Noaani wrote: » Recluse74 wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Recluse74 wrote: » There are two views on why combat trackers should not be allowed. These are views that have been discussed in the larger thread. I don't think they are the major factors, but they are definitely reasons. To me, the idea that a combat tracker will get players though content faster is actually a reason to have one built in to the game. Players absolutely will have a combat tracker, and so will complete the games initial content in that same amount of time. Intrepid can say they don't want combat trackers, and can even ban accounts seen to be using them, but that won't stop - or even really slow - their use. It will just mean people don't openly talk about them. If that combat tracker is built in to the game, it means the content we have at the start can be tuned for combat tracker use during beta. This is the only way to slow down the rate that players complete content - design it with combat trackers that players will be using in mind. Why do you even respond anymore? You just basically said the same exact thing I did.... but tried to spin it as I was wrong for what I said. I told myself I was never going to respond to you again, so now that I lied to myself, I am going to lie to you.. I hope you are successful in AoC. I'm not sure what this is all about. As I said, I agree that the fact that players will get through content faster with combat trackers vs without them is a factor to consider, I disagree with Intrwpids view that this is a reason to not have them - as I said above, it is a reason to have them in the game during beta so the content can be properly tuned to take the appropriate amount t of time when the game goes live. In other words, I agree with you and your points, I disagree with Intrepid. Dont turn in to Dygz, he thinks everything is about him.
Recluse74 wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Recluse74 wrote: » There are two views on why combat trackers should not be allowed. These are views that have been discussed in the larger thread. I don't think they are the major factors, but they are definitely reasons. To me, the idea that a combat tracker will get players though content faster is actually a reason to have one built in to the game. Players absolutely will have a combat tracker, and so will complete the games initial content in that same amount of time. Intrepid can say they don't want combat trackers, and can even ban accounts seen to be using them, but that won't stop - or even really slow - their use. It will just mean people don't openly talk about them. If that combat tracker is built in to the game, it means the content we have at the start can be tuned for combat tracker use during beta. This is the only way to slow down the rate that players complete content - design it with combat trackers that players will be using in mind. Why do you even respond anymore? You just basically said the same exact thing I did.... but tried to spin it as I was wrong for what I said. I told myself I was never going to respond to you again, so now that I lied to myself, I am going to lie to you.. I hope you are successful in AoC.
Noaani wrote: » Recluse74 wrote: » There are two views on why combat trackers should not be allowed. These are views that have been discussed in the larger thread. I don't think they are the major factors, but they are definitely reasons. To me, the idea that a combat tracker will get players though content faster is actually a reason to have one built in to the game. Players absolutely will have a combat tracker, and so will complete the games initial content in that same amount of time. Intrepid can say they don't want combat trackers, and can even ban accounts seen to be using them, but that won't stop - or even really slow - their use. It will just mean people don't openly talk about them. If that combat tracker is built in to the game, it means the content we have at the start can be tuned for combat tracker use during beta. This is the only way to slow down the rate that players complete content - design it with combat trackers that players will be using in mind.
Recluse74 wrote: » There are two views on why combat trackers should not be allowed.
Recluse74 wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Recluse74 wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Recluse74 wrote: » There are two views on why combat trackers should not be allowed. These are views that have been discussed in the larger thread. I don't think they are the major factors, but they are definitely reasons. To me, the idea that a combat tracker will get players though content faster is actually a reason to have one built in to the game. Players absolutely will have a combat tracker, and so will complete the games initial content in that same amount of time. Intrepid can say they don't want combat trackers, and can even ban accounts seen to be using them, but that won't stop - or even really slow - their use. It will just mean people don't openly talk about them. If that combat tracker is built in to the game, it means the content we have at the start can be tuned for combat tracker use during beta. This is the only way to slow down the rate that players complete content - design it with combat trackers that players will be using in mind. Why do you even respond anymore? You just basically said the same exact thing I did.... but tried to spin it as I was wrong for what I said. I told myself I was never going to respond to you again, so now that I lied to myself, I am going to lie to you.. I hope you are successful in AoC. I'm not sure what this is all about. As I said, I agree that the fact that players will get through content faster with combat trackers vs without them is a factor to consider, I disagree with Intrwpids view that this is a reason to not have them - as I said above, it is a reason to have them in the game during beta so the content can be properly tuned to take the appropriate amount t of time when the game goes live. In other words, I agree with you and your points, I disagree with Intrepid. Dont turn in to Dygz, he thinks everything is about him. First and foremost, Do not bring compare me to Dygz, I am willing to bet he is one hell of a better person than I am, and it is not fair to him.
