Again though, the tracker will just give you objectively best way to do smth, which then becomes meta. It does not counter meta in any way, it defines it.
Meta is defined when the game is released, and change when a patch is released. Players just find out what the meta is.
COmbat tracker totally helps to find the meta, and ... i totally always admitted it.
But yes, combat tracker fight meta.
When meta is there, some people, will try to follow it blindly. even if they don't understand it.
Fighting meta so means simply prove that even if you are not playing the "meta build" (in my example, the "ranger-rogue") you can still perform more than people who plays meta ...
And if ranger-summoner did more dmg than ranger-rogue, yet it wasn't meta - that only tells me that w/o a tracker people wouldn't figure out the best way to do dps and once they hit content that requires best dps - they'll have to try more stuff, which would literally mean destroying meta.
In my example i defined the "ranger-rogue" as the meta DPS... are you really sure that playing meta = being top1 DPS ? ... really ? So why even put button to play, gives skills, have strategy to apply ?
No in my example the combat tracker showed that the non meta build did out DPS the meta build because the player was better... in such situation, i say to the meta dude "sorry, train, play better, maybe find anything you like to play instead of a thing you think you need to play, and try again" and will say to the other "welcome"
Even more true because the first began with a strong advantage... proving that the second is more efficient, but a lot more better player than the first.
Without combat tracker, it would be harder for the non meta build to be accepted. the proof of being good enough would be harder to be shown...
And most mid tier guild (all in fact...) are always more motivated to invite people following meta than others... and THIS is the real problem.
So yes, combat tracker help to fight against meta... or to use better sentence : Combat tracker help to fight the effect of meta on mentality
Remove the combat tracker, a meta will form. Close or not of the "real" meta, there will be a meta.
And people will discriminate other based on the meta. And in my example, they will say "oh you are a ranger summoner ? hum come in but only if you swap your secundary archetype to rogue"... Combat tracker is the tool you need to say "hey, no... look at my results"
It's not just that it doesn't appeal to me...
RPGs should not be designed to require "best dps to properly clear". "Properly clear" really has no place in an RPG.
Obviously, if that is not designed to be a thing, what determines "top" would be different.
Ashes class design is pretty much anti-META.
15 years of Pen and Paper or on Nwn1/2 RPG... i always optimised all my characters, playing with people doing so, with DM offering us fight hard enough to justify to optimize them
So your first statement is purely a personnal feeling. and yes you are far from alone to think this way. but lot are thinking another way. Even on games like FFXI where the meta was very large...
Meta will exist, if it exist on PnP RPG...
In fact i remember you, on another topic, defending actively a meta for ashes...
When people explain we could think about other way to think balance, you said "no, has to be this way" ... It was about tank is the only tank of the game. (while i advocate about all XXXX-Tank being able to be decent off tank... ) this way, you said you wanted to define the tank job being done only by tank as main archetype... you defined a meta you wanted to exist.
Also, if you manage to read me to this point : part of what you said about the good top end content is true :
No need to have the fight ask for X DPS to be done. the soft/hard enrage for every boss is a thing i really dislike (i mean really). it can be a thing sometime, but not everytime.
I spoke earlier in this post about FFXI, in this game lot of boss have no kind of enrage, and you could fight the boss during 30 minutes, one hours... OR MORE. i would have really NO problem to have the top end find to be thought about a raid of 40 people with a good mix of role with decent gameplay needed for a fight around 1hour - 1h30. which sure, with minmaxing and training would be reduced to 30minutes by top worlds.
But don't gather a random group... i have currently a table on DnD, their only healer is a paladin... and no real tank, they are a glass canon team. (but the canon is really strong) i can guarantee you that some fight, even with enough magic items and lvl20, if they are not in absolute luck, they will never win it... Without some bonus help (like a friendly NPC ^^" ) This is reality of RPG.
But maybe I am in the minority here, maybe the majority of players want to be able to show up at a boss, if it takes them 30minutes of mindlessly doing dps (aka alpha1 fire dragon), so be it thats what they want to have to do to get their loot.
Back in "good old days" some players played MMORPG and didnt play most boss, considering they didnt have the gameplay level for it, and didnt want to push themselves into it, enjoying the game without it.
This is what also MMORPG are... some content that only some manage to win against,
Some of encounter for you will be easy, until you begin to find challenge, and maybe, in the end a challenge that you and your guild will need 3 months to pass.
Meanwhile other people will simply spend those 3 months just for the first ennemy that did resist you a little.
Back in this time, loots were nothing more than the keys to get to even harder fight, the reward was not the loot, but to find a new challenge.
This was WoW case... while people roam naxx or sunwell, other still struggled in BWL or SSC. And they wanted to finish it and get loot... to then go to AQ40 or black temple, where other already were... working they way to reach naxxramas and AQ40.
2 things killed this :
-The vertical progress destroyed at each expansion. you don't need to do the hard content to see the harder one, discover the environment, lore, aesthetic, etc. You just need to wait
-the "catchup" middway between each raid tier, WoW like FFXIV helps you a lot to have stuff as strong as the one in the raid.
In both, the stuff became the reward, you tried to kill bosses for their loot to have the big ilvl before others, but this is no more needed to do more contents.
1
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
A simple question: can a lvl 1 "whateverclass" kill the "final boss" in any d&d campaign? Or does that lvl 1 dude need to acquire some abilities and level up their stats and maybe get a few friends and then properly use all those resource in order to defeat the boss?
Why are you asking about a Level 1 defeating a boss designed for groups?
That’s a question you should ask if I stated that a raid of Level 1s should be able to defeat any boss.
But, I didn’t say anything like, “A Level 1 player character should be able to defeat any boss.”
What I said was that in an RPG, META should not be a thing.
In D&D, your group does not have to defeat a boss by using “proper abilities in the proper order.”
You need to have a group with a Challenge Rating that can defeat the CR of the encounter.
You’re probably going to want at least one healer in the group or everyone will be using a bunch of Health potions, but…
There’s no META dictating what abilities must be used or what classes must be used.
And the same will primarily be true for Ashes.
A raid will want to be the appropriate level for the encounter, and… the game will be balanced around an 8 person group with one of each Primary Archetype.
Other than that, it shouldn’t be about “proper abilities in the proper order”.
You determine a strategy to defeat the challenge based on how your group or raid prefers to synergize their abilities - while factoring in the likely strengths and weaknesses of the mobs in the encounter.
But, devs should not be designing for an objective META.
A raid just needs to find a strategy that defeats the encounter. It doesn’t have to be META. It certainly doesn’t have to be the best DPS.
And, you don’t need a combat tracker to determine the strengths and weaknesses of your opponents. You also don’t need a combat tracker to determine who is effectively synergizing with others in your group or raid.
You aren’t going to need a combat tracker to notice that your Ice abilities are weaker in a hot biome or against a Winter Dragon.
You don’t need a combat tracker to tell you that people in your group should probably synergize their Snares.
Some people will attempt to META.
That doesn’t mean that the devs should design such that only one objective META can defeat encounters. What’s the point of having 64 classes if everyone has to use the same abilities in the same order if they want to kill the raid boss??
