Greetings, glorious adventurers! If you're joining in our Alpha One spot testing, please follow the steps here to see all the latest test info on our forums and Discord!
Options
Combat Trackers: proposed compromise
Saedu
Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
There are lots of very polarizing opinions on combat trackers (aka DPS meters) on this forum.
Would the compromise here be personal combat trackers only?
This way I can see what I'm doing and what's happening to me, but I can't see any other interactions?
Add to this making it against the ToS to request/force others to share what they are seeing in their combat trackers?
With something like this an individual could try out different specs/gear for their class to see what works best for them. The risk they will be judged by others is low.
A raid leader could say something like "everyone check your combat trackers for damage taken. If you see "breath of fire" in there, that is avoidable damage that you are getting hit by so watch out for it next time." But they couldn't say something like "everybody whisper me your dps on that last pull".
Sure people would have ways to get around the ToS (e.g. discord), but it would greatly decrease the risk of being judged by others. Doing so would be virtually non-existent in pugs since most don't use discord.
Personally I'd like to see full combat trackers as I like to use the data to help myself and others, but I get that a lot of people have concerns about the risk of toxicity or the removal of immersion (both I disagree with, but everyone's entitled to their own opinion). In situations like this, a compromise in the middle might be best overall for the game.
Would the compromise here be personal combat trackers only?
This way I can see what I'm doing and what's happening to me, but I can't see any other interactions?
Add to this making it against the ToS to request/force others to share what they are seeing in their combat trackers?
With something like this an individual could try out different specs/gear for their class to see what works best for them. The risk they will be judged by others is low.
A raid leader could say something like "everyone check your combat trackers for damage taken. If you see "breath of fire" in there, that is avoidable damage that you are getting hit by so watch out for it next time." But they couldn't say something like "everybody whisper me your dps on that last pull".
Sure people would have ways to get around the ToS (e.g. discord), but it would greatly decrease the risk of being judged by others. Doing so would be virtually non-existent in pugs since most don't use discord.
Personally I'd like to see full combat trackers as I like to use the data to help myself and others, but I get that a lot of people have concerns about the risk of toxicity or the removal of immersion (both I disagree with, but everyone's entitled to their own opinion). In situations like this, a compromise in the middle might be best overall for the game.
0
Comments
I would not complain if a personal tracker was in game, but still do not think they will add one, which I would be fine with as well.
Toxicity is enhanced every time a player can kill another player
Or beat another player at something, or do something better
Toxicity in enhanced by there being a game
Turns out there's a small fraction of people in any competitive environment that are toxic. And to focus on that to the exclusion of any benefits (like some are wanting to do) isn't generally a balanced perspective. I've been in plenty of mmo raids without trackers... and you know what? Toxicity doesn't disappear, I'm not even sure if it is dented. Plenty of finger pointing to go around with or without objective information.
He says that toxicity is the first reason he's opposed to combat trackers.
In addition to that, he wants players to be evaluating combat strategies from the character's story perspective rather than from the player's spreadsheet perspective. He wants combat analysis to be organic rather than mechanical.
And he likes that it provides a kind of mystery effect rather than a focusing on the tracker.
I was a bit surprised that Steven referred to DPS meters as "mechanical bullshit" because I feel like I have rarely heard Steven curse. Seems like he feels very strongly about it.
Not impossible something could change Steven's mind, though.
The flip side, however, is that I agree it can enhance toxicity. WoW often times has/had the "Job experience" paradox come up with raiding. In order to get into raiding, you need the gear and to do X DPS. But to get the gear and do X dps, you need to raid. Things would get especially bad when people who were not even geared for Normal Mode would demand people who have Heroic level gear to run through normal mode. It was silly and stupid.
Player attitude has a lot to do with it - and dps meters will inevitably lead to a majority of players just picking whatever FOTM build they can find on the internet. But if you don't have DPS meters, people will make them, and the tier lists will follow.
I can't say that people are wrong for wanting to play effectively, though I think there is certainly criticism to be had that every single game somehow needs to have a tier list and a website telling them what to play this patch. Avoiding that would be nice - esp. taking notes from games like DDO and ESO where, while they do have their tier lists and fotm websites, there is plenty of viable options to perform perfectly well without just mindlessly copy-pasting work from one student in class.
