Compromise for DPS Meters: Tooltip Numbers

So as we know Ashes of Creation will most likely not have any DPS meters. I am personally all for this as I think it becomes a form of Gatekeeping and actually forces a Meta rather than open discussions on how to improve. When it is easy to tell the exact best way to play the game, it ruins the fun and becomes about following the guide you have pulled up on another screen.

However, I would like to propose as a compromise that we do have Tooltip DPS and/or Raw Numbers on the Tooltip. That way it is easy to tell how much you gain or lose by putting on a new piece of gear. Somewhat similar to how Path of Exile does it.

What is everyone's thoughts on this?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

akabear

So how is this managed?

Ashes of Creation utilizes an adaptive artificial intelligence (AI), which means that different encounters with similar creatures will yield different player experiences.[17]
Utilizing new AI technology that hasn't been seen in other MMORPG projects.[18]
Bosses are scripted and make decisions dynamically during boss fights.[19]

Noaani

RocketFarmer wrote: »

The exploit of using monster coins in advance of a node war/siege.

Not saying the exploit is easy to pull off since the flags aren’t cheap and don’t last forever to align with random events.

I think you are missing the key elements of these events.

The first element is that they are triggered at random. Players do not have any say at all over when these events happen.

When they do happen, the mobs are AI controlled, and players can opt to use a monster coin to take over control of a monster.

However, since players can't trigger these events, they can't plan around them. They may be able to make use of them if one happens to be triggered when they are about to siege a node, but since they can't plan for that, it is pure luck.

Tragnar

damn 5 pages of posts

i literally dont understand people that want to play build based game and are asking for the game to hide all numbers so you can only see "small damage" "moderate damage" "big damage"

not even realizing that even this is enough for machine learning to dig out number thresholds and values

for a dps meter where the measurement unit could be anything static that is found in the game

if a game wants me to create a build, but cant tell what the building blocks do then i just cant be bothered with that game, because it has become literal gambling game where you are just praying that your build setup is any good

Vhaeyne

Tragnar wrote: »

damn 5 pages of posts

i literally dont understand people that want to play build based game and are asking for the game to hide all numbers so you can only see "small damage" "moderate damage" "big damage"

not even realizing that even this is enough for machine learning to dig out number thresholds and values for a dps meter where the measurement unit could be anything static that is found in the game

if a game wants me to create a build, but cant tell what the building blocks do then i just cant be bothered with that game, because it has become literal gambling game where you are just praying that your build setup is any good

Don't destroy the hope that there will be a game with no meters! These people need something to live for! Even if it is a lie!

Tragnar

Vhaeyne wrote: »

Don't destroy the hope that there will be a game with no meters! These people need something to live for! Even if it is a lie!

I don't understand how they can't know that when literally all science in the last 100-150 years has been done by this method of figuring other stuff out no matter how limited information, computers just sped up some of the processes

and I don't think that anyone wants to play a game that says every time you do damage or heal "you dealt unknown damage" "you healed for unknown amount"

Maezriel

Tragnar wrote: »

I don't think that anyone wants to play a game that says every time you do damage or heal "you dealt unknown damage" "you healed for unknown amount"

This is exactly why I think Bardtic asking for informative tooltips as a compromise to meters is utterly insane. A compromise for meters is having them in a limited area instead of removing them entirely...Tooltips should have the numbers for what you're doing...it's really their only job

I don't sit down to a game of D&D and not know my potential minimum and maximum damage and that's the most immersive game humans have ever created.

Tragnar

I firmly believe that people that want the game "harder" by not having meters only like the "idea" of it being hard so being successful in the game gains on value, because they did not use tools to achieve that

They just don't want their carebear bubble torn by facts that their build is not as strong as they believed to the theoretical maximum that theorycrafting provides. So they can stay under the illusion of being "the best" even though it is just a result of them being better than anyone in their vicinity with their suboptimal build that satisfies the requirements of beating others that you come across.

Dygz

"Carebears" don't care whether their build is the "strongest" or can be based on the theoretical maximum.
And they aren't striving to be 'the best".

Tragnar

i probably shouldnt have used "carebear" at all - i had a bad misconception that it was a fitting description of players not strong enough to handle objective facts, but to be rather under the illusion of being the best, even though they are just the best from the small pool of players in their vicinity

Noaani

You are generally right though, regardless of whether that term describes the people you are talking about.

None of the arguments for why an MMO in general shouldn't support combat trackers have been viable. They are all built on demonstrably false assumptions.

This leaves the only two things I can think of as being people being unable to figure out how they work and so not wanting others to have that advantage (it is clear that people against trackers do not understand them at all), or that they are afraid that trackers will show how bad they are at the game.

I personally think the first of these is more prevalent, but both exist. I can't think of any other viable reason people would be against them after discussion on the matter.

Trax

Maezriel wrote: »

I don't sit down to a game of D&D and not know my potential minimum and maximum damage and that's the most immersive game humans have ever created.

