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.
This brings us back to 'which things people can notice', but for clarity, remember, I am not saying 'I believe everyone should have a way to notice things'. I'm still standing precisely on the spot of 'Wait, if you make a game hard enough that only I notice the things, won't people stop playing it?'
For now give me the benefit of 'believing I'm as good as I say at these things', then apply the reasoning. I have only ever directly met one other person that can do what I do consistently. I don't do it in PvE as much because it has been so long since I played a game with PvE that required it and didn't just give an easy bypass for all the people who can't do it.
That's the level of difference between 'Tracker' and 'DPS dummy'. Remember, I'm a healer, I am not even watching my own DPS, I'm watching everyone else's DPS and the Tank's mitigation at the same time. And this is in MOBAs. I did it in Ashes Sieges and it was effective to a level that made me think something was off in balance.
I'm quite literally saying that there's no way for most people to understand what I'm talking about because I can see things/make connections that they CANNOT make. The usual response to this, as you could probably guess, is to deny the possibility of that (either for people in general, or just for me, if I'm in an argument). But that's literally what those supposed 'IQ' tests are really testing. I don't care whether or not a high score on an IQ test means I am better than, or smarter than, people, in GENERAL, but I know what they test. They test 'the ability to make abstract connections about patterns'. Their entire purpose (especially the higher level specialized ones) is to present the test subject with patterns that require increasingly more abstract thought or pattern recognition until they can no longer even conceptualize how to arrive at the answer.
That's the gap they're meant to show.
"This is your limit, you literally cannot comprehend how this thing is possible, as opposed to this person who has a higher IQ than you, who can comprehend it."
So either IQ tests are bullshit even at testing the SPECIFIC thing that we know they ACTUALLY test... or a high IQ person can do things that other people quite possibly NEED a tool to do. And if that is the case and the game is a challenge to that person, those who cannot will either follow that person's directives, or rely on a tool.
As for what one should do to change the way players are rewarded, that is a matter of something that I don't know how people react to, but Intrepid already may have and Aerlana has already discussed.
Outright make builds that are 80-90% as effective as a build that is harder to play and master for others. Then do the same for PvE encounters, then do whatever it takes to make players who use those builds or specialize in those encounters, feel meaningful.
But there does always need to be that '100% max build', that 'How is this even possible?' level of opponent, and that's partially why games tend to need either PvE or P2W.
So either IQ tests are bullshit even at testing the SPECIFIC thing that we know they ACTUALLY test... or a high IQ person can do things that other people quite possibly NEED a tool to do. And if that is the case and the game is a challenge to that person, those who cannot will either follow that person's directives, or rely on a tool.
But I'm not even talking pattern-based events. I'm literally talking "I, as a healer, was killed by a rogue and after that the whole party died because the healing stopped". And "a whole fucking party of people didn't run out of an aoe in time and that whole front of attack crumbled because of that".
I've seen those things happen in L2 countless times and I've been in such situations qutie a bit too. And pretty much everyone, including the main victims, knew what had happened and why it did.
And that is why I made the comparison of scripted pve where super detailed patterns could be designed and then figured out by players (with or without trackers), and the chaotic mass pvp stuff where you have the super obvious stuff that I mentioned and the super obscure situations that, even if you did recognize them as a valuable info point, you might never encounter again just because that exact situation might never come up in that exact way. When you have even 50x50 pvp (which will most likely be one front of attack/defense during sieges), the sheer amount of variables is just insane, mainly because people aren't robots so they can't replicate each and every fight 1-to-1.
So imo a tracker wouldn't really influence that part of the meritocracy equation. And if the other part doesn't even come up, then the losers wouldn't really care about it in the first place. Hell, they might not even know that it's happening, unless they try to party up with the winners. But quite often the winners don't want to work together with the weak, cause why even would they (well except if they're super kind and no longer need to farm that content).