That’s the antithesis of an RPG.
We’ve got 64 classes, plus a plethora of Social Org, Religious, Racial and Node Type augments, but you think there should be a cookie cutter, objective META to defeat bosses??
That’s absurd.
Remove the combat tracker, a meta will form. Close or not of the "real" meta, there will be a meta.
And people will discriminate other based on the meta. And in my example, they will say "oh you are a ranger summoner ? hum come in but only if you swap your secundary archetype to rogue"... Combat tracker is the tool you need to say "hey, no... look at my results"
I should've made my point clearer. I'm against the high speed that trackers provide to the players who want to get to the "real" meta. The things you said literally tell me "once the people know who does more dmg - that's gonna be the meta and anyone who's not that class won't be welcome". And I want to delay that moment as much as I can.
Yes, there'll be some meta as soon as people start thinking about who's stronger. But it won't be cemented for a while because someone somewhere will be testing stuff and will figure out that someone else is stronger. But with trackers that "figuring out" stage will be super fast and after that you'll have a cemented meta that doesn't change at all.
And patches changing the meta is a thing that I've seen getting flack from people on this forum. I'm perfectly fine with it because that's how L2 balanced its classes, but I've seen people be against big nerf/buff changes with each patch. And if you meant that the new gear sets will somehow change class meta so much that people will shift classes, then I'd sure as hell be interested in seeing how exactly people would react to that kind of thing.
0
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
A major part of that challenge will be needing to:
1) Perform Mechanics
2) Not get hit by things
3) Mitigate and Shield unavoidable damage so you dont get one shot (I really hope this is a thing, and I mean not some bard just having to use and forget about maintaining 100% uptime on a skill, I mean DPS players having to use a support skill as they see a boss charging up a attack, to lower enemy damage for 5-10s and this skill has like a one minute cooldown so it cannot be spammed! I want people to have to PAY THE HECK ATTENTION and not just do a rotation and collect loot)
4) Manage [THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF EACH PRIMARY ARCHETYPE]
5) And most important, everyone, including tanks, and healers, and DPS players, contributing to [DEFEAT THE ENCOUNTER].
I agree with most of that.
I’d quibble over some those details.
Don’t need a DPS meter for any of that.
0
MrMilotMember, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
You’re probably going to want at least one healer in the group or everyone will be using a bunch of Health potions
[...]
A raid will want to be the appropriate level for the encounter, and… the game will be balanced around an 8 person group with one of each Primary Archetype.
In this post, here are 2 meta you are yourself defining.
First for DnD = a group needs a healer or a BUNCH of potion (so prepare lot of consumable)
Second on Ashes : the balance is around 8 person, one of each primary archetype, and saying it this way, it feels obvious for me that "due to the balance, this is how you should have to do your party"
Those are meta. for the second, it is assumption/expectation because the game is still in development, but if to kill boss, the best way is to have the 8 archetype in each group that fight the boss... it is already a meta.
A game with no meta : you take 8 random people (considering everyone is 100% gameplay efficient) and you can kill the boss this way with a similar difficulty in any mix of 8 character.
We’ve got 64 classes, plus a plethora of Social Org, Religious, Racial and Node Type augments, but you think there should be a cookie cutter, objective META to defeat bosses??
That’s absurd.
I want none of that, I'm just being realistic about what's gonna happen despite Devs' wishes. No matter how well Intrepid balances their classes, there'll be some combination of them that will do the most damage compared to any other combination. And gear augments/builds will probably be enough to counterbalance any boss variability (unless Intrepid want people to have full accounts of alts to properly fight bosses).
I asked about lvl1 fighting the final boss because I was leading up to the thing I wrote in another post here - "the resource management in a fight". Knowledge being one of those resources.
I'm not a d&d player, but, from what I've seen about it, "perception check" seems to be a highly valued ability that boosts your "knowledge resource". So if a campaign has magic elements interacting with one another and you have, say, a lightning ability that is boosted by the target being wet - you might want to perceive a puddle behind the boss, push him into it and then zap him, in order to maximize your dmg output relative to your mana consumption (correct if my assumptions about d&d are wrong). That would be you "using your abilities in a proper order", in order to properly use your resources.
Same can be applied to mmo bosses. There'll be some general mechanics, but the boss' attack and hp pool will define how much dps you'll need to have in order to beat him before he goes through the entire mana/hp pool of your raid. And the harder the boss - the more resources and the better resource utilization you'll need to have to beat him.
And in order to achieve the things Steven alleged to be trying to achieve (mainly "only a few % of players will beat some of the bosses), they'll have to design the bosses in such a way that only the highest dps raid setups will be able to kill the boss. And the design has to be that way by definition. You can disagree with such a design, but that is what Steven said he wants to have in the game.
And just to repeat and reinforce my stance on the topic: I'm against any and all addons/meters/etc.
If players are concerned that other players will enforce a certain meta upon them, would they accept some daily fluctuations in how damage and spell works?
I hope this design stays around and works out how they want it to, because to me this just sounds like "pvp on the boss to stop others from farming it, until the world setup makes you your strongest and you can kill the boss"
That's what I'd like to have in the game, but I'm not sure how many people would like that.
We’ve got 64 classes, plus a plethora of Social Org, Religious, Racial and Node Type augments, but you think there should be a cookie cutter, objective META to defeat bosses??
That’s absurd.
Conversely;
We’ve got 64 classes, plus a plethora of Social Org, Religious, Racial and Node Type augments, but you think raid leaders are going to let people come along with just any combination of these?
The more freedom players have with how they can build their character, the more one of two things will happen.
1, players will need to stick to pre-defined builds
Or
2, players will need to prove their build can meet a specific standard.
Guilds simply will not allow you to just rock up with any old build. Not if they want to be successful.
That right there is what would be absurd.
Now, if you want to rock out with your what ever build all by yourself, have at it, no one cares. It's when you start grouping up with others, where your performance suddenly becomes a factor of the groups performance, that is when people will require you to either prove your build, or be a known build.
Remove the combat tracker, a meta will form. Close or not of the "real" meta, there will be a meta.
And people will discriminate other based on the meta. And in my example, they will say "oh you are a ranger summoner ? hum come in but only if you swap your secundary archetype to rogue"... Combat tracker is the tool you need to say "hey, no... look at my results"
I should've made my point clearer. I'm against the high speed that trackers provide to the players who want to get to the "real" meta. The things you said literally tell me "once the people know who does more dmg - that's gonna be the meta and anyone who's not that class won't be welcome". And I want to delay that moment as much as I can.
In my opinion, this wont happen.
Imagine you are running a top end guild. The raid size is 40 people, and you want no more than 48 in your guild (45 or 46 most likely).
You need to fill these spots out before you get to the end game content, because you cant get to that content without a full raid.
So, who do you invite?
Rhetorical question, I'll tell you.
You invite exactly 4 tanks, but two of them need to have alts.
You invite exactly 10 healers, and 6 bards.
You invite 8 mages and 8 rogues, 4 ranger, and the rest fighters and summoners (both of whom should have DPS alts, as we do not know if these classes are viable).
