DPS Meter Megathread

Dygz wrote: »

Ashes is a dynamic game that does not have META.
"I think the compelling aspect of Ashes raiding will be the difficulty in achieving this content and having that content change from session to session as well."
--- Steven

The only way I see them succeed at this is to give every class several unique cross-class synergistic abilities and make the class change requirements so damn expensive and difficult that people have to find new members instead of just changing the class of their current stack.

The meta will be the "1 of each archetype" setup, as you yourself like to say. So they'll need to vary it up with gear and augments. There's a chance they could go veeeeery deep into social org augment requirements on bosses (which imo would be quite interesting), but outside of that I really dunno how they'll design their encounters, considering all the promises/statements they've made.

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Developer isn't toxic, you are the one that is being toxic.

Actually, barring a very few posts, I am being overly courteous, and those few posts where I am not are on purpose.

If we are being honest though, the most toxic behavior here has been those that label others as cheaters - despite there being absolutely no grounds for that label.

That is pretty damn close to the definition of toxic behavior.

You can't make things up in your mind and think it is true.

That's your thing, not mine.

Truth hurts i see.

Dolyem wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

we want the games meta to be uncovered quickly.

Not we. And also. Why? Why does the meta need to be known quickly? What does that accomplish besides just enabling everyone to fall into one build and just burn through all of the content as fast as possible? Most of the fun from new MMO experiences is figuring stuff out with everyone since everyone is starting at baseline. All you want it seems is "Here, go ahead and take this tool so you can figure out the game as quickly as possible so you can maximize efficiency while blowing through any and all content we made but you can ignore it all for the sake of convenience and speed." No time to think so just make an addon to do it for ya right?
Also, IS's ability to create good class designs doesnt have anything to do with what I am saying. It isn't hard to tell that the first month of most MMO's is usually an awesome experience due to everyone not knowing what to expect. Making that last longer creates a great experience, and it actually helps communities because everyone is helping each other figure stuff out as they go. Figuring out class builds is also a part of that experience, and having people figure it out without easymode addons can be just another fun dynamic that encourages players to work together to figure stuff out.

He wants to know the most op thing right away so he can use it and keep quiet about it as long as possible to beat content very quickly before other people lol. If you aren't beating all the content in a mmorpg in 1-2 month you aren't doing it right XD

I love how ashes is about making a social mmorpg and that includes leaning your class, your groups and growing together by talking. But these people want to ignore that and use add-ons to help them as well as figure out bosses at a faster rate over communicating with their fellow friends overtime.

NiKr wrote: »

The only way I see them succeed at this is to give every class several unique cross-class synergistic abilities and make the class change requirements so damn expensive and difficult that people have to find new members instead of just changing the class of their current stack.

The meta will be the "1 of each archetype" setup, as you yourself like to say. So they'll need to vary it up with gear and augments. There's a chance they could go veeeeery deep into social org augment requirements on bosses (which imo would be quite interesting).

What???

Dygz wrote: »

What???

What exactly is the source of confusion there? Cause "what?" doesn't really tell me anything about the reason behind your post.

I didn't understand anything you wrote in the part of your post that I quoted.
It's all non sequitur.

You have to be in town to change augments.
Changing class requires some questing.

1 of each Primary Archetype for an 8-person group is not META. It's the basic balance of the game.
And, we don't need DPS Meters to know that the game is balanced around that.

Dygz wrote: »

I didn't understand anything you wrote in the part of your post that I quoted.
It's all non sequitur.

You have to be in town to change augments.
Changing class requires some questing.

You said there'll be no meta, but the design goal of "1 of each archetype" immediately implies a default preference and a potential benefit to having 1 of each archetype in your party. That's the basis of a meta.

In order to vary it up to a point that it's not just "you have 8 archetypes - you have best dps output for your party" you need to design each class' augments in a way that they feel different enough and have different lvls of synergy and dps outputs. And in order to avoid an objective "meta", you'll need to make those augments codependent in some way and give those dependencies different functions/values that would all be roughly equal in power.

For example, tank/rogue can put poison on the agroed target and rogue/ranger could exacerbate that poison with his "nature school" augments (this is a complete theoretical, before you start saying that it's not ranger who has nature as a school). And let's say that poison now provides a value equal to 500dps. Alternatively the tank could've had cleric as his secondary and use the "death" school of augments to cast a debuff that boosts any life-draining abilities, so that the fighter/bard's vampiric self-buff boosted his overall dps by 500 points.

Both examples give equal amounts of value, while coming from different classes. One could call that an anti-meta design. But when we add mob resistances and weaknesses to the equation, such augments can become more valuable. An underworld boss might have a high resistance to poison, but a weakness to death effects, so now, if we take the same example, the tank/rogue wouldn't provide any boost to the party, while tank/cleric gives +1k dps to the party. Now everyone who wants to kill said boss will just bring a "death schooled" player and easily win the encounter.

