Tragnar wrote: » And btw for bosses to have a gimmick that requires the raid to have specific archetype-archetype combo is just lazy design. It has never been a good gameplay to bring a certain player only because his class choice allows the boss to be killable
Noaani wrote: » Recluse74 wrote: » Difficulty and complexity... If you take away the tracker, your complexity lies in figuring out builds by using COMMUNICATION with other players on how you will build your characters and attack said raid boss. Difficulty of the raid boss would then be based on how well you built your team. No it doesn't. I have never once seen an encounter in which a specific build of a character was needed and not blatantly obvious. Not once. In any game. There are encounters that require specific builds from one, some or many people on the raid, but this is always blatantly obvious after a single pull. Honestly, this comment just comes across as someone that thinks they know what raiding is about, but really have no first hand experience at it at all - as this is literally never a situation. As far as me being in the top single digit of raiders... No I will not So, why are you weighing in on a topic that literally only impacts those in that group? Edit: Top end raiders do not make the game. I agree with this statement. However, Steven has said that he wants content in the game that only a small fraction of the population will kill (less than 10%). He wants that in the game because that gives everyone else something to strive for - meaning that even the content put in for that small fraction of the game is really there for the larger population. However, in order to have that small fraction of the population able to take on something that the rest aren't, you need a small percentage of the population that are "better" (in quotes because better in terms of raiding is multi-faceted, and doesn'tonly mean better in the way many think it does) than the bulk of the population. In other words, the stated aim for Ashes to have that small amount of content that only a small percentage of the population are able to kill does indeed require top end raiders. Recluse74 wrote: » My issue is, his line of thinking is, if people are going to use them anyway, you might as well just let everyone use them by adding them to the game. That is not my line of thinking. My line of thinking is - combat trackers will be in the game, either first, second or third party. The best thing for all people involved is if Intrepid have control over combat trackers. In order for Intrepid to have control over combat trackers, they need to implement a combat tracker that provides no less than the minimum people like myself consider necessary. If Intrepid offer this, then developing second or third party combat trackers simply isn't worth the time, meaning they won't exist. From there, my line of thinking goes on to detail exactly what the minimum required is - a combat tracker that is available to top end guilds, and can track a full raid and it's target encounter with every action being recorded. Based on this, my suggestion is and has always been that a combat tracker be added to the game as a guild perk option that is available at the same point as many other valuable things to other types of guilds, so that only the few guilds that really value a combat tracker would consider taking it. When selected, this combat tracker is available to which ever ranks the guilds leadership assigns access to (only leaders, all officers, all full members, all members, what ever works for the guild in question). Further, this combat tracker only tracks the combat of members of that specific guild. If you have a raid made up of two guilds that both have this perk selected, each guild has it's own readout that only shows the members of that guild. Rather than being an always-on UI element, this combat tracker will be a part of the guild window, and those with access can look up encounters from the past 6 hours (if that player was present for the pull). Additionally, the guild can opt to save specific pulls of encounters so they remain able to be viewed longer than 6 hours, and can be viewed by whom ever has access to that guilds combat tracker. This has been my point for several years. Find an issue with it.
Recluse74 wrote: » Difficulty and complexity... If you take away the tracker, your complexity lies in figuring out builds by using COMMUNICATION with other players on how you will build your characters and attack said raid boss. Difficulty of the raid boss would then be based on how well you built your team.
As far as me being in the top single digit of raiders... No I will not
Edit: Top end raiders do not make the game.
Recluse74 wrote: » My issue is, his line of thinking is, if people are going to use them anyway, you might as well just let everyone use them by adding them to the game.
Recluse74 wrote: » ...3rd party ones would be made to give more info than the in game ones, again... giving players more of an advantage. This will happen anyway, in game tracker or not, and we both know this. But I refuse to jump on the bandwagon of adding them to the game so people do not FEEL they are at a disadvantage.