So then you get to your end game content, and it turns out you want all 8 mages, but only need 4 rogues, as melee isnt that effective (your fighters are having to use alts already).
Now for the next question; do you replace some of your rogues?
People from WoW would likely say yes.
They are wrong.
The thing with Ashes specifically is that you do not know what the next content will be, nor do you even know when it will be. It may well be that the very next week there is a change in node state, and suddenly mages are less useful, and melee is all the rage.
As such, even if you are taking on content that you know isnt well suited to melee, you still want to take your melee along.
In a game like this, guilds are far more likely to be interested in the player, rather than the character or build.
Now, this obviously only applies to guilds, and has no real application to pick up content - but it does still apply perfectly well to PvP as much as PvE.
In a game like this, guilds are far more likely to be interested in the player, rather than the character or build.
I hope it's that way and I hope that Intrepid can balance their pve content in such a way that "each of every arch" is optimal, but could be tweaked a bit by replacing one or two people with some double class or simply by changing augments. But we'll have to see.
I'm used to having people in my constant party rather than just classes that are free to be switched out, so I'd be completely fine with Ashes going down the same balancing route. And I've made my main class work through several updates where it was nerfed, and I was still doing just fine in pvp.
And if those kinds of changes make it so that trackers don't exacerbate the meta issue - I'd only be glad about that.
But you wouldn't know if you are at your highest peak level or not. And you might not get the same team configuration every day.
I was talking in the context of guild vs guild fighting for bosses, not just randoms gathering together.
And in that context it'll probably be same groups of people with the same classes knowing exactly their peak strength or building themselves for a particular world setup (i.e. fire mages waiting for a sunny summer day or lightning mages waiting for an autumn/spring thunderstorm). And they'd be fighting anyone else trying to kil the boss right up until the proper world setup runs around. At least that's the approach I'd take if I was trying to make a hardcore pve guild in Ashes.
Also not only meta is supposed to be able to kill a boss. That is bad game design which encourage finding out which is the meta.
Players enforce metas upon others to save time, to do things as fast as possible. They want the end results fast. And to reduce the risk of failing.
And in the context of open world bosses, you have to have speed on your side because you never know when your enemy will roll up on your raid and ruin it. If your non-meta raid takes 10 mins to kill a boss, that might be 2 minutes too late, because the enemy guild have come and wiped you all. But if your meta raid can kill the boss in 6-7 minutes - u gucci.
If the game rewards players who make more damage then why tries to hide damage trackers? It gives some advantage though to those who tag first the NPC. Is that the way to combat metas?
I'd think so. If the first raid has a sub-optimal setup and had the first hit, but then the second raid with an optimal setup comes up and starts hitting the boss too, the og raid would have to decide: do they flag up and try their luck in pvp/pk or do they think they have enough dps to do the 40% required for loot before the boss dies.
I'd assume that with a tracker this wouldn't really be an issue because the og raid would've used said tracker to know what the best dps setup is and utilize it to kill the boss w/o a problem (well, unless the 2nd group PKs them).
And in case either situation devolves into pvp - the tracker wouldn't matter either way cause you'd no longer be just hitting the boss.
If players are concerned that other players will enforce a certain meta upon them, would they accept some daily fluctuations in how damage and spell works?
I've been thinking about this a bit, and I don't see how this would be a benefit to anyone.
If there were fluctuations like this, they would need to either be minimal, or noticable. There isnt really a third option.
If they are noticable, all it will do is force people to not take players at a disadvantage at that point in time with them. This seems counterproductive.
If the effect is minimal, then people would just ignore it.
Keep in mind, the effectiveness of a build that in a game like Ashes (where the potential for building your character 'wrong' is a design goal), the difference between a properly built character and an equally geared but improperly built character can very nearly be measured in factors of magnitude of effectiveness, rather than just in increased percentages of effectivness.
Look at Path of Exile for an example of this. You can build a character properly and just wreck content, or you can build a character so poorly that you cant even finish leveling and literally have to abandon the character (respec'ing is hard).
Eith the variation available to us in Ashes, I would expect a well built, well played character to be five times as effective as an equally gear but poorly built and played character.
So yeah, I dont see daily fluctuations making much of a difference.
I'm all for NOT having a DPS meter. IMO it takes away from the immersion and makes it feel like I'm playing a maths simulator.
A real DPS meter to me is a notepad and pen to theory craft or to get some rough calculations. Experimentation is the best teacher.
I'm all for NOT having a DPS meter. IMO it takes away from the immersion and makes it feel like I'm playing a maths simulator.
A real DPS meter to me is a notepad and pen to theory craft or to get some rough calculations. Experimentation is the best teacher.
Experimentation and DPS meter go hand in hand.
With combat logs being provided to us as part of the basic gameplay (on the wiki), a outside of game program already exists (ACT) that will parse those logs in real time so that we can see the effect of our build.
If Intrepid somehow manage to block reading of network traffic (good luck Intrepid if that is your goal because no other game with a combat log has managed it), then the next option is to simply record our gameplay and use a screen grabbing program to calculate how much time in combat and how much damage is done.
In both situation of using these outside of game apps, those theorycrafters that are designing their builds will use FACTS provided to them by measurement, rather than FEELINGS of wow this felt like so much more efficiency.
And then the youtube videos and guides will follow and everyone in most guilds will slowly start to enforce this, whether the original build creators admit to using a measurement tool or not.
I have said before, while Ashes may not support -in game addons-, players will develop other ways to measure performance. If Intrepid state this is a ban-able offense, then these players will just never say anything about it and use them anyway. Intrepid have zero way to check what kind of other programs are running in the background outside of Ashes so long as those programs do not inject anything into the game itself.
I still believe even after reading over 105 pages of argument, that it doesnt matter how anyone feels about whether these tools SHOULD exist or not, the truth of the matter is that they WILL exist, and we should focus as a community, with very different playstyles, belief systems and desire, on how we can coexist together to remove any form of toxicity whether real or percieved.
And so on that topic of how do we create a peaceable community:
In my experience, having played and completed the top high end content in every MMO I have played, WoW, Age of Conan, SWTOR, FF14 to name a few, the highest levels of toxicity come not from the raiders themselves, but from mid tier players that only want to enforce a meta without understanding why it is meta, what makes it work, what other options they have, or what is actually needed and required to complete the content they are attempting.
This toxicity has nothing to do with the measurement tool itself, and everything to do with player perception of what is required and what can reach that requirement.
So the question is, how do we approach this player perception. (To me the solution is quite obvious, by use of a measurement tool to say HEY LOOK! I am reaching the requirement as a player with my gear and build already)
0
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
In this post, here are 2 meta you are yourself defining.
Neither of those ar META.
And it's not something I'm defining.
One of each Primary Archetype is dev defined.
But, there are 64 classes and a plethora of augments, so one of each Primary Archetype doesn't com anywhre close to needing "the proper abilities in the proper order" as an objective META that requires a DPS meter.
First for DnD = a group needs a healer or a BUNCH of potion (so prepare lot of consumable)
That's not a META since their are a variety of healers that could be chosen, rather than requiring one specific type of healer. Also since, it's still possible to defeat encounters with no healer.