And this is why I said that the cost for switching classes would have to be really high, if you wanted to avoid people just constantly switching their classes to adjust to the upcoming encounter. I'd imagine any given raid wouldn't have 10 bosses to kill each day, so if they have a "Nature boss" on today's agenda, they'll tell their members "go switch to the fire school augments and we'll go clear that boss real quick". And even if the quest for class-change takes 1-2h - they'll easily do that.

And once people figure out the best approach to each valuable boss - there'll be a set meta of switching to appropriate classes on appropriate days (depending on boss respawn timers). To me this sounds like complete self-sustained farming meta where your raid never needs any changes in their core setup, because everyone can do everything.

But if Intrepid makes the class-change super expensive/long or if they add social org based augments as a requirement for boss fights - you'll have raids needing more/different people in order to maximize their dps output. And in the context of "boss rewards in a dungeon scale off of how fast you cleared the previous boss" - you'll need that dps.

In other words I'd like to make it harder for a set group of people to clear all the content in the game. Obviously you couldn't give fewer shits about any of this, because you don't care about peak dps numbers or anything of that sort. And there's a high chance that no one else would see the things I described as META, simply because there's internal change happening in-between farms so there's no one way to beat everything. And maybe my preference of the design described above goes directly against Steven's vision of "let people change classes every other day, or even daily, if they want". And if that's the case, well, I'll just let it be and play the game in my own way.

Aerlana

Dygz wrote: »

1 of each Primary Archetype for an 8-person group is not META. It's the basic balance of the game.
And, we don't need DPS Meters to know that the game is balanced around that.

META is just the result of what people see of the balance... If parties with 2 ranger 0 summoner have easier time to kill a content than parties with 1/1, this is due to balance problem, and people will prefer to run 2 ranger 0 summoner for this boss, than one of each.
And this example doesnt need combat tracker... just forum... and people expressing their own experience, and seeing that a common point of parties who had smooth run was "2 ranger, 0 summoner" while others had 1 of each.

Combat tracker... will just add datas to see if this is the case, or the balance is good enough for the best party to be 1 of each type...

Dolyem wrote: »

that encourages players to work together to figure stuff out.

*look at theorycrafting communities* ...
How to say it... but... theorycrafters, even with combat tracker works together A LOT ... sharing all information...
Thinking that people creating guides does it from their own personnal knowledge and nothing else is a proof you don't understand how all those people are working... and there are really activ theorycrafting communities...

But you speak about people READING those guide, applying it, and syaing "L2P go check guides" ... Yes, guides are the ennemy of social in MMORPG

Um. META = Most Efficient Tactics Available.
That's when people tell you that you have to use a specific cookie-cutter class, a specific cookie-cutter build and specific class abilities in order to defeat the boss.

1 of each Primary Archetype per 8-person group is just basic gameplay.
And it doesn't take a DPS meter to determine that.

NiKr wrote: »

In order to avoid an objective "meta", you'll need to make those augments codependent in some way and give those dependencies different functions/values that would all be roughly equal in power.

No. Because it's the Active Skills that are most important. Augments provide variety.
Which is why there is really no META.
Doesn't really matter whether your Tank/x is a Guardian or a Knight or a Nightshield.
Your group will want to think about how to best synergize their augments to maximize strengths, but that's just for their specific group - and really just for that specific raid session. It's subjective and relative, rather than objective and absolute.
A different group - despite also having 1 of each Primary Archetype - will have a different class composition.
The raid session will also be different. So, what perhaps worked as the META for one group will not be META for another group. Even for the same group, it won't remain META from one session to the next because the details of the raid content change session to session.

NiKr wrote: »

For example, tank/rogue can put poison on the agroed target and rogue/ranger could exacerbate that poison with his "nature school" augments (this is a complete theoretical, before you start saying that it's not ranger who has nature as a school). And let's say that poison now provides a value equal to 500dps. Alternatively the tank could've had cleric as his secondary and use the "death" school of augments to cast a debuff that boosts any life-draining abilities, so that the fighter/bard's vampiric self-buff boosted his overall dps by 500 points.
Both examples give equal amounts of value, while coming from different classes. One could call that an anti-meta design.

Yes. I expect Ranger to have a Nature School. LMAO
But, um...
If a Tank/Rogue uses a Poison augment, I would expect a Rogue/Ranger to stack that with a Poison Active Skill. There might be a Nature augment that stacks with Poison. Sure.

A Tank/Cleric could use a Death School augment. And we would expect the Cleric/x in the group might stack that damage with a Death Active Skill. I don't expect a Fighter/Bard (Bladedancer) will be the one stacking with vampiric anything, but...
Similar to a Ranger stacking their Snares with the Snares from a Mages Ice abilities... sure... the Bladedancer might have some ability that also synergizes with the Death augment and Death Active Skill.

