"Once the raiding scene dies the game starts dying" by Iskiab
That persons comment translate to once raid content runs out they need dps meters to extend content which isn't true. They can min max without it and test new things out and get their higher number on killing the boss faster than the last time.
Ironic them using a meter makes that happen even faster to the point eventually they can just quit anyway.
No, that's not what I meant. What I mean is raiding guilds are bonded by raiding, and once you've cleared everything multiple times people start getting bored. People have a gear carrot for a while, but it's hard for people to keep interest. DPS meters get around that, lots of trash talking and competition keeps things interesting.
I see your point that DPS meters help kill bosses more quickly, but there's usually months between content releases anyways. It's the lull between farm w/ BiS and new content that's the hardest period.
As an aside, I also found that there were more jerks in games without DPS meters. Without a meter you get a lot of loud mouths claiming they're amazing types, where when you have a meter things become a meritocracy.
As an aside, I also found that there were more jerks in games without DPS meters. Without a meter you get a lot of loud mouths claiming they're amazing types, where when you have a meter things become a meritocracy.
Without naming names, we have a few of these in this very thread.
The point about a meritocracy is succinct. It would seem that those not wanting others to be able to use a tracker to see how they are doing simply dont want their merit to be known.
As an aside, I also found that there were more jerks in games without DPS meters. Without a meter you get a lot of loud mouths claiming they're amazing types, where when you have a meter things become a meritocracy.
Without naming names, we have a few of these in this very thread.
The point about a meritocracy is succinct. It would seem that those not wanting others to be able to use a tracker to see how they are doing simply dont want their merit to be known.
I've been trying to stay out of this thread recently...but the topic about a meritocracy was interesting enough for me to look up some literature about it.
Now this is just me doing a quick google search, I'm not claiming to be an expert...I just found this article an interesting read.
TL;DR -
A couple quotes that I think are relevant to this discussion:
The most obvious victim of this cycle is the middle class. Forced idleness excludes the middle class from a feeling of social usefulness. Stagnating wages and rising debt levels exclude the middle class from socioeconomic prosperity. Diminishing social mobility excludes the middle class from the hope of achieving the American Dream.
At the same time that meritocratic inequality excludes the middle class, meritocratic ideology convinces the middle class that this situation is their own fault. “The meritocracy trap,” writes Markovits, “imprisons the imagination, casting economic exclusion as an individual failure to measure up.”
In short, elites are shuttled into a life-long, endless competition that not only consumes their life quantitatively but qualitatively as well, leaving no room for self-expression, actualization, or discovery — only self-exploitation, value extraction, and endless anxiety.
When we think of meritocracy, we tend to think of “the best and the brightest” being rewarded, but Markovits wants to introduce a new version of meritocracy where being “the best” is far less important than being simply “good enough.”
As an aside, I also found that there were more jerks in games without DPS meters. Without a meter you get a lot of loud mouths claiming they're amazing types, where when you have a meter things become a meritocracy.
Without naming names, we have a few of these in this very thread.
The point about a meritocracy is succinct. It would seem that those not wanting others to be able to use a tracker to see how they are doing simply dont want their merit to be known.
I've been trying to stay out of this thread recently...but the topic about a meritocracy was interesting enough for me to look up some literature about it.
Now this is just me doing a quick google search, I'm not claiming to be an expert...I just found this article an interesting read.
TL;DR -
A couple quotes that I think are relevant to this discussion:
The most obvious victim of this cycle is the middle class. Forced idleness excludes the middle class from a feeling of social usefulness. Stagnating wages and rising debt levels exclude the middle class from socioeconomic prosperity. Diminishing social mobility excludes the middle class from the hope of achieving the American Dream.
At the same time that meritocratic inequality excludes the middle class, meritocratic ideology convinces the middle class that this situation is their own fault. “The meritocracy trap,” writes Markovits, “imprisons the imagination, casting economic exclusion as an individual failure to measure up.”
In short, elites are shuttled into a life-long, endless competition that not only consumes their life quantitatively but qualitatively as well, leaving no room for self-expression, actualization, or discovery — only self-exploitation, value extraction, and endless anxiety.
When we think of meritocracy, we tend to think of “the best and the brightest” being rewarded, but Markovits wants to introduce a new version of meritocracy where being “the best” is far less important than being simply “good enough.”
This is a slightly flawed perspective that applies primarily to individualistic societies, further multiplied by strongly capitalist ones.
It is true that there is a pressure to excel in such societies, but it doesn't come about as a result of the meritocracy itself, moreso as a function of the type of personality that pushes hard and then feels happy only when they devalue others.
This particular thing is common to almost all individualistic societies, regardless of how exactly they measure 'merit'. Been dealing with it since serfdom.
So yes, it's relevant here, but unfortunately games DO give you a few objective concepts of 'merit' that you must personally ignore in order to reach the sort of peace required to not trigger this effect. MMOs are a meritocracy already, particularly PvX ones (no matchmaking, competition for resources). This is another case where the Trackers are a 'tool', to be used by either the 'oppressor' or the 'uplifter', the game itself is creating the meritocratic tilt.
Instead of talking about merit just call it performance and the tool 'Tracker" as a Hack that ruins the game.
Your ability to perform will be impeded and I hope you fail to excel as a result Noaani. If you can't excel or figure out what damage is being dealt then you're not cut out for leading a Guild in a game that requires more skill than you can offer.