Dygz wrote: » Content can be hard and challenging, but, in Ashes, the hardest, most challenging content is going to be sieges and caravan battles. PvP; not PvE. And combat trackers are not really going to help prep for sieges and caravan battles. Which is also why the devs are not concerned about not supporting combat trackers.
Recluse74 wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Recluse74 wrote: » Difficulty and complexity... If you take away the tracker, your complexity lies in figuring out builds by using COMMUNICATION with other players on how you will build your characters and attack said raid boss. Difficulty of the raid boss would then be based on how well you built your team. No it doesn't. I have never once seen an encounter in which a specific build of a character was needed and not blatantly obvious. Not once. In any game. There are encounters that require specific builds from one, some or many people on the raid, but this is always blatantly obvious after a single pull. Honestly, this comment just comes across as someone that thinks they know what raiding is about, but really have no first hand experience at it at all - as this is literally never a situation. As far as me being in the top single digit of raiders... No I will not So, why are you weighing in on a topic that literally only impacts those in that group? Edit: Top end raiders do not make the game. I agree with this statement. However, Steven has said that he wants content in the game that only a small fraction of the population will kill (less than 10%). He wants that in the game because that gives everyone else something to strive for - meaning that even the content put in for that small fraction of the game is really there for the larger population. However, in order to have that small fraction of the population able to take on something that the rest aren't, you need a small percentage of the population that are "better" (in quotes because better in terms of raiding is multi-faceted, and doesn'tonly mean better in the way many think it does) than the bulk of the population. In other words, the stated aim for Ashes to have that small amount of content that only a small percentage of the population are able to kill does indeed require top end raiders. Recluse74 wrote: » My issue is, his line of thinking is, if people are going to use them anyway, you might as well just let everyone use them by adding them to the game. That is not my line of thinking. My line of thinking is - combat trackers will be in the game, either first, second or third party. The best thing for all people involved is if Intrepid have control over combat trackers. In order for Intrepid to have control over combat trackers, they need to implement a combat tracker that provides no less than the minimum people like myself consider necessary. If Intrepid offer this, then developing second or third party combat trackers simply isn't worth the time, meaning they won't exist. From there, my line of thinking goes on to detail exactly what the minimum required is - a combat tracker that is available to top end guilds, and can track a full raid and it's target encounter with every action being recorded. Based on this, my suggestion is and has always been that a combat tracker be added to the game as a guild perk option that is available at the same point as many other valuable things to other types of guilds, so that only the few guilds that really value a combat tracker would consider taking it. When selected, this combat tracker is available to which ever ranks the guilds leadership assigns access to (only leaders, all officers, all full members, all members, what ever works for the guild in question). Further, this combat tracker only tracks the combat of members of that specific guild. If you have a raid made up of two guilds that both have this perk selected, each guild has it's own readout that only shows the members of that guild. Rather than being an always-on UI element, this combat tracker will be a part of the guild window, and those with access can look up encounters from the past 6 hours (if that player was present for the pull). Additionally, the guild can opt to save specific pulls of encounters so they remain able to be viewed longer than 6 hours, and can be viewed by whom ever has access to that guilds combat tracker. This has been my point for several years. Find an issue with it. TLDR; Trackers give an advantage to every aspect of the game, so any player participating in said game has a say on whether they want trackers in or not. Trackers will be used, we know this, and other people will employ more comprehensive trackers or methods to get an advantage over other known trackers, creating a very slippery slope that will eventually lead to most players using one, just so the can compete.
Dygz wrote: » I guess that depends on what type of combat trackers we're talking about because most people in this thread seem to be claiming that combat trackers are most useful after a battle. After a battle is not going to help you with a siege or caravan battle. Also, in my experience, it's after a battle that the group/raid leader starts complaining about people with poor performance (and kick them).