NiKr wrote: »

But when we add mob resistances and weaknesses to the equation, such augments can become more valuable. An underworld boss might have a high resistance to poison, but a weakness to death effects, so now, if we take the same example, the tank/rogue wouldn't provide any boost to the party, while tank/cleric gives +1k dps to the party. Now everyone who wants to kill said boss will just bring a "death schooled" player and easily win the encounter.

Yes. Different augments work better or worse against specific resistances and weaknesses.
I think what you mean is that the Tank/Rogue's Poisons would not provide any boost to the group.
And the Rogue/Ranger's Poisons would not provide any boost to the group.
So... I would expect both might focus more on synergizing their Bleeds.
That same group might also have a Bard/Cleric...as well as their Cleric/x. So, would be stacking Death abilities in any case.

A group that is obsessed with being META would probably bring an entire group of x/Clerics to fight in a dungeon that is weak to Death abilities. No need for DPS Meters to figure that out.
That still leaves a wide range of x/Clerics. They don't have to be cookie-cutter builds of x/Cleric.
And it's unlikely that having a full group of x/Clerics will be required to defeat the dungeon.

NiKr wrote: »

And this is why I said that the cost for switching classes would have to be really high, if you wanted to avoid people just constantly switching their classes to adjust to the upcoming encounter. I'd imagine any given raid wouldn't have 10 bosses to kill each day, so if they have a "Nature boss" on today's agenda, they'll tell their members "go switch to the fire school augments and we'll go clear that boss real quick". And even if the quest for class-change takes 1-2h - they'll easily do that.

Again...
Switching classes requires some questing. You can't just do that on the fly. The limitation there will be time and effort, more than cost.
You have to go to town and interact with an NPC just to change the augments you've equipped.
I don't think you need to tell people to switch to Fire abilities to fight a Winter Dragon. Just like you don't have to tell people to switch to Ice-resistant Fire damage gear.
I'm pretty sure the questing to change class is intended to be more than just 1-2 hours.
But, changing class won't be necessary.

NiKr wrote: »

And once people figure out the best approach to each valuable boss - there'll be a set meta of switching to appropriate classes on appropriate days (depending on boss respawn timers). To me this sounds like complete self-sustained farming meta where your raid never needs any changes in their core setup, because everyone can do everything.

I doubt that since the raid content can change from session to session.
The abilities of the boss and their minions change session to session.
It's not simply that you figure out how to beat the dungeon/raid and then the exact same tactics work when you return.
So...I don't know what you mean by "switching to appropriate classes on appropriate days". That's not a thing.

NiKr wrote: »

But if Intrepid makes the class-change super expensive/long or if they add social org based augments as a requirement for boss fights - you'll have raids needing more/different people in order to maximize their dps output. And in the context of "boss rewards in a dungeon scale off of how fast you cleared the previous boss" - you'll need that dps.

It's not really about the class changes or the augment changes.
What's key is that the bosses are dynamic, rather than static.
The boss and minions won't be using the same tactics.
So the tactics that you used to defeat the boss once will not be the same tactics you need to defeat the boss again. In addition, to each group relying on different tactics.

NiKr wrote: »

In other words I'd like to make it harder for a set group of people to clear all the content in the game. Obviously you couldn't give fewer shits about any of this, because you don't care about peak dps numbers or anything of that sort. And there's a high chance that no one else would see the things I described as META, simply because there's internal change happening in-between farms so there's no one way to beat everything. And maybe my preference of the design described above goes directly against Steven's vision of "let people change classes every other day, or even daily, if they want". And if that's the case, well, I'll just let it be and play the game in my own way.

Ashes is a dynamic world, so we can't even experience all the content in the game.
If there's no one way to beat everything, there is no META. That is my point. Yes.
I don't think Steven has the vision of "let people change classes every other day."
Choices matter.

Yes, those are all the currently planned designs and I hope they work out exactly how they're currently planned. And if the do, there's a good chance that even the tracker/meter people won't care about those tools as much as they would've in other games, purely due to the volatility of content and variability of group setups.

But I'm assuming we're at least 2 years away from knowing if that'll be the case.

NiKr wrote: »

Yes, those are all the currently planned designs and I hope they work out exactly how they're currently planned. And if the do, there's a good chance that even the tracker/meter people won't care about those tools as much as they would've in other games, purely due to the volatility of content and variability of group setups.

But I'm assuming we're at least 2 years away from knowing if that'll be the case.

They still will care about it, it doesn't matter to them about the content they just want their add ons.

NiKr wrote: »

Yes, those are all the currently planned designs and I hope they work out exactly how they're currently planned. And if the do, there's a good chance that even the tracker/meter people won't care about those tools as much as they would've in other games, purely due to the volatility of content and variability of group setups.