As for what one should do to change the way players are rewarded, that is a matter of something that I don't know how people react to, but Intrepid already may have and Aerlana has already discussed.
Outright make builds that are 80-90% as effective as a build that is harder to play and master for others. Then do the same for PvE encounters, then do whatever it takes to make players who use those builds or specialize in those encounters, feel meaningful.
And here, I'd say, we're back to my expectation of content reveal I was mainly talking about the pve part, because that's a bigger part of the tracker discussion (at least imo), but gear/class design and balance are also definitely a part of the overall picture.
I'm used to a very straightforward balancing so I don't really have anything to add to this particular discussion except for "I agree with it and hope it works out".
But there does always need to be that '100% max build', that 'How is this even possible?' level of opponent, and that's partially why games tend to need either PvE or P2W.
And to me, this "build" comes through OE. That reasoning is mainly based on the combination of straightforward gear design combined with rps class design, but if Intrepid went for some skill-based methods of OE acquisition (especially if they're class-based), I think it could still be considered a good way to stand out from the crowd.
I'd personally be fine with a solo class-based instanced dungeon that rewards you with some OE items or maybe catalysts that ensure that OE doesn't fail. And when you see someone with a full set of OEd complex build - you know that bastard excels at his class and at the game itself.
Hm... I'm thinking about how to make this point without referencing fighting games, but I might not be able to.
Imagine you have a character/build that has an answer to EVERYTHING, but they therefore have so many moves and options that their gameplan is fluid, and you must be constantly thinking and perfectly reacting, but if you can do it, you're basically untouchable.
And then you have a character/build that has three main options and spends their time 'trying to get to the position to use them and defending until the opponent makes an error' and then does considerable damage with those simple options.
In order for the game to be balanced normally, the first character has to have the potential to theoretically always win. They are 'the best, on paper', because they could handle any situation. If you wanted to be the strongest POSSIBLE, you would need to play that build and play it perfectly.
Extend this to group composition. Extend this to raid composition. The user of that one feels rewarded because they do the right thing 90% of the time but have complete freedom. The user of the other feels rewarded because they do the 'right thing' 100% of the time. But if they ever meet a group/player/guild that can actually do the right thing 100% of the time with the first build type, defeat is basically guaranteed, by whatever definition of defeat you have.
Both sides complain equally. The 100% crowd complains that they are not 'really' the best and can't ever theoretically win against the 'normally 90%' crowd if the latter suddenly played perfectly. The 'normally 90% crowd' complains because they 'have to maintain at least 90% and work harder or they will lose to the simpler tactic'.
The design concept has to reach that razor-thin point where the requirement for beating the absolute hardest content is '101%' of the simple build, and '91%' of the complex one. One wins by luck (usually taking a risk and getting away with it, which gives them their thrill), and the other wins by 'skill' (but really just luck of how focused they are when doing it).
As for the other point, I'll just remind again that I only think in terms of Chaotic PvE being hard. You say 'mainly because people aren't robots', but that's really not the point.
One only ever needs to learn to counter OPTIMAL opposing strategies. If the '100% group' is actually fighting at less than 100%, then the 'normally 90%' don't need to keep up perfection. And vice versa. If the normally 90% group are making mistakes, the 100% rotation group can take a risk and still win.
Idk if you don't encounter it, but top level gamers are VERY close to 'robots'. There have been I believe MULTIPLE situations at this point where a player was banned for botting in a game and then had to prove that they could physically do the thing.
But in the end I guess this is not really a thing that can be explained because of the exact thing I'm talking about. You say 'the amount of variables is insane', but to me it just... isn't. I just dump all the variables for all the options that 'could be defeated without specific responses'.
This isn't to say that there isn't a level where the number of variables becomes too much for me. The only point I'm making is that before it gets to that point, other people start 'cheating' (or complaining that the game is too hard and impossible and just stop).