That's not most effective tactics available... that's just developing a tactic/strategy that works.
Second on Ashes : the balance is around 8 person, one of each primary archetype, and saying it this way, it feels obvious for me that "due to the balance, this is how you should have to do your party"
LMAO
Well, what "feels obvious" to you is problematic...especially with regard to an objective META that requires a combat tracker.
Again, it's the devs that have stated that the game will be balanced for 8 person groups with one of each Primary Archetype. So, we don't need a DPS meter/combat tracker to determine that.
And each Primary Archetype has at least 8 variations which are viable, rather than being limited to just one of those 8 variations in order to defeat a specific boss. It's also not limited to specific augments on specific Active Skills to defeat a specific boss.
So, no, most effective is not necessary - all that's necessary is... effective.
Those are meta. for the second, it is assumption/expectation because the game is still in development, but if to kill boss, the best way is to have the 8 archetype in each group that fight the boss... it is already a meta.
It's not one objective META. It's a balance that has many variations. And it's not a META which requires a DPS meter.
Context is important.
A game with no meta : you take 8 random people (considering everyone is 100% gameplay efficient) and you can kill the boss this way with a similar difficulty in any mix of 8 character.
LMAO
No. Not really, But thanks for playing.
0
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I want none of that, I'm just being realistic about what's gonna happen despite Devs' wishes. No matter how well Intrepid balances their classes, there'll be some combination of them that will do the most damage compared to any other combination. And gear augments/builds will probably be enough to counterbalance any boss variability (unless Intrepid want people to have full accounts of alts to properly fight bosses).
That's like saying that somewhere in the world is the world's strongest person.
And theree will be people striving to be the world's strongest person.
That doesn't mean that you won't be able to overcome strength challenges unless you have the world's strongest person with you. You just need to have someone who is strong enough to defeat the challenge.
And, you probably don't need numbers to tell you if you have someone strong enough to defeat that challenge.
You can just bring an extremely strong person with you. You might choose to bring several extremely strong people with you. You might choose to bring strong people with you and also some levers and or pulleys because what's truly important is defeating the challenge; not defeating the in the most efficient manner.
I asked about lvl1 fighting the final boss because I was leading up to the thing I wrote in another post here - "the resource management in a fight". Knowledge being one of those resources.
That's an absurd tack. What is the correlation between Level 1 and "knowledge". And what in the world does that have to do with this discussion?
It seems like you are talking about player knowledge rather than character knowledge.
A very knowledgeable player can have a Level 1 character. That's not going to help the Level 1 character defeat a "final boss". The player character will need to be an appropriate level and have abilities and gear that allow that character to defeat the boss.
Doesn't have to be the Most Efficient method. Just has to be effective enough to succeed.
I'm not a d&d player, but, from what I've seen about it, "perception check" seems to be a highly valued ability that boosts your "knowledge resource". So if a campaign has magic elements interacting with one another and you have, say, a lightning ability that is boosted by the target being wet - you might want to perceive a puddle behind the boss, push him into it and then zap him, in order to maximize your dmg output relative to your mana consumption (correct if my assumptions about d&d are wrong). That would be you "using your abilities in a proper order", in order to properly use your resources.
You would probably be able to perceive a puddle beind a boss without a perception check.
And, yes, individuals will strive to maximize the effects of their abilities. Hopefully, they will also strive to synergize with others in their group to maximize the abilities of their team as well.
You don't need any kind of combat tracker to decide to try to push the boss onto the pool of water to increase Lightning damage from the Mage. Should be an effective tactic.
You also don't need any kind of combat tracker to decide to push the boss onto the pool of water to have the Mage use an Ice spell that will have a boost on the Snare and Ice damage and stack that Snare with a Snare from the Rogue which also inflicts a Bleed.
Both of those tactics should be effective - which is most effective is irrelevent as long as both tactic sare effective enough to defeat the boss.
But, it could be that the group has a Mage that focuses on other schools than Elemental, so they bypass that pool and use a different tactic that is effective at defeating that boss.
Same can be applied to mmo bosses. There'll be some general mechanics, but the boss' attack and hp pool will define how much dps you'll need to have in order to beat him before he goes through the entire mana/hp pool of your raid. And the harder the boss - the more resources and the better resource utilization you'll need to have to beat him.
The boss' hp pool will determine how much damage you need to defeat the boss. Damage per second only has relevance when there are phases with specific time requirements designed for that enounter... even then, it's a range of seconds...probably closer to a minute.
How quickly the boss' attacks will go through a raid's entire mana/hp pool will be determined by many factors besides just the raid's damage per second, like gear and Passive Skills and potions.
Yes. The harder the boss, the more resources and the better resource utilization a group will need to defeat the boss. It will likely be more challenging to find an effective strategy for the config of your group.
That does not mean that people must conform to an objective META to defeat the boss - especially not as interepreted from a combat tracker.
Where you state "proper abilities in the proper order" what's actually needed are "effective abilities in an effective order" - effective enough to defeat the boss, rather than the most efficient.
Some payers will be striving to be the most efficient - to the degree that use combat trackers to not only defeat the boss, but also defeat the boss as quickly as possible.
But, it's not necessary to defeat a boss as quickly and efficiently as possible.
You just have to be effective enough to defeat the boss. And, if the devs don't include combat trackers, that means they expect us to be able to defeat bosses without relying on combat trackers. Most efficient is irrelevant.
And in order to achieve the things Steven alleged to be trying to achieve (mainly "only a few % of players will beat some of the bosses), they'll have to design the bosses in such a way that only the highest dps raid setups will be able to kill the boss. And the design has to be that way by definition. You can disagree with such a design, but that is what Steven said he wants to have in the game.
It's not really "highest dps" in the manner you propose.
The top tier groups will have top tier attributes, of course. And, relatively speaking, that will include player characters with extremely high "dps". Sure. But...
Top tier groups will mostly be those who are the best at devising winning strategies for their group configurations.
We can expect those who are consistently in the top 1% to have extremely effective tactics - not necessarily the most efficient tactics. And not necessarily all conforming to a cookie cutter config some people have decided is META due to their combat tracker evaluations.
People can devise extremely effective tactics without relying on combat trackers.
And it's most important that the devs design with that expectation, rather than providing combat trackers and then designing encounters with the expectation that everyone will be using the combat trackers they provided to defeat every encounter.
0
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
And in the context of open world bosses, you have to have speed on your side because you never know when your enemy will roll up on your raid and ruin it. If your non-meta raid takes 10 mins to kill a boss, that might be 2 minutes too late, because the enemy guild have come and wiped you all. But if your meta raid can kill the boss in 6-7 minutes - u gucci.
Well, people who are extemely competitive might want to have speed on their side in any case.
But, you can't always get what you want.
Some people want to be on separate PvE-Only servers. Some people want to be on RP-only servers.
Some people want Corruption to be less harsh.
And in Ashes, don't expect that you will always defeat the encounter.
Even if you defeat a raid in 6-7 minutes, the next session will be different, so it might take you 10 minutes to defeat it again, in any case.