On the flip side, lots of DM's run tables where meta-gaming is disallowed and punished. Plenty of people choose the club over the rapier (talking 5e here) for rp reasons, paying no mind to the min/max effects. It should come as no surprise that people want the same experience in a video game.

What people are worried about who don't want meters really doesn't have anything to do with meters (although the occasional 'toxicity' argument appears, it hardly holds water and I doubt the people making it have much experience in FFA PvP Loot games, which are historically hyper toxic).

The issue is that every build that is 'sub optimal' quickly becomes shed from the game, destroying player identity and agency as they become compelled to conform or be exiled. Combat parsing is how you get from 64 classes to 4. Combat parsing is how the cries for hyper balance (and unachievable dream) result in the watering down of every class until they are basically the same as every other class with only animation differences. Class identity and player agency are vital to retain a healthy player base, and protecting the individuality of classes and the ability for players to choose is a worthwhile cause.

Tragnar

it is a tradeoff - you play what is good or you play what you like, you cant expect for the game to make both the same thing for everyone's preferences. Trying to prevent how good something is fools errand that is a battle between developers vs the entire minmax/theorycraft playerbase making the game indirectly loose content, because dev resources are wasted on this battle to follow this philosophy

Noaani

Trax wrote: »

The issue is that every build that is 'sub optimal' quickly becomes shed from the game, destroying player identity and agency as they become compelled to conform or be exiled.

I am of the opinion that if someone has a theory on what could happen in a game, then if one can find a similar situation in another game, that same thing - or something similar - should also happen.

A similar game here is Archeage.

In many ways, Archeage is very similar to Ashes.

There are many builds for players to pick from, and all characters can be what ever class/build they wish for virtually nothing. Players are essentially free to change their class and build at will, as often as they like.

It also has very low combat tracker use (the one tracker I know of for the game had single digit downloads when I saw it).

So, if your theory that a combat tracker is what causes a meta game in terms of builds (players basically dictating what builds others can have), then it would have to follow that there would be none of this activity in Archeage.

I mean, no combat trackers, freedom to change class/build as often as you want, players should be free to play how they want according to your theory, right?

Thing is, for the 4 years I played that game fairly in depth, the meta of the game was restricted to exactly 5 classes. If you were not one of those 5 classes, you were not participating in anything other than under-manned public events.

When I looked at the game a few years after I left, the game still had that same meta. So, for at least 7 years, the games meta didn't change - even though the classes themselves changed fairly drastically.

The reason for this is fairly obvious, when you are the only one running a combat tracker and can actually see what is going on.

People discovered a few classes that were fairly good right at the start of the game (in this case, during the Korean beta - before the game was even being considered for translation to English). From that point, those classes became what people expected. Since there was no way to objectively assess potential new builds (or - most people thought there was no way), they simply held on to the meta that was generally working well enough for them.

A combat tracker doesn't restrict the builds that players can run - other players restrict that. Players will do this regardless of a combat tracker being in use or not.

The advantage of a combat tracker to those that want more build variety is that it will allow those wanting to run different builds the ability to prove their build to others.

I have no real intention to run pick up content in Ashes. However, if I did, and there were no combat trackers, you had better believe I would require people run a build I am familiar with.

Throw in a tracker, and I'm happy to let anyone I am taking along on content to try out any build they wish, as long as they are willing to change it if it isn't working.

Dygz

I dunno, I mean...I don't need numbers to know that I should probably use a newbie weapon with a [Worn] tag.
Just as I should probably know in D&D that I probably want a +1 or +2 weapon rather than a newbie +0 weapon. I don't need numbers to identify higher tiers of quality.
Also, I don't need numbers to tell me that a sword will likely do more damage than a dagger.

In the Alpha One Preview, when I was ready to switch from a Worn Mace to something better, I chose a Spear that did not have the [Worn] tag because they didn't have any other Maces and Spear seemed the closest fit to Cleric. I did not need numbers to tell me Spear was better at AOE than the Mace. And I didn't need numbers to tell me how much more damage the new Spear did compared to the Worn Mace.

Also, because in D&D Clerics were basically limited to blunt weapons, even in Ashes, my Cleric would stick to Maces and Hammers - possibly a Spear - if I were going for a tribal theme.
I would not have my Cleric use a Dagger, Sword or Ax regardless of how much better the stats might be.

Noaani

Dygz wrote: »

In the Alpha One Preview, when I was ready to switch from a Worn Mace to something better, I chose a Spear that did not have the [Worn] tag because they didn't have any other Maces and Spear seemed the closest fit to Cleric. I did not need numbers to tell me Spear was better at AOE than the Mace. And I didn't need numbers to tell me how much more damage the new Spear did compared to the Worn Mace.

Are you trying to say that because you could look at two starter weapons and understand the difference between them, that trackers won't be needed when items get far more complex?