Instead of talking about merit just call it performance and the tool 'Tracker" as a Hack that ruins the game.
Your ability to perform will be impeded and I hope you fail to excel as a result Noaani. If you can't excel or figure out what damage is being dealt then you're not cut out for leading a Guild in a game that requires more skill than you can offer.
get wrecked
Oh? Let's try a test, then...
I can do it without the tracker. I'm basically savant-level superhuman.
The game says I win. Games always say I win. My IQ is amazing and my data processing ability is ridiculous. I want the tracker so that other people can keep up with me.
So I support the option for trackers so that I'm not alone here at the top with my genius and incredible skill.
Your ability to perform will be impeded and I hope you fail to excel as a result Noaani.
Why will my ability be impeded?
As I have said, *I* will have a tracker. It will not break the ToS. This fact isnt up for debate. My ability (and the ability of my guild) will not be impeded.
My argument is more for those that dont understand the rules (note; not Intrepids rules) well enough, and assume the scare tactics that Intrepid may use are legitimate. I want those people to have the same access to a tracker that I will have, so that those wanting to use one are able to keep up.
So yes, it's relevant here, but unfortunately games DO give you a few objective concepts of 'merit' that you must personally ignore in order to reach the sort of peace required to not trigger this effect. MMOs are a meritocracy already, particularly PvX ones (no matchmaking, competition for resources). This is another case where the Trackers are a 'tool', to be used by either the 'oppressor' or the 'uplifter', the game itself is creating the meritocratic tilt.
I would challenge this a bit. (because I find it an interesting conversation)
Sure, I guess the combat provides numbers...but what makes these numbers 'merit'?
Is combat/numbers the main thing that matters in an MMO? I would argue not.
Most people describe MMOs as social games...leading me to believe that the 'merit' would come more from social interactions. ie: Is this person fun to play with? Do they make me laugh? Do they cheer me up? Do they support me when I need it? etc.
I think similarly to what we've discussed about toxicity, can also apply to 'merit'. Each individual has their own definition. I imagine to some players being 'toxic' equates to "low social merit"
So yes, it's relevant here, but unfortunately games DO give you a few objective concepts of 'merit' that you must personally ignore in order to reach the sort of peace required to not trigger this effect. MMOs are a meritocracy already, particularly PvX ones (no matchmaking, competition for resources). This is another case where the Trackers are a 'tool', to be used by either the 'oppressor' or the 'uplifter', the game itself is creating the meritocratic tilt.
I would challenge this a bit. (because I find it an interesting conversation)
Sure, I guess the combat provides numbers...but what makes these numbers 'merit'?
Is combat/numbers the main thing that matters in an MMO? I would argue not.
Most people describe MMOs as social games...leading me to believe that the 'merit' would come more from social interactions. ie: Is this person fun to play with? Do they make me laugh? Do they cheer me up? Do they support me when I need it? etc.
I think similarly to what we've discussed about toxicity, can also apply to 'merit'. Each individual has their own definition. I imagine to some players being 'toxic' equates to "low social merit"
Agreed, but again bear in mind that the entire premise of this discussion is that Intrepid claims to offer powerful enemies that only the top percentage of players on the server can defeat.
Not 'will'. 'Can'. It is required for 'aspiration of those who are less skilled than that'.
Intrepid says 'this is a form of merit we wish for players to aspire to'.
If they found that 95% of their playerbase never even tried because the game was so fun otherwise that their raiding scene did not matter, I would expect and hope that they would spend less time on that type of PvE content. But for the purposes of the 'Trackers' part of this, the concern is always 'having objective data for one's own build' (could be done without a Tracker by most people) and 'having objective data for performance in a full raid against powerful high-tier enemies (cannot be done without a Tracker by most people without spending up to 3x as long outside of game as in it, GENERALLY).
So the meritocracy here that 'is going to be subject to meters' is the high end content. With the suggested method, there's no way that 'random PvE groups just leveling in a dungeon' who don't already have a Guild Tracker for a different reason would ever see use of such a thing.
So yes, MMOs are social, but THIS MMO contains high end PvE combat, or supposedly will, and it contains high end group vs group contests, which both lead to meritocratic win/loss situations.
If I can kill your character in every fight we have, I might not be fun to play with, I might not make you laugh or cheer you up or offer you anything other than 'an unbeatable opponent'. To overcome that part of it, you would need 'better performance', not 'social skill'.
That's a perspective for single player games, tho.
Eh, it's just a perspective of someone who's fine with others being stronger than them if it's deserved. A "bucket of crabs" kind of approach, but from the pov of the crab
That's a perspective for single player games, tho.
Eh, it's just a perspective of someone who's fine with others being stronger than them if it's deserved. A "bucket of crabs" kind of approach, but from the pov of the crab
I want my GuildMates to be able to keep up, is what I'm saying here.
I want my GuildMates to be able to keep up, is what I'm saying here.
Yeah, and I'm the crab that would hold them down if they couldn't break through on their own. Which is why I said that kind people like you and Noaani are stopping the naturally superior people from standing out as much, because with you helping non-superior people the success of "gods" won't seem as big.
Well, Intrepid claim that skill will amount to at least half of player's power so I might be wrong in my assumption but we'll see about that.
