain bad doing below 500dps
and the best few builds can do 1300dps.

If you have the ability to instantly summon any player and run dungeon with them then you will only take people that are playing builds that can do the 1300dps

However if you cannot cross server group up and waiting for players to get to the entrance takes quite some time then you will generally want at least one best meta build in there, but you are comfortable to fill all other spots with mediocre ones, because you could just wait whole day for the perfect group comp

Tragnar wrote: »

You are right here, players will blindly attach themselves to the "best popular build" and that is because of the internet - forums, reddit, youtube, twitch. If there is hypothetically no dps meter possible then playerbase will use a common easy to kill monster that you can find on any server and make videos to time how long it takes to kill it - which is another form of measuring dps.

What I see you have problem with here is the possibility of people misusing meters and not the actual correct use of it.

Having hard numbers to prove optimal builds/combinations is more damaging in this game than most. Because certain enchants will be exclusive, because of the dynamic existence of bosses and their loot tables (and server differences) and all the other sources of variation like the season etc having numbers to prove some combination is better than all others is much more likely to make people feel like they are playing the game "wrong". Nor do you want them to try to match all possible augments to the "optimal build". There feels like a ton of sources of customization and variability in this game where it will be hard to replicate someone's exact build anyways, but to tie a hard number to it where you compare your DPS may make people feel like they made the suboptimal choice like choosing the "wrong" diety/religion. More importantly, if other people who don't know your archetype and context ask for a DPS report and see you not performing at the level of the youtuber, they will assume you're bad and have the wrong build which creates social friction, snobbiness and baseless exclusivity.

Tragnar wrote: »

Let me ask you, do you want every customization choice in Ashes to be a viable and correct one? Do you really want any choice you make not matter to how well you are doing, but to only influence the visuals you are performing on the screen?

In every building game you need the option to make bad builds, but a designer needs to ensure that every class (in here one of the 8 base archetypes) has at least 1viable meta build.

This is literally the antithesis for a build based game. What you are asking for is the homogenization of every build in the game to the point where you only choose the visuals and order of pressing buttons to your liking

No I think you are misunderstanding, it's not about having all builds&customizations perform to the same level, it's about having all classes perform well enough where it isn't considered stupid to go down that path. These 64 "classes" are not going to be homogenous within themselves. You should still be able to build a bad battlemage for example but you should never be considered bad by default because you chose the battlemage, does that make more sense?

In any given patch of the game, some "classes" will perform better than others but it would be tragic to see all mages play a battlemage because the numbers are 2% higher than other class options for mages. Having hard numbers that are readily available in game makes people more likely to make decisions based on those numbers rather than what feels cool or what thematically appeals to them more etc.

Tragnar wrote: »

This is what a lot of meters actually can do, you click on it for detailed breakdown any many of these things are broken down in there. You say you want a dynamic play, but you want to restrict players dynamically reacting to builds?

And there lies one of the biggest problems and why Steven himself is against them. You should have to pay attention and learn from what is happening on screen what you can do better, not by looking at pie charts. I for one could not agree more with Steven.

https://youtu.be/e7pDuuoRFeA?t=3522 (58:42 start of the question)

Tragnar wrote: »

If meta is not based in reality on what is actually good, but only what gets most popular at the start then developers will address that, but nothing will happen because players will not care and will stick to the same popular thing. If you cant know the actual performance difference between builds then you are better off doing the same thing as everybody else and only your skill is the factor then.

I mean this is a bit much, you can tell if a build is significantly better than another. Theorycrafting simple tank and spank can still help you min/max if you want but if you don't have the hard numbers to easily find out what's the best and what isn't then I contest that most people wouldn't just do what is popular because there will be no single popular option (because it is unlikely there will be universal agreement... that only happens when you have hard DPS meter numbers to prove optimal), therefore players will be much more likely to branch out to what they think sounds good or feels good or looks good or w.e.

Tragnar wrote: »

If by the problem you are meaning "players excluding others based on what build they play" then you can never avoid that. It is literally impossible, if you give players a leeway to pick and choose which player they take for dungeon/raid then you automatically create scenarios where players are excluded by the current meta

Nobody can solve players excluding others, nor should they. Some reasons for the exclusion however, are less desirable than others and having a DPS meter allows for a lot of it (again, refer to the video link above).

First if builds differ by 2% of power then I will call Intrepid balance gods, because especially in the video you showed Tim's reaction is justifiable. He plays Classic WoW where 20man raid can do more damage than full 40man raid, because the first is optimalized and the second is not.

To what Steven says about back when MMO's were good I wholeheartedly agree about everything EXCEPT raiding. Those raids back in the day are laughably easy and any difficulty is about finding the one trick that makes the whole fight a netflix session. I don't want raiding in Ashes to have the same difficulty as those old MMO's. And again I do not want for Ashes to have 16 man raid group of hardened top-end raiders to perform miles better than the average 40man guild raid group.

I do not want a stacked 8man group of top-end players to worry only about movement abilities, because they can clear a dungeon in 10minutes while the average group is struggling to clear it under an hour.

I honestly do not want raiding to become a participation award, because players learned to not stand in fire.

Plus I think it is severely hurting the game if you want to hide class imbalance with hiding meters.

And if you want avoid the amount of toxic interactions that are created by bad players misusing the meters then I think we should work on creating restrictions around them and not forbidding them. You know the same way as countries control the distribution of alcohol and tobacco and not allow children to use them.

And if you want raid bosses to become laughably easy after you figure out the strategy, then I am really disappointed in that, because raiding should be about a group of people trying their hardest to work together and not about "Huh so if we do this then he just dies for free"

I have no idea why the difficulty of the content came up in the conversation but I think it explains your rationale/true concern. You are worried that if you can clear content without DPS meters that it's going to be too easy, but I mean that's a different conversation altogether and entirely a bias/concern you have in your head without any evidence.

Hiding class imbalance with DPS meters is also silly, you already acknowledge balancing will be hard, there are tons of customization options and context matters. More importantly, Intrepid has said over and over and over again that they balance around 8 player groups, so your individual performance vs another builds/players will not even matter. Still, people will cry so much about balance in an open world PvP setting you won't believe, IS doesn't need random people putting flawed DPS meter comparison screenshots in their posts too thinking it justifies their outrage when the game is balanced around 8 player group play anyways.

Plus, how are you going to prevent misuse? Do I need to get a license? Who administers the test? It's nonsense, if you provide it, you accept the many ways it can be used positive and negative. If it is deemed the negative uses outweigh the positive, then that's it. Asking for x number of development hours to account for and counteract all the possible negatives just to have your luxury function is ridiculous imo.

@neuroguy

You expressed what I intended to in a way that was easier to consume/interpret. I tip my fedora to you.