I think we are pretty much saying the same thing.. The difference being that when toxic players have data to back up their argument, their power of the final word becomes irresponsible at times.
Steven curses quite a bit in some of his interviews.. I find it funny/ refreshing to say the least. It lets me know he is passionate, and I like passion.
Maybe? Toxicity is usually already present in someone before they even boot up the game for the first time and it only grows while playing.. Giving this toxic person data to back up an argument makes it even worse, because now all their decisions are based off a tracker and not outside the box thinking that could have more beneficial outcomes.
Look at the core aspects of Ashes gameplay.
Players can attack each other and take their stuff. Players can destroy other players homes and livelihoods (in game ones, obviously).
This is where toxicity in Ashes will come from - not from one player noticing that someone in their group is doing 100 less DPS than someone else.
Tbh I think my biggest issue with the toxicity argument is that I think its kind of dishonest how people (not you) are framing dps information as the main threat to a peaceful gameplay experience.
Ashes of Creation is a game that is going to have open conflict, there's going to be guilds that you are pressured to join for protection, you have the ever present chance to have your home node destroyed or taken over, node leaders can create unjust laws, and opposing guilds can swipe in and take open world kills.
All of that sounds fun, but I'm not convinced parsing should even register as a threat to toxicity compared to any of those bigger contributers imo. And we certainly shouldn't keep thinking of parsers as the fragile line between a hypothetically peaceful and toxic environment.
Sure guild members might use it to be toxic, but toxic players pretty much do that anyways... based on hunches or their preconceived notions of you, or you dying or messing up some other mechanic during a fight, or seeing what they want to see etc.... objective info may even help you break those notions.
If people were truly concerned over it the biggest thing we can do is to create a community that is willing to push back on toxicity when it happens.
If people didn't subjectively like parsers but were honest about that being the reason, I wouldn't personally agree with that, but I'd respect that. But its that they are framing it as an objective threat to the community that I don't, I think that's more just a convenient pretext.
There is no way he can believe his own argument about combat trackers and toxicity. He played Archeage for years - a game with a more toxic community than WoW (he was as toxic as anyone in that game), and yet is the MMO with the lowest use level of combat trackers (the only tracker I know for it has had less than 10 total downloads, ever).
This has me at least somewhat worried for the game as a whole - it isn't even out yet and already Intrepid are outright lying to us. This is why I am so pissed off about the combat tracker situation - sure, I want combat trackers, but not as much as I want an MMO developer that is honest with it's community.
PvP content creates toxicity... (which goes along with my statement)
PvE content on its own, does not create as much toxicity.
Gear in the game is gained through PvE, PvP and crafting... crafting is funded by PvE and PvP.
When PvE is tied to PvP the toxicity has a bleed over from one to the other.
So, a PvP player who is toxic, and needs to PvE to go get better gear, now has toxic PvE runs, and with the use of trackers, becomes really toxic.
Again... my statement holds true. It states that Toxicity is not created by trackers... but that it is enhanced by it.
PvE can create toxicity just fine - without combat trackers.
If someone is dying to the same mechanic all the time, if someone is continuously behind the rest of the group while moving through a zone, if someone is constantly pulling adds, if a tank or healer isn't doing their job well enough, if a DPS is pulling aggro off the tank.
There is as much room in PvE content for toxicity as there is in PvP content - especially at the low end. Your PvP player running PvE to get gear doesn't need a combat tracker to be toxic at all.
If anything, a combat tracker will help that player understand what is going on better, and so may actually reduce their toxicity in the unfamiliar situation they find them self in.
You are pretending to know exactly how much toxicity is created by both parts of the game. Lineage 2 had a system just like this... PvP is basically the same, Castle sieges are basically the same, hell let us go one further.. flying mounts and who they go to are basically the same (even dragon eggs) and so, so much more. This game takes quite a bit from L2. When I, and many other L2 payers look at this game, we see L2... with huge upgrades.
I have seen it on both sides, and the PvE side of it was not nearly as bad as the PvP side as far as toxicity went. PvP had more loss attached to it, than any loss you could take in PvE side. So toxic on both sides, yes... not near as much on the PvE side though.