So yes, it's relevant here, but unfortunately games DO give you a few objective concepts of 'merit' that you must personally ignore in order to reach the sort of peace required to not trigger this effect. MMOs are a meritocracy already, particularly PvX ones (no matchmaking, competition for resources). This is another case where the Trackers are a 'tool', to be used by either the 'oppressor' or the 'uplifter', the game itself is creating the meritocratic tilt.
I would challenge this a bit. (because I find it an interesting conversation)
Sure, I guess the combat provides numbers...but what makes these numbers 'merit'?
Is combat/numbers the main thing that matters in an MMO? I would argue not.
Most people describe MMOs as social games...leading me to believe that the 'merit' would come more from social interactions. ie: Is this person fun to play with? Do they make me laugh? Do they cheer me up? Do they support me when I need it? etc.
I think similarly to what we've discussed about toxicity, can also apply to 'merit'. Each individual has their own definition. I imagine to some players being 'toxic' equates to "low social merit"
Agreed, but again bear in mind that the entire premise of this discussion is that Intrepid claims to offer powerful enemies that only the top percentage of players on the server can defeat.
Not 'will'. 'Can'. It is required for 'aspiration of those who are less skilled than that'.
Intrepid says 'this is a form of merit we wish for players to aspire to'.
If they found that 95% of their playerbase never even tried because the game was so fun otherwise that their raiding scene did not matter, I would expect and hope that they would spend less time on that type of PvE content. But for the purposes of the 'Trackers' part of this, the concern is always 'having objective data for one's own build' (could be done without a Tracker by most people) and 'having objective data for performance in a full raid against powerful high-tier enemies (cannot be done without a Tracker by most people without spending up to 3x as long outside of game as in it, GENERALLY).
So the meritocracy here that 'is going to be subject to meters' is the high end content. With the suggested method, there's no way that 'random PvE groups just leveling in a dungeon' who don't already have a Guild Tracker for a different reason would ever see use of such a thing.
So yes, MMOs are social, but THIS MMO contains high end PvE combat, or supposedly will, and it contains high end group vs group contests, which both lead to meritocratic win/loss situations.
If I can kill your character in every fight we have, I might not be fun to play with, I might not make you laugh or cheer you up or offer you anything other than 'an unbeatable opponent'. To overcome that part of it, you would need 'better performance', not 'social skill'.
I guess what I really wanted to address was the idea that trackers available to all via the game itself create this "ideal meritocracy".
I'm saying that IF that is true...then we should look into the potential negative sides of that "ideal meritocracy" too. I think that article brings up very good arguments around those negatives.
The combat 'merits' can totally exist along side the social ones, but should ALL players aspire to that high end PvE content? Or should ALL players aspire to be fun to play with in a social setting/game?
I think by making trackers "acceptable" or IS providing their own, pushes the 'merit scale' towards this idea that combat/numbers are the main way to prove you are "good" at this game.
With that all said, do I think I know the 'correct' answer to this? No way, but I'd like to think I understand where both sides are coming from. I think this is an interesting way to view this debate with a different perspective.
I want my GuildMates to be able to keep up, is what I'm saying here.
Yeah, and I'm the crab that would hold them down if they couldn't break through on their own. Which is why I said that kind people like you and Noaani are stopping the naturally superior people from standing out as much, because with you helping non-superior people the success of "gods" won't seem as big.
Well, Intrepid claim that skill will amount to at least half of player's power so I might be wrong in my assumption but we'll see about that.
I don't think it's a stretch to say that in our current climate of gaming, those who won't continue to play a game that is not rewarding their level of ability will simply move to a game that does.
I am not convinced that the reason we get all these 'easy' and 'dumbed down' games isn't almost entirely because the retention on harder games is too low. Now, that's fine when the game doesn't have the 'meritocracy' that (I hope) we are discussing, but if a game says it from the start, then I'll take them at their word.
Don't get me wrong, I'm quite tired of the opposite too, where everything is so easy that there's no way to use any unique skills one happens to have in a way that matters, but in the end, we'd end up back at the other side of this discussion. The 'there's no way you will stop cheaters from keeping up with me anyway' side. I prefer not to discuss that side anymore unnecessarily.
So yes, it's relevant here, but unfortunately games DO give you a few objective concepts of 'merit' that you must personally ignore in order to reach the sort of peace required to not trigger this effect. MMOs are a meritocracy already, particularly PvX ones (no matchmaking, competition for resources). This is another case where the Trackers are a 'tool', to be used by either the 'oppressor' or the 'uplifter', the game itself is creating the meritocratic tilt.
I would challenge this a bit. (because I find it an interesting conversation)
Sure, I guess the combat provides numbers...but what makes these numbers 'merit'?
Is combat/numbers the main thing that matters in an MMO? I would argue not.
Most people describe MMOs as social games...leading me to believe that the 'merit' would come more from social interactions. ie: Is this person fun to play with? Do they make me laugh? Do they cheer me up? Do they support me when I need it? etc.
I think similarly to what we've discussed about toxicity, can also apply to 'merit'. Each individual has their own definition. I imagine to some players being 'toxic' equates to "low social merit"
Agreed, but again bear in mind that the entire premise of this discussion is that Intrepid claims to offer powerful enemies that only the top percentage of players on the server can defeat.
Not 'will'. 'Can'. It is required for 'aspiration of those who are less skilled than that'.