Noaani wrote: » Recluse74 wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Recluse74 wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Recluse74 wrote: » There are two views on why combat trackers should not be allowed. These are views that have been discussed in the larger thread. I don't think they are the major factors, but they are definitely reasons. To me, the idea that a combat tracker will get players though content faster is actually a reason to have one built in to the game. Players absolutely will have a combat tracker, and so will complete the games initial content in that same amount of time. Intrepid can say they don't want combat trackers, and can even ban accounts seen to be using them, but that won't stop - or even really slow - their use. It will just mean people don't openly talk about them. If that combat tracker is built in to the game, it means the content we have at the start can be tuned for combat tracker use during beta. This is the only way to slow down the rate that players complete content - design it with combat trackers that players will be using in mind. Why do you even respond anymore? You just basically said the same exact thing I did.... but tried to spin it as I was wrong for what I said. I told myself I was never going to respond to you again, so now that I lied to myself, I am going to lie to you.. I hope you are successful in AoC. I'm not sure what this is all about. As I said, I agree that the fact that players will get through content faster with combat trackers vs without them is a factor to consider, I disagree with Intrwpids view that this is a reason to not have them - as I said above, it is a reason to have them in the game during beta so the content can be properly tuned to take the appropriate amount t of time when the game goes live. In other words, I agree with you and your points, I disagree with Intrepid. Dont turn in to Dygz, he thinks everything is about him. First and foremost, Do not bring compare me to Dygz, I am willing to bet he is one hell of a better person than I am, and it is not fair to him. I disagree entirely. I've debated with him on these forums far more than you, and I can say with perfect confidence that you are the better person. Smarter, significantly more to the point, and from what I can tell, just a nicer person in general. You can take that as a compliment to you, an indictment to him, or a reflection on me, I'm not concerned either way. I know you are not talking about alpha, beta or anything, you are talking about live. So am I. In my mind, the best way to have well balanced top end content on launch day is to balance it in beta. While most games do not balance their top end content in beta, there is no reason this needs to be the case. They balance low end content here, it is simply a matter of time that usually prevents them from also looking at top end. So while I may be talking about beta, I am only doing so with an eye to launch day. I am of the opinion that on launch day, content should be as balanced as possible for how players will play it. This seems to be something you agree with - correct me if I am wrong.
Recluse74 wrote: » Balancing will be impossible to figure out even with trackers.
Vhaeyne wrote: » I want to take the safe bet where they give us the same lines about how the raids will be dynamic enough to challenge any group, but static enough so that you can feel a sense of progression. Without addressing the fact zergs will dominate open world raids.
Vhaeyne wrote: » Any predictions on weather they will address our concerns about high end open world raids? I want to take the safe bet where they give us the same lines about how the raids will be dynamic enough to challenge any group, but static enough so that you can feel a sense of progression. Without addressing the fact zergs will dominate open world raids.
Dygz wrote: » I don't think the devs have enough info yet to meaningfully address concerns about high end raids. Level cap is 20 and they only have half the Primary Archetypes available for test. So, even if they have enough NDA testers to test raids, they don't have enough content to test high end raids.