I don't mind dps meters, but as I'm sure others have said, I don't think people should be harassed based on dps meters. I think a style similar to FF14 is a good thing to aim for.
DPS meters are more than just a dick measuring tool for combat classes, it also lets new players know if they are using their skills effectively, or if some combat style isn't working on a particular monster or raid.
It also lets healers know who is about to get their proverbial cheeks clapped.
I mean people will find a way to use DPS meters one way or another, might as well have them implemented in some fashion.
Just a fictional scenario here, but if:
Intrepid would have an in-game vote during launch week asking:
Do you want an official DPS-Meter build into the game:
Yes
No
Don't Care/No Opinion
What would you estimated the distribution of votes between Yes and No to be?
Obviously, this should not be an argument for or against DPS-Meters as the general opinion isn't always best, just a fictional scenario regarding the public MMO-gamer opinion regarding DPS Meters
First for DnD = a group needs a healer or a BUNCH of potion (so prepare lot of consumable)
That's not a META since their are a variety of healers that could be chosen, rather than requiring one specific type of healer. Also since, it's still possible to defeat encounters with no healer.
That's not most effective tactics available... that's just developing a tactic/strategy that works.
Even going by your literal definition of a meta (which is not how it has been used for a decade and a half), the above is still a meta.
If you have I players, among them is a tank, a bard, 5 DPS and a player that could be either DPS or a healer, if the content you are taking on could be survived via using potions, that becomes the most efficient tactic as you are able to take more DPS. If it can not be taken on just using potions, the most efficient tactic is for that last player to roll their healer.
That right there is a decision to be made on the most efficient tactic available to that group of players.
META (note the capitalization) was never about the most efficient tactic possible, just the most efficient available. That always meant different groups with different availabilities always had a different META.
That is different now, because meta (note the lower case) now just refers to what the wider community in general is doing.
Even going by your literal definition of a meta (which is not how it has been used for a decade and a half), the above is still a meta.
By this point in my reading this forum, this is a Dygz classic. He seems to take a lot of things in their most literal way and if someone's argument doesn't quite fit his own literal take on some part of the argument, then the whole argument is invalid. And that's on top of him pushing the line of "if I don't play this way then you must not play this way either".
Like, yes, in theory you should be able to kill bosses w/o using META, but Intrepid literally wants pve competition (with boss loots being time-dependent), so you'll have to use the most effective way to kill a boss. Dygz will most likely not participate in those raids, because he doesn't like hardcore challenge, but that doesn't mean that others won't do this (mainly because Intrepid wants to design encounters around that).
And just to reiterate it once more. Dygz, we agree on this topic. I don't want meters either and want Intrepid to design bosses for a non-meter gameplay, but due to the overall design goals of competitive pve people will definitely make dps meters and use them to find the closest thing to an objective META, on top of a general meta of the game.
0
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited July 2022
I don't recall ever even thinking, "If I don't play this way, you don't play this way either."
I'm not the one who claimed one objective META.
In Ashes, the top 1% will not be limited to using one objective META.
One objective META will not be necessary, you just have to be effective enough to defeat the challenge.
Whether I participate in such raids is irrelevant.
I've said several times that there will be people trying to pursue a META.
META will still be irrelevant. What will be relevant is being effective enough to defeat the challenges and, even for the top 1%, that will not be restricted to a cookie cutter META as defined by combat trackers.
I'm not the one who claimed one objective META.
In Ashes, the top 1% will not be limited to using one objective META.
It is not the 1% that will force a meta on to others, it is the 30 - 70% that will.
The 1% (realistically, the top 30%) will be what ever they consider most effective, and so no one needs to force anything on to them. They are also likely to stick to playing with each other.
It is the next tier down that have a meta (whether it is correct or not), and will insist on others sticking to it.
0
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Yep. I didn't say I was complaining about the 1%.
Doesn't matter. The 1% don't need a dev designed combat tracker to be the 1%.
0
akabearMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Quite fascinating that this discussion just keeps on going and going.
We all know that person that decides to start a new sport and goes all out to buy all the best gear and turns up to the game kitted out better than the veteran players, but not a lot of good if still not a lot of inherent ability.
To me, a combat tracker is a little like that. Yes, good gear (in this case info/feedback and understanding of what to do with it) will improve your gaming potential, but you still have to put in the time to develop the skills and experience.
Expecting to get high-level status without the effort is akin to the mindset of so many nowadays. I wonder if this also is a reflection of the age of those one each side of the fence on this issue within this discussion.
I would concede that a combat tracker be permitted after X number of hours played and at Y ranking.
For argument's sake, say 1,500hrs+ and in the top ranking for raid or pvp consistently for Z period of time.
Dead against giving away rewards without effort. Or competitive advantage without the earned right.
Comments
Meta is defined when the game is released, and change when a patch is released. Players just find out what the meta is.
COmbat tracker totally helps to find the meta, and ... i totally always admitted it.
But yes, combat tracker fight meta.
When meta is there, some people, will try to follow it blindly. even if they don't understand it.
Fighting meta so means simply prove that even if you are not playing the "meta build" (in my example, the "ranger-rogue") you can still perform more than people who plays meta ...
In my example i defined the "ranger-rogue" as the meta DPS... are you really sure that playing meta = being top1 DPS ? ... really ? So why even put button to play, gives skills, have strategy to apply ?
No in my example the combat tracker showed that the non meta build did out DPS the meta build because the player was better... in such situation, i say to the meta dude "sorry, train, play better, maybe find anything you like to play instead of a thing you think you need to play, and try again" and will say to the other "welcome"
Even more true because the first began with a strong advantage... proving that the second is more efficient, but a lot more better player than the first.
Without combat tracker, it would be harder for the non meta build to be accepted. the proof of being good enough would be harder to be shown...
And most mid tier guild (all in fact...) are always more motivated to invite people following meta than others... and THIS is the real problem.
So yes, combat tracker help to fight against meta... or to use better sentence : Combat tracker help to fight the effect of meta on mentality
Remove the combat tracker, a meta will form. Close or not of the "real" meta, there will be a meta.
And people will discriminate other based on the meta. And in my example, they will say "oh you are a ranger summoner ? hum come in but only if you swap your secundary archetype to rogue"... Combat tracker is the tool you need to say "hey, no... look at my results"
15 years of Pen and Paper or on Nwn1/2 RPG... i always optimised all my characters, playing with people doing so, with DM offering us fight hard enough to justify to optimize them
So your first statement is purely a personnal feeling. and yes you are far from alone to think this way. but lot are thinking another way. Even on games like FFXI where the meta was very large...
Meta will exist, if it exist on PnP RPG...
In fact i remember you, on another topic, defending actively a meta for ashes...
When people explain we could think about other way to think balance, you said "no, has to be this way" ... It was about tank is the only tank of the game. (while i advocate about all XXXX-Tank being able to be decent off tank... ) this way, you said you wanted to define the tank job being done only by tank as main archetype... you defined a meta you wanted to exist.