TheOrdinary wrote: » Recluse74 wrote: » ...3rd party ones would be made to give more info than the in game ones, again... giving players more of an advantage. This will happen anyway, in game tracker or not, and we both know this. But I refuse to jump on the bandwagon of adding them to the game so people do not FEEL they are at a disadvantage. Steven has said that 3rd party addons will not be a thing in AoC, so whatever they add to the game dps meter/tracker-wise will be the final say in the matter. I don't really understand why people wouldn't want a combat tracker. Trackers let you know what you are or aren't doing compared to others and what you could be doing better.
Noaani wrote: » Recluse74 wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Recluse74 wrote: » Difficulty and complexity... If you take away the tracker, your complexity lies in figuring out builds by using COMMUNICATION with other players on how you will build your characters and attack said raid boss. Difficulty of the raid boss would then be based on how well you built your team. No it doesn't. I have never once seen an encounter in which a specific build of a character was needed and not blatantly obvious. Not once. In any game. There are encounters that require specific builds from one, some or many people on the raid, but this is always blatantly obvious after a single pull. Honestly, this comment just comes across as someone that thinks they know what raiding is about, but really have no first hand experience at it at all - as this is literally never a situation. As far as me being in the top single digit of raiders... No I will not So, why are you weighing in on a topic that literally only impacts those in that group? Edit: Top end raiders do not make the game. I agree with this statement. However, Steven has said that he wants content in the game that only a small fraction of the population will kill (less than 10%). He wants that in the game because that gives everyone else something to strive for - meaning that even the content put in for that small fraction of the game is really there for the larger population. However, in order to have that small fraction of the population able to take on something that the rest aren't, you need a small percentage of the population that are "better" (in quotes because better in terms of raiding is multi-faceted, and doesn'tonly mean better in the way many think it does) than the bulk of the population. In other words, the stated aim for Ashes to have that small amount of content that only a small percentage of the population are able to kill does indeed require top end raiders. Recluse74 wrote: » My issue is, his line of thinking is, if people are going to use them anyway, you might as well just let everyone use them by adding them to the game. That is not my line of thinking. My line of thinking is - combat trackers will be in the game, either first, second or third party. The best thing for all people involved is if Intrepid have control over combat trackers. In order for Intrepid to have control over combat trackers, they need to implement a combat tracker that provides no less than the minimum people like myself consider necessary. If Intrepid offer this, then developing second or third party combat trackers simply isn't worth the time, meaning they won't exist. From there, my line of thinking goes on to detail exactly what the minimum required is - a combat tracker that is available to top end guilds, and can track a full raid and it's target encounter with every action being recorded. Based on this, my suggestion is and has always been that a combat tracker be added to the game as a guild perk option that is available at the same point as many other valuable things to other types of guilds, so that only the few guilds that really value a combat tracker would consider taking it. When selected, this combat tracker is available to which ever ranks the guilds leadership assigns access to (only leaders, all officers, all full members, all members, what ever works for the guild in question). Further, this combat tracker only tracks the combat of members of that specific guild. If you have a raid made up of two guilds that both have this perk selected, each guild has it's own readout that only shows the members of that guild. Rather than being an always-on UI element, this combat tracker will be a part of the guild window, and those with access can look up encounters from the past 6 hours (if that player was present for the pull). Additionally, the guild can opt to save specific pulls of encounters so they remain able to be viewed longer than 6 hours, and can be viewed by whom ever has access to that guilds combat tracker. This has been my point for several years. Find an issue with it. TLDR; Trackers give an advantage to every aspect of the game, so any player participating in said game has a say on whether they want trackers in or not. Trackers will be used, we know this, and other people will employ more comprehensive trackers or methods to get an advantage over other known trackers, creating a very slippery slope that will eventually lead to most players using one, just so the can compete. Combat tracker development is driven by raiders. In fact, it is performed by raiders - almost all combat trackers (all that I know of) are developed by raiders. If the game has a combat tracker that meets the desires of raiders, then these people have no need to put that time and effort in to developing another one. If you want the least exposure to trackers possible, you know that my suggestion (that I have been making for about two years) is the best chance you have. It may not work - this is absolutely true. However, there have been many, many games that have said they don't want trackers, that have said they will ban people caught using them, who have them accepted they are just a fact of life in MMO's. So, either Intrepid do what other MMO's have done, and end up in the same place as those other MMO's, or they try and do something different to what those other MMO's have done, and hope for a different result. Since performing the same action and expecting a different result is clearly not smart, I don't see why anyone that is not happy with how trackers are used in games like GW2 would want Intrepid to continue down the path they are on, as that is where it leads. You have said yourself that you know the path Intrepid are on will see combat trackers in the game, so why would you want Intrepid to stick to a path that you know won't work, when other options exist to attempt?