Intrepid says 'this is a form of merit we wish for players to aspire to'.
If they found that 95% of their playerbase never even tried because the game was so fun otherwise that their raiding scene did not matter, I would expect and hope that they would spend less time on that type of PvE content. But for the purposes of the 'Trackers' part of this, the concern is always 'having objective data for one's own build' (could be done without a Tracker by most people) and 'having objective data for performance in a full raid against powerful high-tier enemies (cannot be done without a Tracker by most people without spending up to 3x as long outside of game as in it, GENERALLY).
So the meritocracy here that 'is going to be subject to meters' is the high end content. With the suggested method, there's no way that 'random PvE groups just leveling in a dungeon' who don't already have a Guild Tracker for a different reason would ever see use of such a thing.
So yes, MMOs are social, but THIS MMO contains high end PvE combat, or supposedly will, and it contains high end group vs group contests, which both lead to meritocratic win/loss situations.
If I can kill your character in every fight we have, I might not be fun to play with, I might not make you laugh or cheer you up or offer you anything other than 'an unbeatable opponent'. To overcome that part of it, you would need 'better performance', not 'social skill'.
I guess what I really wanted to address was the idea that trackers available to all via the game itself create this "ideal meritocracy".
I'm saying that IF that is true...then we should look into the potential negative sides of that "ideal meritocracy" too. I think that article brings up very good arguments around those negatives.
The combat 'merits' can totally exist along side the social ones, but should ALL players aspire to that high end PvE content? Or should ALL players aspire to be fun to play with in a social setting/game?
I think by making trackers "acceptable" or IS providing their own, pushes the 'merit scale' towards this idea that combat/numbers are the main way to prove you are "good" at this game.
With that all said, do I think I know the 'correct' answer to this? No way, but I'd like to think I understand where both sides are coming from. I think this is an interesting way to view this debate with a different perspective.
Hm. I can agree with this, actually. I do hope that wouldn't happen.
But I can also say that if 'the numbers' seemed meaningful to design in the first place, the game has other problems. So I'll try to pare it down to one concept.
"If you have an objective way of determining how well you are doing at the thing you are trying to do, the game is usually more fun. If you allow others or THE GAME ITSELF to dictate 'what thing you should be doing', then that is where your problem lies."
Is the person whose personality demands that they are 'in the top percentage of players' for success and happiness, able to achieve this more easily because they have no Tracker available to use for improvement?
Is the person whose personality demands that they consistently inform others that they are not average and would definitely overcome a challenge, less likely to claim that others are weaker than them, because they don't have a tracker to measure with?
I am not convinced that the reason we get all these 'easy' and 'dumbed down' games isn't almost entirely because the retention on harder games is too low. Now, that's fine when the game doesn't have the 'meritocracy' that (I hope) we are discussing, but if a game says it from the start, then I'll take them at their word.
I'm not completely sure that retention was lower. Maybe it's nostalgic super bias, but older games seemed harder but still fun (even when difficulty came from unfair mechanics sometimes). And if you beat some commonly regarded as super difficult stage of some game, you'd be seen as superior and more skillful (one of the bigger examples of this I remember is the toy helicopter mission from Vice City).
And if you couldn't beat it yourself but knew someone who could, you'd try to socialize with them and ask for help, be it verbal or direct "do it for me" one. And when you played multiplayer (and especially mmo) games, those difficult parts would bring people together. And maybe it was my own gamer bubble, but those kind of games promoted themselves on difficulty and people were more interested in trying them out and then trying to beat them for as long as it took. The retention was quite high.
And I think that the Souls games showed that being considered a difficult game is enough to grow hype to unreasonable levels. Yes, Elden Ring has several "easy modes", but its initial hype was built on the back of all the other souls games, which were so infamously difficult that any other difficult game was "the souls game of their genre".
And I think that the top skill people in the "meritocracy" of those difficult games were one of the appealing factors for those games. But that is also the reason why I want those skillful people to stand out that much, because everyone else would have someone to look up to.
Now I'm obviously not sure whether the Intrepid's tracker would in any way dilute the "skillfulness" of the playerbase and maybe Noaani's idea of guild trackers would be the same as those guilds just using a 3rd party one, in case Intrepid kept their current stance, but, as I've said multiple times before in this thread - we gotta see the content first.
I am not convinced that the reason we get all these 'easy' and 'dumbed down' games isn't almost entirely because the retention on harder games is too low. Now, that's fine when the game doesn't have the 'meritocracy' that (I hope) we are discussing, but if a game says it from the start, then I'll take them at their word.
I'm not completely sure that retention was lower. Maybe it's nostalgic super bias, but older games seemed harder but still fun (even when difficulty came from unfair mechanics sometimes). And if you beat some commonly regarded as super difficult stage of some game, you'd be seen as superior and more skillful (one of the bigger examples of this I remember is the toy helicopter mission from Vice City).
And if you couldn't beat it yourself but knew someone who could, you'd try to socialize with them and ask for help, be it verbal or direct "do it for me" one. And when you played multiplayer (and especially mmo) games, those difficult parts would bring people together. And maybe it was my own gamer bubble, but those kind of games promoted themselves on difficulty and people were more interested in trying them out and then trying to beat them for as long as it took. The retention was quite high.