Vhaeyne wrote: » Hey @Noaani! They are talking raids tomorrow... Any predictions on weather they will address our concerns about high end open world raids? I want to take the safe bet where they give us the same lines about how the raids will be dynamic enough to challenge any group, but static enough so that you can feel a sense of progression. Without addressing the fact zergs will dominate open world raids. The optimist in me says they might explain that some high-end bosses will need to be instanced, but the way to gain access to the instance will be competitive in the open world. I am hoping we learn something new.
Dygz wrote: » If you aren't going to allow add-ons you have to make sure you include all the features you want the players to be using. Knowing that, he is not implementing combat trackers - even though he knows there are people who want them and that he's not going to allow add-ons. So... I really don't understand what your point is intended to be.
Stupid simple is subjective. I think what you mean is that back in the day encounters were not designed to give combat trackers meaningful utility. If you're going to implement combat trackers, you're going to design encounters to be difficult enough to support players using combat trackers.
They could help with that, but are most commonly used to enforce FOTM, cookie-cutter builds. IME
Vhaeyne wrote: » Dygz wrote: » I don't think the devs have enough info yet to meaningfully address concerns about high end raids. Level cap is 20 and they only have half the Primary Archetypes available for test. So, even if they have enough NDA testers to test raids, they don't have enough content to test high end raids. I think they know a lot more than they have talked about in the past. There are two decade of MMO raid history to draw from, and some of the DEV are already a part of that history. They have not had much news about high end raids in a while. I feel like it is about time we heard something new. I am pretty optimistic about tomorrows live stream.
Tragnar wrote: » Personally, i'd be totally fine if there was just a way to save combat log into a file, but if I have to use 3rd party software either in the form of dps meters or screen recording software to make accessible permanent log of the ingame combat log then i will always say that the game isn't completed. Why else the game would show damage numbers if it isnt for giving us exactly that information.
having only 1 mechanic - that being a dps check is not simple in an objective sense, but in objective you are literally in a true/false state in terms of requirements to kill the boss. If you can't accept that having 1 mechanic is the definition of simplicity then i wouldn't be surprised if you believe the earth is flat
FOTM, cookie-cutter builds are enforced even without meters, because what specs are enforced depends on the game meta and you dont get rid of meta if you make for people harder to gather information
Dygz wrote: » having only 1 mechanic - that being a dps check is not simple in an objective sense, but in objective you are literally in a true/false state in terms of requirements to kill the boss. If you can't accept that having 1 mechanic is the definition of simplicity then i wouldn't be surprised if you believe the earth is flat I don't agree with your assertion about a true/false state in terms of requirements to kill the boss. As in, I don't believe there is a true/false state of requirements.
FOTM, cookie-cutter builds are enforced even without meters, because what specs are enforced depends on the game meta and you dont get rid of meta if you make for people harder to gather information Some people will try to promote them. It will be more difficult to get others to accept them. I didn't say not having combat trackers will "get rid of" meta.
Noaani wrote: » Players absolutely will have a combat tracker, and so will complete the games initial content in that same amount of time.
BlackBrony wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Players absolutely will have a combat tracker, and so will complete the games initial content in that same amount of time. For me this is reason enough to no have a Combat Tracker. Even if the game ships with one, I am 100% sure it won't be enough. People will want more, and will still have another combat tracker outside of the game. So having or not having a DPS meter ensures the same result, might as well make it harder like Steven wants.
Noaani wrote: » BlackBrony wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Players absolutely will have a combat tracker, and so will complete the games initial content in that same amount of time. For me this is reason enough to no have a Combat Tracker. Even if the game ships with one, I am 100% sure it won't be enough. People will want more, and will still have another combat tracker outside of the game. So having or not having a DPS meter ensures the same result, might as well make it harder like Steven wants. If you have combat trackers, and the developers know this, they can design the content with that in mind. Assuming the combat tracker offers up all needed information, there is nothing left to be gained by having an additional combat tracker.