Also, if you manage to read me to this point : part of what you said about the good top end content is true :
No need to have the fight ask for X DPS to be done. the soft/hard enrage for every boss is a thing i really dislike (i mean really). it can be a thing sometime, but not everytime.
I spoke earlier in this post about FFXI, in this game lot of boss have no kind of enrage, and you could fight the boss during 30 minutes, one hours... OR MORE. i would have really NO problem to have the top end find to be thought about a raid of 40 people with a good mix of role with decent gameplay needed for a fight around 1hour - 1h30. which sure, with minmaxing and training would be reduced to 30minutes by top worlds.
But don't gather a random group... i have currently a table on DnD, their only healer is a paladin... and no real tank, they are a glass canon team. (but the canon is really strong) i can guarantee you that some fight, even with enough magic items and lvl20, if they are not in absolute luck, they will never win it... Without some bonus help (like a friendly NPC ^^" ) This is reality of RPG.
Back in "good old days" some players played MMORPG and didnt play most boss, considering they didnt have the gameplay level for it, and didnt want to push themselves into it, enjoying the game without it.
This is what also MMORPG are... some content that only some manage to win against,
Some of encounter for you will be easy, until you begin to find challenge, and maybe, in the end a challenge that you and your guild will need 3 months to pass.
Meanwhile other people will simply spend those 3 months just for the first ennemy that did resist you a little.
Back in this time, loots were nothing more than the keys to get to even harder fight, the reward was not the loot, but to find a new challenge.
This was WoW case... while people roam naxx or sunwell, other still struggled in BWL or SSC. And they wanted to finish it and get loot... to then go to AQ40 or black temple, where other already were... working they way to reach naxxramas and AQ40.
2 things killed this :
-The vertical progress destroyed at each expansion. you don't need to do the hard content to see the harder one, discover the environment, lore, aesthetic, etc. You just need to wait
-the "catchup" middway between each raid tier, WoW like FFXIV helps you a lot to have stuff as strong as the one in the raid.
In both, the stuff became the reward, you tried to kill bosses for their loot to have the big ilvl before others, but this is no more needed to do more contents.
That’s a question you should ask if I stated that a raid of Level 1s should be able to defeat any boss.
But, I didn’t say anything like, “A Level 1 player character should be able to defeat any boss.”
What I said was that in an RPG, META should not be a thing.
In D&D, your group does not have to defeat a boss by using “proper abilities in the proper order.”
You need to have a group with a Challenge Rating that can defeat the CR of the encounter.
You’re probably going to want at least one healer in the group or everyone will be using a bunch of Health potions, but…
There’s no META dictating what abilities must be used or what classes must be used.
And the same will primarily be true for Ashes.
A raid will want to be the appropriate level for the encounter, and… the game will be balanced around an 8 person group with one of each Primary Archetype.
Other than that, it shouldn’t be about “proper abilities in the proper order”.
You determine a strategy to defeat the challenge based on how your group or raid prefers to synergize their abilities - while factoring in the likely strengths and weaknesses of the mobs in the encounter.
But, devs should not be designing for an objective META.
A raid just needs to find a strategy that defeats the encounter. It doesn’t have to be META. It certainly doesn’t have to be the best DPS.
And, you don’t need a combat tracker to determine the strengths and weaknesses of your opponents. You also don’t need a combat tracker to determine who is effectively synergizing with others in your group or raid.
You aren’t going to need a combat tracker to notice that your Ice abilities are weaker in a hot biome or against a Winter Dragon.
You don’t need a combat tracker to tell you that people in your group should probably synergize their Snares.
Some people will attempt to META.
That doesn’t mean that the devs should design such that only one objective META can defeat encounters. What’s the point of having 64 classes if everyone has to use the same abilities in the same order if they want to kill the raid boss??
That’s the antithesis of an RPG.
We’ve got 64 classes, plus a plethora of Social Org, Religious, Racial and Node Type augments, but you think there should be a cookie cutter, objective META to defeat bosses??
That’s absurd.
Yes, there'll be some meta as soon as people start thinking about who's stronger. But it won't be cemented for a while because someone somewhere will be testing stuff and will figure out that someone else is stronger. But with trackers that "figuring out" stage will be super fast and after that you'll have a cemented meta that doesn't change at all.
And patches changing the meta is a thing that I've seen getting flack from people on this forum. I'm perfectly fine with it because that's how L2 balanced its classes, but I've seen people be against big nerf/buff changes with each patch. And if you meant that the new gear sets will somehow change class meta so much that people will shift classes, then I'd sure as hell be interested in seeing how exactly people would react to that kind of thing.
I agree with most of that.
I’d quibble over some those details.
Don’t need a DPS meter for any of that.
In this post, here are 2 meta you are yourself defining.
First for DnD = a group needs a healer or a BUNCH of potion (so prepare lot of consumable)
Second on Ashes : the balance is around 8 person, one of each primary archetype, and saying it this way, it feels obvious for me that "due to the balance, this is how you should have to do your party"
Those are meta. for the second, it is assumption/expectation because the game is still in development, but if to kill boss, the best way is to have the 8 archetype in each group that fight the boss... it is already a meta.
A game with no meta : you take 8 random people (considering everyone is 100% gameplay efficient) and you can kill the boss this way with a similar difficulty in any mix of 8 character.
I asked about lvl1 fighting the final boss because I was leading up to the thing I wrote in another post here - "the resource management in a fight". Knowledge being one of those resources.
I'm not a d&d player, but, from what I've seen about it, "perception check" seems to be a highly valued ability that boosts your "knowledge resource". So if a campaign has magic elements interacting with one another and you have, say, a lightning ability that is boosted by the target being wet - you might want to perceive a puddle behind the boss, push him into it and then zap him, in order to maximize your dmg output relative to your mana consumption (correct if my assumptions about d&d are wrong). That would be you "using your abilities in a proper order", in order to properly use your resources.
Same can be applied to mmo bosses. There'll be some general mechanics, but the boss' attack and hp pool will define how much dps you'll need to have in order to beat him before he goes through the entire mana/hp pool of your raid. And the harder the boss - the more resources and the better resource utilization you'll need to have to beat him.
And in order to achieve the things Steven alleged to be trying to achieve (mainly "only a few % of players will beat some of the bosses), they'll have to design the bosses in such a way that only the highest dps raid setups will be able to kill the boss. And the design has to be that way by definition. You can disagree with such a design, but that is what Steven said he wants to have in the game.
And just to repeat and reinforce my stance on the topic: I'm against any and all addons/meters/etc.
That's what I'd like to have in the game, but I'm not sure how many people would like that.
We’ve got 64 classes, plus a plethora of Social Org, Religious, Racial and Node Type augments, but you think raid leaders are going to let people come along with just any combination of these?
The more freedom players have with how they can build their character, the more one of two things will happen.
1, players will need to stick to pre-defined builds
Or
2, players will need to prove their build can meet a specific standard.
Guilds simply will not allow you to just rock up with any old build. Not if they want to be successful.
That right there is what would be absurd.
Now, if you want to rock out with your what ever build all by yourself, have at it, no one cares. It's when you start grouping up with others, where your performance suddenly becomes a factor of the groups performance, that is when people will require you to either prove your build, or be a known build.