And I think that the Souls games showed that being considered a difficult game is enough to grow hype to unreasonable levels. Yes, Elden Ring has several "easy modes", but its initial hype was built on the back of all the other souls games, which were so infamously difficult that any other difficult game was "the souls game of their genre".
And I think that the top skill people in the "meritocracy" of those difficult games were one of the appealing factors for those games. But that is also the reason why I want those skillful people to stand out that much, because everyone else would have someone to look up to.
Now I'm obviously not sure whether the Intrepid's tracker would in any way dilute the "skillfulness" of the playerbase and maybe Noaani's idea of guild trackers would be the same as those guilds just using a 3rd party one, in case Intrepid kept their current stance, but, as I've said multiple times before in this thread - we gotta see the content first.
Arrogance incoming (sorta?)
There's a difference between being perceived as difficult and actually being difficult.
In a COMPETITIVE game, if you are trying to get to the top, your measuring stick is not 'this is kind of hard', it is 'peak human relative to the thing in question'.
This is not something most MMO-heavy players experience. I say that AS an MMO-heavy player for the most part.
Souls games are sorta hard, but they are not very hard. In a way, their reputation comes from the reverse situation. They are POPULAR and that means more people who aren't particularly good at them, play them and consider them hard, so they get a reputation for being hard. So, if you focus on 'can I win a fight against another player/group' and 'can I get there first', the difficulty rating skyrockets well beyond what most people call 'hard'.
But if you say 'hey let's play a Modern MMO with players from all over the world', particularly now that being good is worth more than just bragging rights, you get a lot more of those 'peak humans' staying instead of just going 'ok that was fun' and moving on long before they even realize that other people find it to be difficult.
It literally doesn't even occur to them that the thing they are doing is 'hard' until weeks later when it's in some gaming magazine..
And that's good, when there is no actual Competition, when it can't be forced on you even when it exists, and when there's matchmaking. When a person can just go 'well the point is to beat the boss at all and I can do that too I just can't do it as stylishly/perfectly as Top Player ItsYaBoiMaxSkilz', they're fine.
If we were talking about that sort of game, I would not have anything to say.
Instead of talking about merit just call it performance and the tool 'Tracker" as a Hack that ruins the game.
Your ability to perform will be impeded and I hope you fail to excel as a result Noaani. If you can't excel or figure out what damage is being dealt then you're not cut out for leading a Guild in a game that requires more skill than you can offer.
get wrecked
Oh? Let's try a test, then...
I can do it without the tracker. I'm basically savant-level superhuman.
The game says I win. Games always say I win. My IQ is amazing and my data processing ability is ridiculous. I want the tracker so that other people can keep up with me.
So I support the option for trackers so that I'm not alone here at the top with my genius and incredible skill.
I get to lead the strong Guild then, right?
of course you get to lead the guild. They don't need the tracker if you're the genius leading them though. You'll figure out who is doing shit damage through simple time-to-kill checks on lesser mobs and checking gear, or simply by looking at what abilities people are rotating through.
You literally just need to look at time-to-kill, spec, gear, and rotation.
Doesn't require a genius.
EDIT: I removed the part about 'Inspect' since it isn't even required.
@Noaani
you will not have a tracker. i shall curse you to break every piece of tech you touch, and hopefully Sharif will make sure the server delivers jack-all information to the client with or without an "Inspect".
In a COMPETITIVE game, if you are trying to get to the top, your measuring stick is not 'this is kind of hard', it is 'peak human relative to the thing in question'.
This is not something most MMO-heavy players experience. I say that AS an MMO-heavy player for the most part.
How difficult is it to win in BDO's pvp against someone with better gear? Is it impossible due to bad gear design or is it just very hard and depends on the difference of skill?
Obviously mmo's balancing is never as tight as fighting games' one and never as fair as smth like a CSGO or other team shooter, but pvp mmos still present you with the "beat the human" difficulty rather than just a pve one.
But I guess that's kinda what you were talking about here
So, if you focus on 'can I win a fight against another player/group' and 'can I get there first', the difficulty rating skyrockets well beyond what most people call 'hard'.
Which usually resulted in most players leaving because they weren't prepared for the difficulty of going against superior players (be that through gear or just skill).
And that's good, when there is no actual Competition, when it can't be forced on you even when it exists, and when there's matchmaking. When a person can just go 'well the point is to beat the boss at all and I can do that too I just can't do it as stylishly/perfectly as Top Player ItsYaBoiMaxSkilz', they're fine.
If we were talking about that sort of game, I would not have anything to say.
Yeah, AoC's design is pretty much the opposite of that. And I guess that if Intrepid go through with the supposed pve design, it's gonna be an even worse situation, where a pretty big part of the content will be completely inaccessible to the majority of players because either its difficulty is too high or the "superior" players stop that majority from even attempting the content.
So then NiKr, that is why I feel one can at least somewhat speculate on what will happen without seeing the content.
Meritocracy is created automatically when the strong can prevent the weaker from HAVING things, and also have skills above them.
I must've just gone down a self-imposed tangent in my head and missed the thread of the overall conversation Yeah, I agree that any PvX mmo is a pure meritocracy because there'll always be someone who'll stop you from increasing your "merit". Especially pvx mmos with free market.
Want to kill mobs? Fuck you, you can't because another dude played x2 as much as you and/or has better gear and skill, and he always kills you when you approach the mobs.
Want to become a top trader? Fuck you, a mafia guild is controlling the market completely.