Recluse74 wrote: » You keep going back to the argument that IS should add them because they will be there anyway... You have to know that is a horrible and lazy argument.. right? Please tell me you understand that is a horrible way of thinking.
Dygz wrote: » He's going to tell you his way of thinking is correct for another 10 pages...and for another 10 months.
Recluse74 wrote: » But what it basically comes down to, is some players want to play organically, and others want meters to tell them how good or bad they are.
Noaani wrote: » Recluse74 wrote: » But what it basically comes down to, is some players want to play organically, and others want meters to tell them how good or bad they are. This is a fairly good summary of parts of this argument. This is why the suggestion I have been making for years now would leave those jot wanting combat trackers in a position where that is possible. Assuming people join guilds of like-minded people, those that want trackers will have them, and those that dont wont have them and wont be able to have others use them to gauge their combat. Essentially, it is the only way I can see as actually viable for people that dont want trackers to be able to play a game knowing that random people in their group are not using trackers to assess them. As far as I can see, based on around 90 pages of discussion on this topic on these forums, that is the major desire of people that dont want trackers. It isnt the only one, it is the major one. The only way that will happen is if Intrepid are in full control of trackers, and the only way they will have that control is if they provide raiders with trackers for raiding. You claim it is a lazy argument, but it is a basic principle of design. You should always design a product based on how you know people will use it, not on how you want them to use it (this is Apples moto, and Apple are, in my opinion, the singular most evil company on the planet - and I use that word for its proper, dictionary definition). If Intrepid know that players will use combat trackers with Ashes, it is lazy of them to not try and work with that knowledge to make the game better for all. It is not lazy to point that fact out to them.
Recluse74 wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Recluse74 wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Recluse74 wrote: » Difficulty and complexity... If you take away the tracker, your complexity lies in figuring out builds by using COMMUNICATION with other players on how you will build your characters and attack said raid boss. Difficulty of the raid boss would then be based on how well you built your team. No it doesn't. I have never once seen an encounter in which a specific build of a character was needed and not blatantly obvious. Not once. In any game. There are encounters that require specific builds from one, some or many people on the raid, but this is always blatantly obvious after a single pull. Honestly, this comment just comes across as someone that thinks they know what raiding is about, but really have no first hand experience at it at all - as this is literally never a situation. As far as me being in the top single digit of raiders... No I will not So, why are you weighing in on a topic that literally only impacts those in that group? Edit: Top end raiders do not make the game. I agree with this statement. However, Steven has said that he wants content in the game that only a small fraction of the population will kill (less than 10%). He wants that in the game because that gives everyone else something to strive for - meaning that even the content put in for that small fraction of the game is really there for the larger population. However, in order to have that small fraction of the population able to take on something that the rest aren't, you need a small percentage of the population that are "better" (in quotes because better in terms of raiding is multi-faceted, and doesn'tonly mean better in the way many think it does) than the bulk of the population. In other words, the stated aim for Ashes to have that small amount of content that only a small percentage of the population are able to kill does indeed require top end raiders. Recluse74 wrote: » My issue is, his line of thinking is, if people are going to use them anyway, you might as well just let everyone use them by adding them to the game. That is not my line of thinking. My line of thinking is - combat trackers will be in the game, either first, second or third party. The best thing for all people involved is if Intrepid have control over combat trackers. In order for Intrepid to have control over combat trackers, they need to implement a combat tracker that provides no less than the minimum people like myself consider necessary. If Intrepid offer this, then developing second or third party combat trackers simply isn't worth the time, meaning they won't exist. From there, my line of thinking goes on to detail exactly what the minimum required is - a combat tracker that