As for the pulling of aggro you mentioned.. I talked about this in another thread.. I was pulling aggro from the tank.. afterwards I asked the tank the best way to prevent this and he told me how. That fixed it... no tracker needed.
Your last sentence is what Steven is arguing against as well.. He does not want players looking at numbers to figure out the game, he wants players to communicate with each other to see how they can perform better or try new things to get past content. "Trial and Error" were his exact words, and if that is what he wants out of his game, then your chances of seeing a tracker are slim to none.
Not exactly how much, that would be stupid. However, when you look at the two most toxic games on the market - AA and WoW - with one being a PvE focused game and one being a PvP focused game, you can't really claim that either creates more toxicity than the other.
I mean, it's all good having theories and such, but when actual observable truths don't match up to the theory, you have to either ditch or alter that theory.
yeah, because that is how things work on the internet - take information away from people and they work together better...
Steven can "want" what ever he wants to want. That doesn't mean it will happen. He may be able to get the game design how he wants it to be, but he has no control over how the community will react to that game design.
This thread isn't for discussing combat trackers vs non-combat trackers. It's personal only combat trackers as a compromise between the two opposing viewpoints (of which I'm pro combat trackers).
question: Would personal only combat trackers increase or decrease toxicity? personally I agree with Noaani's statement here and by having the personal trackers players could get better...
We know Steven's position on combat trackers... he's also stated he's open to feedback. I think this is a legitimate compromise that should be seriously considered.
Anybody who doesn't like combat trackers for ANY reason could just turn them off... it would give them EXACTLY the experience they want.
The only people that lose out is the people who want full combat trackers... but at least they get something rather than nothing. I'd rather have that so I can at least improve my own gameplay and measure my performance against myself than have no combat trackers and the uncomfortable/ambiguous feeling of not knowing how I'm performing.
Apologize for getting off topic.
Players can destroy other players homes. Potential victims of that have plenty of notice and can move their homes to a different node if they're really worried about it. I dunno how players can destroy livelihoods in Ashes. What does that even mean?
Corruption is supposed to curtail toxicity from unwanted attacks from other players, so...if Corruption acts as intended, that should not be toxic.
No one gives a shit about losing 20 minutes worth of harvesting time that it takes to fill your inventory. I am literally never talking about single, small scale PvP in Ashes, because it straight up doesn't matter.
People do care about losing 2,000 minutes worth of harvesting time that it takes to fill a caravan.
I don't agree that will be a thing.
There is not an "ever present chance" to have your home node destroyed.
There is a declaration period when the node cannot be destroyed. The actual siege time is a mere span of hours - IIRC, single-digit hours. Followed by another period of time during which the node - if it survives - cannot be declared upon and therefore cannot be destroyed.
I don't think node leaders can create unjust laws. I think node leaders can hike up taxes to a degree players perceive as unfair. I suppose they could construct buildings and services you don't approve of. I am not aware that a Mayor of a node can kick citizens out of citizenship for not complying.
As far as I can tell, none of the above undermines RP, rather they all enhance the overall narrative of the game world. These days, lots of gamers like to ignore the RP in MMORPG.
I don't think a personal-only combat trackers would increase toxicity. But, as I said earlier, toxicity was only the first reason Steven is against combat trackers.
In addition to that, he wants players to be evaluating combat strategies from the character's story perspective rather than from the player's spreadsheet perspective. He wants combat analysis to be organic rather than mechanical.
And he likes that it provides a kind of mystery effect rather than focusing on the tracker.
Players can get better at combat easily enough without personal combat trackers.
Which is why losing a caravan is not going to be 100% loss. Just as we don't have full loot from direct PvP combat. I'm also pretty sure a caravan is not going to be a 33hr harvesting investment.
We know that a portion of the contents are left as certificates for others to pick up, along with components of your caravan.
We do not know what happens to the rest of the materials. This is why I said as far as we know - we do not know what happens to the rest.
The only two options are that the materials that are not left as certificates from the caravan are destroyed, or that the materials are turned in to certificates and put in the players inventory (which we then have to assume function the same as otehr certificates and are subject to loss in PvP combat).