Want to become a top crafter? Same shit, you got no resources to use in crafting and no mobs to get those resources from.
And imo any social "merit" comes from outside of the game, because being social is not a gameplay mechanic so it doesn't really have anything to do with your merit in the game. And I think that's exactly the reason why social media has pushed out and kinda replaced the mmo genre. Because that social "merit" suddenly became much higher on the social media, due to the deeper irl ties and more potential consequences (be they positive or negative).
So then NiKr, that is why I feel one can at least somewhat speculate on what will happen without seeing the content.
Meritocracy is created automatically when the strong can prevent the weaker from HAVING things, and also have skills above them.
I must've just gone down a self-imposed tangent in my head and missed the thread of the overall conversation Yeah, I agree that any PvX mmo is a pure meritocracy because there'll always be someone who'll stop you from increasing your "merit". Especially pvx mmos with free market.
Want to kill mobs? Fuck you, you can't because another dude played x2 as much as you and/or has better gear and skill, and he always kills you when you approach the mobs.
Want to become a top trader? Fuck you, a mafia guild is controlling the market completely.
Want to become a top crafter? Same shit, you got no resources to use in crafting and no mobs to get those resources from.
And imo any social "merit" comes from outside of the game, because being social is not a gameplay mechanic so it doesn't really have anything to do with your merit in the game. And I think that's exactly the reason why social media has pushed out and kinda replaced the mmo genre. Because that social "merit" suddenly became much higher on the social media, due to the deeper irl ties and more potential consequences (be they positive or negative).
I believe that MMOs are not doomed in this way. I simply believe that they need to take an entirely different approach than they have ever taken towards rewarding people.
I just also don't think that it's sensible to create a Meritocracy game and then tell people 'don't use tools to close the gap between you and the naturally talented, you should either befriend/serve those people or not play/expect to do well because that's what MMOs are all about'.
It's not an invalid option. It just isn't the option I see leading to good outcomes. Especially when it relies on:
"Oh and if you do use them we will use surveillance on your computer to catch you and possibly ban you so only the people who know how to evade our surveillance actually get to get ahead/catch up, sorry you don't have any programming skills either but that's sometimes just how the world works, go defend/level your Node'.
That's just double Meritocracy, and one half of that isn't even game related.
I believe that MMOs are not doomed in this way. I simply believe that they need to take an entirely different approach than they have ever taken towards rewarding people.
Do you have any ideas for this? Cause I can't really come up with any that would fit a pvx game, outside of the obvious instanced content that is either easy enough or just doesn't scale the loot value with its difficulty.
I just also don't think that it's sensible to create a Meritocracy game and then tell people 'don't use tools to close the gap between you and the naturally talented, you should either befriend/serve those people or not play/expect to do well because that's what MMOs are all about'.
Would trackers give a much bigger advantage than, say, a dps dummy? Obviously they provide some tangible advantage against a semi or fully scripted pve encounter, but in my experience mass pvp is just too chaotic to properly assess what led to what, if you were trying to figure out what to avoid in future mass pvp encounters (well, at least nothing that you wouldn't have seen with your own eyes, like "people stood in aoes" or "enemy rogue killed our healer").
And if you can't even attempt the pve part of the game because you lose every pvp encounter before it, I'd assume that it wouldn't really matter whether your enemy used trackers for the pve or not because their inherent merit is just way higher than yours already.
Comments
this guy actually farmed a like off me, guess anything is possible.
No, that's not what I meant. What I mean is raiding guilds are bonded by raiding, and once you've cleared everything multiple times people start getting bored. People have a gear carrot for a while, but it's hard for people to keep interest. DPS meters get around that, lots of trash talking and competition keeps things interesting.
I see your point that DPS meters help kill bosses more quickly, but there's usually months between content releases anyways. It's the lull between farm w/ BiS and new content that's the hardest period.
As an aside, I also found that there were more jerks in games without DPS meters. Without a meter you get a lot of loud mouths claiming they're amazing types, where when you have a meter things become a meritocracy.
Without naming names, we have a few of these in this very thread.
The point about a meritocracy is succinct. It would seem that those not wanting others to be able to use a tracker to see how they are doing simply dont want their merit to be known.
I've been trying to stay out of this thread recently...but the topic about a meritocracy was interesting enough for me to look up some literature about it.
Now this is just me doing a quick google search, I'm not claiming to be an expert...I just found this article an interesting read.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/10/24/20919030/meritocracy-book-daniel-markovits-inequality-rich
TL;DR -
A couple quotes that I think are relevant to this discussion:
This is a slightly flawed perspective that applies primarily to individualistic societies, further multiplied by strongly capitalist ones.
It is true that there is a pressure to excel in such societies, but it doesn't come about as a result of the meritocracy itself, moreso as a function of the type of personality that pushes hard and then feels happy only when they devalue others.
This particular thing is common to almost all individualistic societies, regardless of how exactly they measure 'merit'. Been dealing with it since serfdom.
So yes, it's relevant here, but unfortunately games DO give you a few objective concepts of 'merit' that you must personally ignore in order to reach the sort of peace required to not trigger this effect. MMOs are a meritocracy already, particularly PvX ones (no matchmaking, competition for resources). This is another case where the Trackers are a 'tool', to be used by either the 'oppressor' or the 'uplifter', the game itself is creating the meritocratic tilt.