But I'm assuming we're at least 2 years away from knowing if that'll be the case.

Right. But... all we can really talk about is the design.
If IS fails to properly implement their designs, then...things will fail.

Mag7spy wrote: »

They still will care about it, it doesn't matter to them about the content they just want their add ons.

Yeah, they'll obviously use them to figure out their own best rotations and stuff, but that's why I said "not as much as in other games". A completely scripted game can be "solved" through proper tracker use. A completely random game would require you to know what to do in each possible combination of mob abilities, as Noaani said. So, in theory, a game that's in the middle and that is balanced as well as Dygz sees it to be - the tracker use would probably be fairly limited (on top of Intrepid's "no addons" rule).

Azherae

NiKr wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

They still will care about it, it doesn't matter to them about the content they just want their add ons.

Yeah, they'll obviously use them to figure out their own best rotations and stuff, but that's why I said "not as much as in other games". A completely scripted game can be "solved" through proper tracker use. A completely random game would require you to know what to do in each possible combination of mob abilities, as Noaani said. So, in theory, a game that's in the middle and that is balanced as well as Dygz sees it to be - the tracker use would probably be fairly limited (on top of Intrepid's "no addons" rule).

It's not that the tracker is needed.

It's that the 'benefits' being claimed that we will get due to not having it are not REAL, and people like me see 'losses', however small, from not having ANYONE having one, and even worse, the outcomes of people thinking that other people have them.

I can play a game without Trackers, I don't even use or usually need them. But the point being made over and over is simply "Banning these will never do what you think or hope it does, on top of being 'legally' borderline impossible".

I've got:

"The Bard who writes Parsers to make sure abilities are working correctly/understandably because Bard is definitely the class/Archetype where if there is sufficient depth you will nearly always be unable to do this yourself."

"The Synergistic Summoner who doesn't have the 'slots' to manage all the summons, positions, and still keep track of every other random thing happening in a massive combat log."

"The 'hateful' PvP-er who dislikes Metas but also knows that artificially hiding information leads to massive misconceptions and long stretches of poor balance."

"The one who seeks truth who usually just wants to call out the baseless lies and misunderstandings about how things are done ("FFXIV doesn't allow trackers"? please.)"

And my own tiny opinions/concerns which are actually the LEAST relevant here:
"I don't care about the trackers, I care about the combat log, but if I have the combat log, am I allowed to parse it if I write the parser?"
"Is this game going to have stupid damage numbers that can't be eyeballed and even I will want a parser for?"
"If it doesn't, and I operate at my usual level of skill, do I have to worry about being accused/investigated for being this fast because people say that I must be using one? Are we going to end up with an entire 'counter-toxic' community where guilds have to worry about members being banned for being too GOOD at READING?"

But Noaani, Tragnar and Aerlana will make all those points because those are the foundation of the argument anyway. That said, since apparently 'more people talking' is somehow meaningful to this discussion, rather than my preferred 'Let Noaani engage each new person on the merits of their perception and see what happens'.

I will take the 'days off' since my concerns are the least (mainly because depending on how mine are answered, I just won't play).

Btw, have there been mmos with 0 combat info? Did they have complex pve and did it require or at least result in tracker use? I'm not sure if I've ever heard about or seen such an mmo, so I wouldn't even know how people would react if Intrepid went so hard on their anti-addon spiel that they removed any hp/dmg indicators. Like, to a point where you don't even know your own HP values, so that you couldn't just extrapolate damages from pvp fights.

I'd assume quite a lot of people would dislike that huge of an info absence, but I dunno if there's a precedent for it either way.

edit: I guess you'd need to have somewhat randomized mob/boss hp on top of unknown values, because people could still just get their ttks and then compare them. In other words, it's literally impossible to stop people from deconstructing a game and then using that deconstruction to their benefit.

NiKr wrote: »

Btw, have there been mmos with 0 combat info? Did they have complex pve and did it require or at least result in tracker use? I'm not sure if I've ever heard about or seen such an mmo, so I wouldn't even know how people would react if Intrepid went so hard on their anti-addon spiel that they removed any hp/dmg indicators. Like, to a point where you don't even know your own HP values, so that you couldn't just extrapolate damages from pvp fights.

I'd assume quite a lot of people would dislike that huge of an info absence, but I dunno if there's a precedent for it either way.

edit: I guess you'd need to have somewhat randomized mob/boss hp on top of unknown values, because people could still just get their ttks and then compare them. In other words, it's literally impossible to stop people from deconstructing a game and then using that deconstruction to their benefit.

Even if they did remove it if the game is really good and fun it doesn't matter people will still play it. People will still do test to try to figure out their dps using mobs and it will take a longer period of time and be much more onth e social side of things to figure how effective things can be.