Imagine you are running a top end guild. The raid size is 40 people, and you want no more than 48 in your guild (45 or 46 most likely).
You need to fill these spots out before you get to the end game content, because you cant get to that content without a full raid.
So, who do you invite?
Rhetorical question, I'll tell you.
You invite exactly 4 tanks, but two of them need to have alts.
You invite exactly 10 healers, and 6 bards.
You invite 8 mages and 8 rogues, 4 ranger, and the rest fighters and summoners (both of whom should have DPS alts, as we do not know if these classes are viable).
So then you get to your end game content, and it turns out you want all 8 mages, but only need 4 rogues, as melee isnt that effective (your fighters are having to use alts already).
Now for the next question; do you replace some of your rogues?
People from WoW would likely say yes.
They are wrong.
The thing with Ashes specifically is that you do not know what the next content will be, nor do you even know when it will be. It may well be that the very next week there is a change in node state, and suddenly mages are less useful, and melee is all the rage.
As such, even if you are taking on content that you know isnt well suited to melee, you still want to take your melee along.
In a game like this, guilds are far more likely to be interested in the player, rather than the character or build.
Now, this obviously only applies to guilds, and has no real application to pick up content - but it does still apply perfectly well to PvP as much as PvE.
I'm used to having people in my constant party rather than just classes that are free to be switched out, so I'd be completely fine with Ashes going down the same balancing route. And I've made my main class work through several updates where it was nerfed, and I was still doing just fine in pvp.
And if those kinds of changes make it so that trackers don't exacerbate the meta issue - I'd only be glad about that.
And in that context it'll probably be same groups of people with the same classes knowing exactly their peak strength or building themselves for a particular world setup (i.e. fire mages waiting for a sunny summer day or lightning mages waiting for an autumn/spring thunderstorm). And they'd be fighting anyone else trying to kil the boss right up until the proper world setup runs around. At least that's the approach I'd take if I was trying to make a hardcore pve guild in Ashes. And in the context of open world bosses, you have to have speed on your side because you never know when your enemy will roll up on your raid and ruin it. If your non-meta raid takes 10 mins to kill a boss, that might be 2 minutes too late, because the enemy guild have come and wiped you all. But if your meta raid can kill the boss in 6-7 minutes - u gucci.
I'd assume that with a tracker this wouldn't really be an issue because the og raid would've used said tracker to know what the best dps setup is and utilize it to kill the boss w/o a problem (well, unless the 2nd group PKs them).
And in case either situation devolves into pvp - the tracker wouldn't matter either way cause you'd no longer be just hitting the boss.
I've been thinking about this a bit, and I don't see how this would be a benefit to anyone.
If there were fluctuations like this, they would need to either be minimal, or noticable. There isnt really a third option.
If they are noticable, all it will do is force people to not take players at a disadvantage at that point in time with them. This seems counterproductive.
If the effect is minimal, then people would just ignore it.
Keep in mind, the effectiveness of a build that in a game like Ashes (where the potential for building your character 'wrong' is a design goal), the difference between a properly built character and an equally geared but improperly built character can very nearly be measured in factors of magnitude of effectiveness, rather than just in increased percentages of effectivness.
Look at Path of Exile for an example of this. You can build a character properly and just wreck content, or you can build a character so poorly that you cant even finish leveling and literally have to abandon the character (respec'ing is hard).
Eith the variation available to us in Ashes, I would expect a well built, well played character to be five times as effective as an equally gear but poorly built and played character.
So yeah, I dont see daily fluctuations making much of a difference.
A real DPS meter to me is a notepad and pen to theory craft or to get some rough calculations. Experimentation is the best teacher.
Experimentation and DPS meter go hand in hand.
With combat logs being provided to us as part of the basic gameplay (on the wiki), a outside of game program already exists (ACT) that will parse those logs in real time so that we can see the effect of our build.
If Intrepid somehow manage to block reading of network traffic (good luck Intrepid if that is your goal because no other game with a combat log has managed it), then the next option is to simply record our gameplay and use a screen grabbing program to calculate how much time in combat and how much damage is done.
In both situation of using these outside of game apps, those theorycrafters that are designing their builds will use FACTS provided to them by measurement, rather than FEELINGS of wow this felt like so much more efficiency.
And then the youtube videos and guides will follow and everyone in most guilds will slowly start to enforce this, whether the original build creators admit to using a measurement tool or not.
I have said before, while Ashes may not support -in game addons-, players will develop other ways to measure performance. If Intrepid state this is a ban-able offense, then these players will just never say anything about it and use them anyway. Intrepid have zero way to check what kind of other programs are running in the background outside of Ashes so long as those programs do not inject anything into the game itself.
I still believe even after reading over 105 pages of argument, that it doesnt matter how anyone feels about whether these tools SHOULD exist or not, the truth of the matter is that they WILL exist, and we should focus as a community, with very different playstyles, belief systems and desire, on how we can coexist together to remove any form of toxicity whether real or percieved.
And so on that topic of how do we create a peaceable community:
In my experience, having played and completed the top high end content in every MMO I have played, WoW, Age of Conan, SWTOR, FF14 to name a few, the highest levels of toxicity come not from the raiders themselves, but from mid tier players that only want to enforce a meta without understanding why it is meta, what makes it work, what other options they have, or what is actually needed and required to complete the content they are attempting.
This toxicity has nothing to do with the measurement tool itself, and everything to do with player perception of what is required and what can reach that requirement.
So the question is, how do we approach this player perception. (To me the solution is quite obvious, by use of a measurement tool to say HEY LOOK! I am reaching the requirement as a player with my gear and build already)
And it's not something I'm defining.
One of each Primary Archetype is dev defined.
But, there are 64 classes and a plethora of augments, so one of each Primary Archetype doesn't com anywhre close to needing "the proper abilities in the proper order" as an objective META that requires a DPS meter.
That's not a META since their are a variety of healers that could be chosen, rather than requiring one specific type of healer. Also since, it's still possible to defeat encounters with no healer.
That's not most effective tactics available... that's just developing a tactic/strategy that works.
LMAO
Well, what "feels obvious" to you is problematic...especially with regard to an objective META that requires a combat tracker.
Again, it's the devs that have stated that the game will be balanced for 8 person groups with one of each Primary Archetype. So, we don't need a DPS meter/combat tracker to determine that.
And each Primary Archetype has at least 8 variations which are viable, rather than being limited to just one of those 8 variations in order to defeat a specific boss. It's also not limited to specific augments on specific Active Skills to defeat a specific boss.
So, no, most effective is not necessary - all that's necessary is... effective.
It's not one objective META. It's a balance that has many variations. And it's not a META which requires a DPS meter.
Context is important.
LMAO
No. Not really, But thanks for playing.
And theree will be people striving to be the world's strongest person.
That doesn't mean that you won't be able to overcome strength challenges unless you have the world's strongest person with you. You just need to have someone who is strong enough to defeat the challenge.
And, you probably don't need numbers to tell you if you have someone strong enough to defeat that challenge.