Your ability to perform will be impeded and I hope you fail to excel as a result Noaani. If you can't excel or figure out what damage is being dealt then you're not cut out for leading a Guild in a game that requires more skill than you can offer.
get wrecked
Oh? Let's try a test, then...
I can do it without the tracker. I'm basically savant-level superhuman.
The game says I win. Games always say I win. My IQ is amazing and my data processing ability is ridiculous. I want the tracker so that other people can keep up with me.
So I support the option for trackers so that I'm not alone here at the top with my genius and incredible skill.
I get to lead the strong Guild then, right?
Why will my ability be impeded?
As I have said, *I* will have a tracker. It will not break the ToS. This fact isnt up for debate. My ability (and the ability of my guild) will not be impeded.
My argument is more for those that dont understand the rules (note; not Intrepids rules) well enough, and assume the scare tactics that Intrepid may use are legitimate. I want those people to have the same access to a tracker that I will have, so that those wanting to use one are able to keep up.
That's a perspective for single player games, tho.
I would challenge this a bit. (because I find it an interesting conversation)
Sure, I guess the combat provides numbers...but what makes these numbers 'merit'?
Is combat/numbers the main thing that matters in an MMO? I would argue not.
Most people describe MMOs as social games...leading me to believe that the 'merit' would come more from social interactions. ie: Is this person fun to play with? Do they make me laugh? Do they cheer me up? Do they support me when I need it? etc.
I think similarly to what we've discussed about toxicity, can also apply to 'merit'. Each individual has their own definition. I imagine to some players being 'toxic' equates to "low social merit"
Agreed, but again bear in mind that the entire premise of this discussion is that Intrepid claims to offer powerful enemies that only the top percentage of players on the server can defeat.
Not 'will'. 'Can'. It is required for 'aspiration of those who are less skilled than that'.
Intrepid says 'this is a form of merit we wish for players to aspire to'.
If they found that 95% of their playerbase never even tried because the game was so fun otherwise that their raiding scene did not matter, I would expect and hope that they would spend less time on that type of PvE content. But for the purposes of the 'Trackers' part of this, the concern is always 'having objective data for one's own build' (could be done without a Tracker by most people) and 'having objective data for performance in a full raid against powerful high-tier enemies (cannot be done without a Tracker by most people without spending up to 3x as long outside of game as in it, GENERALLY).
So the meritocracy here that 'is going to be subject to meters' is the high end content. With the suggested method, there's no way that 'random PvE groups just leveling in a dungeon' who don't already have a Guild Tracker for a different reason would ever see use of such a thing.
So yes, MMOs are social, but THIS MMO contains high end PvE combat, or supposedly will, and it contains high end group vs group contests, which both lead to meritocratic win/loss situations.
If I can kill your character in every fight we have, I might not be fun to play with, I might not make you laugh or cheer you up or offer you anything other than 'an unbeatable opponent'. To overcome that part of it, you would need 'better performance', not 'social skill'.
I want my GuildMates to be able to keep up, is what I'm saying here.
Well, Intrepid claim that skill will amount to at least half of player's power so I might be wrong in my assumption but we'll see about that.
I guess what I really wanted to address was the idea that trackers available to all via the game itself create this "ideal meritocracy".
I'm saying that IF that is true...then we should look into the potential negative sides of that "ideal meritocracy" too. I think that article brings up very good arguments around those negatives.
The combat 'merits' can totally exist along side the social ones, but should ALL players aspire to that high end PvE content? Or should ALL players aspire to be fun to play with in a social setting/game?
I think by making trackers "acceptable" or IS providing their own, pushes the 'merit scale' towards this idea that combat/numbers are the main way to prove you are "good" at this game.
With that all said, do I think I know the 'correct' answer to this? No way, but I'd like to think I understand where both sides are coming from. I think this is an interesting way to view this debate with a different perspective.
I don't think it's a stretch to say that in our current climate of gaming, those who won't continue to play a game that is not rewarding their level of ability will simply move to a game that does.
I am not convinced that the reason we get all these 'easy' and 'dumbed down' games isn't almost entirely because the retention on harder games is too low. Now, that's fine when the game doesn't have the 'meritocracy' that (I hope) we are discussing, but if a game says it from the start, then I'll take them at their word.
Don't get me wrong, I'm quite tired of the opposite too, where everything is so easy that there's no way to use any unique skills one happens to have in a way that matters, but in the end, we'd end up back at the other side of this discussion. The 'there's no way you will stop cheaters from keeping up with me anyway' side. I prefer not to discuss that side anymore unnecessarily.
Hm. I can agree with this, actually. I do hope that wouldn't happen.
But I can also say that if 'the numbers' seemed meaningful to design in the first place, the game has other problems. So I'll try to pare it down to one concept.
"If you have an objective way of determining how well you are doing at the thing you are trying to do, the game is usually more fun. If you allow others or THE GAME ITSELF to dictate 'what thing you should be doing', then that is where your problem lies."
Is the person whose personality demands that they are 'in the top percentage of players' for success and happiness, able to achieve this more easily because they have no Tracker available to use for improvement?
Is the person whose personality demands that they consistently inform others that they are not average and would definitely overcome a challenge, less likely to claim that others are weaker than them, because they don't have a tracker to measure with?