This is why I specifically did not say that we 100% definately lose all materials on a caravan loss, but rather specifically said as far as we know. Because as far as we know, this is the case. We can not assume it is not the case, though we also can not assume it is 100% the case. If it takes 20 minutes to go out, fill your inventory with harvests and then return home to deposit them, then fulling a caravan of these materials will be a 2,000 minute task - as a caravan holds 100 times the capacity of a players inventory.
Will that always be the case? Probably not.
Do we know for a fact that the 100 times figure has been stated? Yes.
This makes that figure perfectly acceptable to use, until we are given other information.
Not knowing what happens to the rest of a portion is not the same thing as 100% loss.
You have very poor logic skills.
Has it been stated that certificates for Caravan components count as resources?
You said losing a caravan is 100% loss, as far as we know. That is false. You mean you assume losing a caravan is 100% loss.
The only way your assertion about caravan loss with regard to 2000hrs of investment can be meaningful is if you can only start a caravan run when the caravan is full.
I find it hard to believe that Steven has locked caravan runs to maximum risk.
You want to exaggerate everything to the maximum it could possibly be and then pawn that off as general gameplay.
Just because a caravan can hold 100 times the capacity of a basic backpack does not mean it will be general gameplay that people wait until the caravan is 100% full to run it.
It's a good question to ask, I think.
How is the % filled related to the quests associated with the run?
As to this point - the type of caravan where you are moving materials from one location to another is a personal caravan, not a quest related caravan. There is no reason to assume there is a quest related to running these caravans. However, since there is a caravan type that is specifically for quest, if we were to make an assumption one way or the other, it should be that there are no quests related to personal caravans.
Your logic is poor:
We do know that caravans are destroyed. That's not the same thing as 100% loss.
Not knowing what happens to the rest of a portion is not the same thing as 100% loss.
Um. I'm pretty sure that any caravan run involves moving materials from one location to another.
A player who chooses to initiate the caravan run for a specific quest is still going to be concerned about that caravan being destroyed and losing a portion of its contents. It's dishonest to move the goal-post from "a caravan" to specifically "a personal caravan" while you try to squirm away from your false assertion.
We don't know what will happen to the rest of the resources - I even gave the only two possible things that could happen - one of which is that the resources are lost.
I'm not sure why you are finding this hard to understand.
We do not know which of the two options it will be, but one of the two options is that the resources will be lost completely. As such, if we want to, we can make the assumption that this may well be the case. Not that it will be the case, but that it may well be the case. Since there are only two options here, and neither of them have any specific reason to be taken over the other (from a game design perspective, at least), we can not assume one will be chosen over the other and so should be prepared for both.
Again, I have said that there are other possibilities, but that we have no reason at all to assume that there won't be 100% loss of materials with a caravan loss.
It may well be that this is the case, but it also may well be that Intrepid add in quests that require players to deliver a quest McGuffin via the caravan system. Other games with similar systems (Archeage) do this, and it would be foolish to think that Intrepid would dismiss the idea out of hand.
In all honesty, it doesn't make sense to develop an entire different caravan type to transport player harvested materials for quests. There is no reason they can't use the regular carvan system for it.
The very fact that quest caravans are their own type suggests that they will be different - and so the assumption that they will take player harveted materials should not be automatically made.
You have less of a reason to state the above than I do to state that the loss of a caravan will result in 100% material loss. I didn't move the goalpost, you just didn't understand (as usual).
If you don't know and there are two options, then the honest thing to do is not assume anything; not write as far as we know.
The materials have to come from somewhere. I am pretty confident the node is not just going to spawn resources from thin air because, if that were the case, there would be no risk vs reward - which a key element of the design goals.
That the resources are coming from players is a safe assumption. It may not necessarily be from the personal resources of the player initiating the quest, but
No. If you were only talking about personal caravans, it would be up to you to state, "personal caravans".
Otherwise, "a caravan" is a generalization. That is taught in grade school English.
Right from the start I said as far as we know. This means we do not know for sure, but we also have no reason to assume this won't be the case.
As in, we don't know. I said we don't know. I never said I know. I said we don't know.
Learn to fucking read.