You can just bring an extremely strong person with you. You might choose to bring several extremely strong people with you. You might choose to bring strong people with you and also some levers and or pulleys because what's truly important is defeating the challenge; not defeating the in the most efficient manner.
That's an absurd tack. What is the correlation between Level 1 and "knowledge". And what in the world does that have to do with this discussion?
It seems like you are talking about player knowledge rather than character knowledge.
A very knowledgeable player can have a Level 1 character. That's not going to help the Level 1 character defeat a "final boss". The player character will need to be an appropriate level and have abilities and gear that allow that character to defeat the boss.
Doesn't have to be the Most Efficient method. Just has to be effective enough to succeed.
You would probably be able to perceive a puddle beind a boss without a perception check.
And, yes, individuals will strive to maximize the effects of their abilities. Hopefully, they will also strive to synergize with others in their group to maximize the abilities of their team as well.
You don't need any kind of combat tracker to decide to try to push the boss onto the pool of water to increase Lightning damage from the Mage. Should be an effective tactic.
You also don't need any kind of combat tracker to decide to push the boss onto the pool of water to have the Mage use an Ice spell that will have a boost on the Snare and Ice damage and stack that Snare with a Snare from the Rogue which also inflicts a Bleed.
Both of those tactics should be effective - which is most effective is irrelevent as long as both tactic sare effective enough to defeat the boss.
But, it could be that the group has a Mage that focuses on other schools than Elemental, so they bypass that pool and use a different tactic that is effective at defeating that boss.
The boss' hp pool will determine how much damage you need to defeat the boss. Damage per second only has relevance when there are phases with specific time requirements designed for that enounter... even then, it's a range of seconds...probably closer to a minute.
How quickly the boss' attacks will go through a raid's entire mana/hp pool will be determined by many factors besides just the raid's damage per second, like gear and Passive Skills and potions.
Yes. The harder the boss, the more resources and the better resource utilization a group will need to defeat the boss. It will likely be more challenging to find an effective strategy for the config of your group.
That does not mean that people must conform to an objective META to defeat the boss - especially not as interepreted from a combat tracker.
Where you state "proper abilities in the proper order" what's actually needed are "effective abilities in an effective order" - effective enough to defeat the boss, rather than the most efficient.
Some payers will be striving to be the most efficient - to the degree that use combat trackers to not only defeat the boss, but also defeat the boss as quickly as possible.
But, it's not necessary to defeat a boss as quickly and efficiently as possible.
You just have to be effective enough to defeat the boss. And, if the devs don't include combat trackers, that means they expect us to be able to defeat bosses without relying on combat trackers.
Most efficient is irrelevant.
It's not really "highest dps" in the manner you propose.
The top tier groups will have top tier attributes, of course. And, relatively speaking, that will include player characters with extremely high "dps". Sure. But...
Top tier groups will mostly be those who are the best at devising winning strategies for their group configurations.
We can expect those who are consistently in the top 1% to have extremely effective tactics - not necessarily the most efficient tactics. And not necessarily all conforming to a cookie cutter config some people have decided is META due to their combat tracker evaluations.
People can devise extremely effective tactics without relying on combat trackers.
And it's most important that the devs design with that expectation, rather than providing combat trackers and then designing encounters with the expectation that everyone will be using the combat trackers they provided to defeat every encounter.
But, you can't always get what you want.
Some people want to be on separate PvE-Only servers. Some people want to be on RP-only servers.
Some people want Corruption to be less harsh.
And in Ashes, don't expect that you will always defeat the encounter.
Even if you defeat a raid in 6-7 minutes, the next session will be different, so it might take you 10 minutes to defeat it again, in any case.
DPS meters are more than just a dick measuring tool for combat classes, it also lets new players know if they are using their skills effectively, or if some combat style isn't working on a particular monster or raid.
It also lets healers know who is about to get their proverbial cheeks clapped.
I mean people will find a way to use DPS meters one way or another, might as well have them implemented in some fashion.
Intrepid would have an in-game vote during launch week asking:
Do you want an official DPS-Meter build into the game:
What would you estimated the distribution of votes between Yes and No to be?
Obviously, this should not be an argument for or against DPS-Meters as the general opinion isn't always best, just a fictional scenario regarding the public MMO-gamer opinion regarding DPS Meters
If you have I players, among them is a tank, a bard, 5 DPS and a player that could be either DPS or a healer, if the content you are taking on could be survived via using potions, that becomes the most efficient tactic as you are able to take more DPS. If it can not be taken on just using potions, the most efficient tactic is for that last player to roll their healer.
That right there is a decision to be made on the most efficient tactic available to that group of players.
META (note the capitalization) was never about the most efficient tactic possible, just the most efficient available. That always meant different groups with different availabilities always had a different META.
That is different now, because meta (note the lower case) now just refers to what the wider community in general is doing.
Like, yes, in theory you should be able to kill bosses w/o using META, but Intrepid literally wants pve competition (with boss loots being time-dependent), so you'll have to use the most effective way to kill a boss. Dygz will most likely not participate in those raids, because he doesn't like hardcore challenge, but that doesn't mean that others won't do this (mainly because Intrepid wants to design encounters around that).
And just to reiterate it once more. Dygz, we agree on this topic. I don't want meters either and want Intrepid to design bosses for a non-meter gameplay, but due to the overall design goals of competitive pve people will definitely make dps meters and use them to find the closest thing to an objective META, on top of a general meta of the game.
I'm not the one who claimed one objective META.
In Ashes, the top 1% will not be limited to using one objective META.
One objective META will not be necessary, you just have to be effective enough to defeat the challenge.
Whether I participate in such raids is irrelevant.
I've said several times that there will be people trying to pursue a META.
META will still be irrelevant. What will be relevant is being effective enough to defeat the challenges and, even for the top 1%, that will not be restricted to a cookie cutter META as defined by combat trackers.
It is not the 1% that will force a meta on to others, it is the 30 - 70% that will.
The 1% (realistically, the top 30%) will be what ever they consider most effective, and so no one needs to force anything on to them. They are also likely to stick to playing with each other.
It is the next tier down that have a meta (whether it is correct or not), and will insist on others sticking to it.
Doesn't matter. The 1% don't need a dev designed combat tracker to be the 1%.
We all know that person that decides to start a new sport and goes all out to buy all the best gear and turns up to the game kitted out better than the veteran players, but not a lot of good if still not a lot of inherent ability.
To me, a combat tracker is a little like that. Yes, good gear (in this case info/feedback and understanding of what to do with it) will improve your gaming potential, but you still have to put in the time to develop the skills and experience.
Expecting to get high-level status without the effort is akin to the mindset of so many nowadays. I wonder if this also is a reflection of the age of those one each side of the fence on this issue within this discussion.
I would concede that a combat tracker be permitted after X number of hours played and at Y ranking.
For argument's sake, say 1,500hrs+ and in the top ranking for raid or pvp consistently for Z period of time.
Dead against giving away rewards without effort. Or competitive advantage without the earned right.
Nope, but we will have a dev designed combat tracker. Just not one they were paid to develop.
yes... always mid tier players that are meta-slaves... (sadly for me this is where i play now T_T )