And if you couldn't beat it yourself but knew someone who could, you'd try to socialize with them and ask for help, be it verbal or direct "do it for me" one. And when you played multiplayer (and especially mmo) games, those difficult parts would bring people together. And maybe it was my own gamer bubble, but those kind of games promoted themselves on difficulty and people were more interested in trying them out and then trying to beat them for as long as it took. The retention was quite high.
And I think that the Souls games showed that being considered a difficult game is enough to grow hype to unreasonable levels. Yes, Elden Ring has several "easy modes", but its initial hype was built on the back of all the other souls games, which were so infamously difficult that any other difficult game was "the souls game of their genre".
And I think that the top skill people in the "meritocracy" of those difficult games were one of the appealing factors for those games. But that is also the reason why I want those skillful people to stand out that much, because everyone else would have someone to look up to.
Now I'm obviously not sure whether the Intrepid's tracker would in any way dilute the "skillfulness" of the playerbase and maybe Noaani's idea of guild trackers would be the same as those guilds just using a 3rd party one, in case Intrepid kept their current stance, but, as I've said multiple times before in this thread - we gotta see the content first.
Arrogance incoming (sorta?)
There's a difference between being perceived as difficult and actually being difficult.
In a COMPETITIVE game, if you are trying to get to the top, your measuring stick is not 'this is kind of hard', it is 'peak human relative to the thing in question'.
This is not something most MMO-heavy players experience. I say that AS an MMO-heavy player for the most part.
Souls games are sorta hard, but they are not very hard. In a way, their reputation comes from the reverse situation. They are POPULAR and that means more people who aren't particularly good at them, play them and consider them hard, so they get a reputation for being hard. So, if you focus on 'can I win a fight against another player/group' and 'can I get there first', the difficulty rating skyrockets well beyond what most people call 'hard'.
But if you say 'hey let's play a Modern MMO with players from all over the world', particularly now that being good is worth more than just bragging rights, you get a lot more of those 'peak humans' staying instead of just going 'ok that was fun' and moving on long before they even realize that other people find it to be difficult.
It literally doesn't even occur to them that the thing they are doing is 'hard' until weeks later when it's in some gaming magazine..
And that's good, when there is no actual Competition, when it can't be forced on you even when it exists, and when there's matchmaking. When a person can just go 'well the point is to beat the boss at all and I can do that too I just can't do it as stylishly/perfectly as Top Player ItsYaBoiMaxSkilz', they're fine.
If we were talking about that sort of game, I would not have anything to say.
of course you get to lead the guild. They don't need the tracker if you're the genius leading them though. You'll figure out who is doing shit damage through simple time-to-kill checks on lesser mobs and checking gear, or simply by looking at what abilities people are rotating through.
You literally just need to look at time-to-kill, spec, gear, and rotation.
Doesn't require a genius.
EDIT: I removed the part about 'Inspect' since it isn't even required.
you will not have a tracker. i shall curse you to break every piece of tech you touch, and hopefully Sharif will make sure the server delivers jack-all information to the client with or without an "Inspect".
Obviously mmo's balancing is never as tight as fighting games' one and never as fair as smth like a CSGO or other team shooter, but pvp mmos still present you with the "beat the human" difficulty rather than just a pve one.
But I guess that's kinda what you were talking about here Which usually resulted in most players leaving because they weren't prepared for the difficulty of going against superior players (be that through gear or just skill). Yeah, AoC's design is pretty much the opposite of that. And I guess that if Intrepid go through with the supposed pve design, it's gonna be an even worse situation, where a pretty big part of the content will be completely inaccessible to the majority of players because either its difficulty is too high or the "superior" players stop that majority from even attempting the content.
Meritocracy is created automatically when the strong can prevent the weaker from HAVING things, and also have skills above them.
Want to kill mobs? Fuck you, you can't because another dude played x2 as much as you and/or has better gear and skill, and he always kills you when you approach the mobs.
Want to become a top trader? Fuck you, a mafia guild is controlling the market completely.
Want to become a top crafter? Same shit, you got no resources to use in crafting and no mobs to get those resources from.
And imo any social "merit" comes from outside of the game, because being social is not a gameplay mechanic so it doesn't really have anything to do with your merit in the game. And I think that's exactly the reason why social media has pushed out and kinda replaced the mmo genre. Because that social "merit" suddenly became much higher on the social media, due to the deeper irl ties and more potential consequences (be they positive or negative).
I believe that MMOs are not doomed in this way. I simply believe that they need to take an entirely different approach than they have ever taken towards rewarding people.
I just also don't think that it's sensible to create a Meritocracy game and then tell people 'don't use tools to close the gap between you and the naturally talented, you should either befriend/serve those people or not play/expect to do well because that's what MMOs are all about'.
It's not an invalid option. It just isn't the option I see leading to good outcomes. Especially when it relies on:
"Oh and if you do use them we will use surveillance on your computer to catch you and possibly ban you so only the people who know how to evade our surveillance actually get to get ahead/catch up, sorry you don't have any programming skills either but that's sometimes just how the world works, go defend/level your Node'.
That's just double Meritocracy, and one half of that isn't even game related.
And if you can't even attempt the pve part of the game because you lose every pvp encounter before it, I'd assume that it wouldn't really matter whether your enemy used trackers for the pve or not because their inherent merit is just way higher than yours already.
social media the mmo lol