is available to top end guilds, and can track a full raid and it's target encounter with every action being recorded. Based on this, my suggestion is and has always been that a combat tracker be added to the game as a guild perk option that is available at the same point as many other valuable things to other types of guilds, so that only the few guilds that really value a combat tracker would consider taking it. When selected, this combat tracker is available to which ever ranks the guilds leadership assigns access to (only leaders, all officers, all full members, all members, what ever works for the guild in question). Further, this combat tracker only tracks the combat of members of that specific guild. If you have a raid made up of two guilds that both have this perk selected, each guild has it's own readout that only shows the members of that guild. Rather than being an always-on UI element, this combat tracker will be a part of the guild window, and those with access can look up encounters from the past 6 hours (if that player was present for the pull). Additionally, the guild can opt to save specific pulls of encounters so they remain able to be viewed longer than 6 hours, and can be viewed by whom ever has access to that guilds combat tracker. This has been my point for several years. Find an issue with it. TLDR; Trackers give an advantage to every aspect of the game, so any player participating in said game has a say on whether they want trackers in or not. Trackers will be used, we know this, and other people will employ more comprehensive trackers or methods to get an advantage over other known trackers, creating a very slippery slope that will eventually lead to most players using one, just so the can compete. Combat tracker development is driven by raiders. In fact, it is performed by raiders - almost all combat trackers (all that I know of) are developed by raiders. If the game has a combat tracker that meets the desires of raiders, then these people have no need to put that time and effort in to developing another one. If you want the least exposure to trackers possible, you know that my suggestion (that I have been making for about two years) is the best chance you have. It may not work - this is absolutely true. However, there have been many, many games that have said they don't want trackers, that have said they will ban people caught using them, who have them accepted they are just a fact of life in MMO's. So, either Intrepid do what other MMO's have done, and end up in the same place as those other MMO's, or they try and do something different to what those other MMO's have done, and hope for a different result. Since performing the same action and expecting a different result is clearly not smart, I don't see why anyone that is not happy with how trackers are used in games like GW2 would want Intrepid to continue down the path they are on, as that is where it leads. You have said yourself that you know the path Intrepid are on will see combat trackers in the game, so why would you want Intrepid to stick to a path that you know won't work, when other options exist to attempt? Your plan to make it a Guild perk.. I was all for at first, but the more I thought about it, the more I did not think it fit. Mainly because you said things like you would still use one if the game did not provide it. So basically even if it was a guild perk, you could skip the perk, take the Guild Damage perk, and use your addon and get both advantages. See the issue here?
Recluse74 wrote: » Your plan to make it a Guild perk.. I was all for at first, but the more I thought about it, the more I did not think it fit. Mainly because you said things like you would still use one if the game did not provide it. So basically even if it was a guild perk, you could skip the perk, take the Guild Damage perk, and use your addon and get both advantages. See the issue here?
Noaani wrote: » Recluse74 wrote: » Your plan to make it a Guild perk.. I was all for at first, but the more I thought about it, the more I did not think it fit. Mainly because you said things like you would still use one if the game did not provide it. So basically even if it was a guild perk, you could skip the perk, take the Guild Damage perk, and use your addon and get both advantages. See the issue here? I can see how people not overly familiar with the conversation could see an issue there. I can go in to a longer version of this if you wanted, but the short version is - if the other options to pick are thi gs that assist members of the guild with running group or solo content, or offer up occasional bonus harvests while out gathering, a raid guild simply wouldn't be interested in these things at all, and *ABSOLUTELY* wouldn't consider the effort needed to be worth it for something like that. However, a guild that is all about crafting would probably quite like bonus harvests as one of their guild perks, and a guild that runs group content all the time may well enjoy a buff in that content.