I mean, that is what it seems like you are saying, but that just makes it look like you have never played a game with progression at all. Did they not have progression in Wizard 101?

Songcaller

I'm still concerned about threat tables and aggro swapping. It is true, we might not need to aggro swap, but if we do have to aggro swap the current iteration of tank skills (up to level 10) won't make the process a simple process. I kind of hoped that the boss iterations would be more than Tank and Spank. I believe the 40% Threshold for loot rights will be easy to achieve if you aren't being nuked in PvP so I have few concerns there though the numbers could be tweaked after tests.

The main area of caution would be around the bosses where your performance unlocks harder bosses in a chain. I'm not sure how the transition will occur. Sometimes it will be clear that you've steamrolled a boss and can expect a harder boss next, but, other times you will do it by the skin of your teeth and you won't necessarily be aware whether the next boss is harder or not.

Inixia

Xillin had an interesting idea on his youtube page yesterday on dps meters, just wanted to say I like the idea of opt-in/opt-out dps meters so that parsing is always voluntary (with the ability to join shared parse groups). obviously it won't solve all the issues people have associated with parsers and doesn't change the fact that AoC have probably already ruled against it though. Parsers offer a complex array of costs and benefits and I think he's right that a lot of nuance is left out of these discussions. But I do believe that that information is an important tool for higher end raiders to have tangible feedback on personal effectiveness, ability coordination and identify raid issues after an attempt that are really hard to diagnose without.

Noaani

Inixia wrote: »

Xillin had an interesting idea on his youtube page yesterday on dps meters, just wanted to say I like the idea of opt-in/opt-out dps meters so that parsing is always voluntary (with the ability to join shared parse groups). obviously it won't solve all the issues people have associated with parsers and doesn't change the fact that AoC have probably already ruled against it though. Parsers offer a complex array of costs and benefits and I think he's right that a lot of nuance is left out of these discussions. But I do believe that that information is an important tool for higher end raiders to have tangible feedback on personal effectiveness, ability coordination and identify raid issues after an attempt that are really hard to diagnose without.

This was a suggestion I made on these forums about 3 years ago.

The issue with an outright opt in is that it will segregate the playerbase. People will run pick up groups requiring combat trackers be turned on.

On the other hand, if the combat trackers are guild only, you can't force people not in your guild to opt in or out, and for the most part, people join guilds of likeminded players so it shouldn't ever be an issue within a guild.

Trax

@Noaani To clarify, my contention is that access to a data parse accelerates the descent into class reduction, as opposed to creating it entirely. Metas will certainly develop, and my hope is that the rock-paper-scissor design philosophy will create a rotating meta instead of a static one.

I think that this can be combatted by making the leveling process an extremely laborious one, with the intent being that by the time the base figures out what the prime builds are its too late to effectively reroll for the majority of players. I also hope that combat is structured in a way that the differences between a PvE build and a PvP build are negligible, more of a matter of convenience than anything.

My concern remains that having having too much access to data creates a culture of limited player agency/identity, and centers the game on the spreadsheet side instead of the immersion side.

I’ll thrive in either environment, but I prefer one that gives me opportunities to experiment with my build and keeps me in the practical application side of the game versus the theoretical side.

Like Bobby Fischer, I think chess was better before everything was memorized, if that analogy works for you.

Another comparison is an FPS; I like getting my hands on a gun and deciding which one has a feel I like, as opposed to looking at the raw metrics and pigeonholing myself into something that doesn’t work for me. I think adaptive play styles are more interesting than fixed systems.

Cheers

Noaani

Trax wrote: »

My concern remains that having having too much access to data creates a culture of limited player agency/identity, and centers the game on the spreadsheet side instead of the immersion side.

Again, look at Archeage.

The meta was set in beta - you can't really get earlier than that. You can't say that not having combat trackers slows that down.

To address the specific part above, when it comes to builds that players will accept from others, it is not up to the game, the developers or Steven. It is up to us players.

If you want to break away from that meta (which, incidentally, I almost always do), your best bet is to be able to demonstrate where your build sits in relation to similar builds - how much better or worse it is in various situations. If group and raid leaders can see this, they are far, FAR more likely to let you bring what ever build you want along. It is only if your build is straight up not suitable for the content that people are likely to ask you to change it - keep in mind that unlike games like WoW, individual player reputation means something in games like WoW , so people won't be booting others from groups without really good reasons.

There will be some people that can't make heads or tails of data, and will insist that you run with a meta build. I don't for a second doubt this. But these people would insist on that regardless of whether a combat tracker exists or not.

The demands that people run specific builds will be at it's worst without a combat tracker, when there is no way to see how the off-meta build performs. As soon as it is able to be objectively assessed, as long as it is good enough, most people will let you run it.

You and I want the same thing here - we want the meta in Ashes to be varied (and ideally to be shifting over time).

The difference is, I know for a fact that this won't happen without a tracker, because that is the evidence we have at hand.

Child Item