In some recent thread, Mag7 was trolling JustVine about Malenia from Elden Ring, I think... I watched her fight Malenia, about twice, and then said "Aim at her left shoulder instead".
Imagine you have a character/build that has an answer to EVERYTHING, but they therefore have so many moves and options that their gameplan is fluid, and you must be constantly thinking and perfectly reacting, but if you can do it, you're basically untouchable.
And then you have a character/build that has three main options and spends their time 'trying to get to the position to use them and defending until the opponent makes an error' and then does considerable damage with those simple options.
In order for the game to be balanced normally, the first character has to have the potential to theoretically always win. They are 'the best, on paper', because they could handle any situation. If you wanted to be the strongest POSSIBLE, you would need to play that build and play it perfectly.
Extend this to group composition. Extend this to raid composition. The user of that one feels rewarded because they do the right thing 90% of the time but have complete freedom. The user of the other feels rewarded because they do the 'right thing' 100% of the time. But if they ever meet a group/player/guild that can actually do the right thing 100% of the time with the first build type, defeat is basically guaranteed, by whatever definition of defeat you have.
Both sides complain equally. The 100% crowd complains that they are not 'really' the best and can't ever theoretically win against the 'normally 90%' crowd if the latter suddenly played perfectly. The 'normally 90% crowd' complains because they 'have to maintain at least 90% and work harder or they will lose to the simpler tactic'.
The design concept has to reach that razor-thin point where the requirement for beating the absolute hardest content is '101%' of the simple build, and '91%' of the complex one. One wins by luck (usually taking a risk and getting away with it, which gives them their thrill), and the other wins by 'skill' (but really just luck of how focused they are when doing it).
I'd say that my preferred class of SoulHound in L2 was the closest to this. The only thing it was missing was some form of ultimate defense ability (it got it in a later update at the cost of some nerfs), but it compensated the physical part of the received dmg by having a strong evasion buff. It also had a fairly op paralyze ability, but even outside of that "one fits all" tool it had a ton of variety for most situations in the game. It was my favorite class so if Intrepid manage to design their classes (at all amounts of people) that way - I'll be super happy.
As for the other point, I'll just remind again that I only think in terms of Chaotic PvE being hard. You say 'mainly because people aren't robots', but that's really not the point.
One only ever needs to learn to counter OPTIMAL opposing strategies. If the '100% group' is actually fighting at less than 100%, then the 'normally 90%' don't need to keep up perfection. And vice versa. If the normally 90% group are making mistakes, the 100% rotation group can take a risk and still win.
Idk if you don't encounter it, but top level gamers are VERY close to 'robots'. There have been I believe MULTIPLE situations at this point where a player was banned for botting in a game and then had to prove that they could physically do the thing.
I'm sure that singular people can achieve robot-like execution of gameplay, but I was talking about mass pvp as the main source of high amounts of variables. Even if we assume that a supposed group of 40 people (if we're just talking a raid vs raid encounter before a boss) can play the game in an insanely precise way w/o ever making a single mistake and always acting in exactly the same way (all rotations, all movements, all skills - all the same) - they still wouldn't be able to control the enemy side's actions, so there might be situations where even the "100%" crowd does smth that works well against the current "optimal" build of the "90%" people.
And if you're suggesting a balance design that allows those 90%ers to literally always win, as long as they perform well, then the razor-thin design should apply to the mass-pvp too, and in such a way that the always-losers don't feel so utterly defeated that they just give up. And I'm personally not sure if such a design is even possible. Especially if you consider a group of people that can potentially perfectly execute any gameplay action at all times.
I've narrowly lost encounters against better geared and better skilled players when I was a guild leader and even then quite a few guildmates became defeatists almost immediately because they thought it'd be impossible to win again. And that was in L2 where that kind of interaction was way more mundane. I'm not sure how the current crowd of gamers would take multiple successive losses against the same enemy.
And that doubt is probably the main reason why I'd be against having a "truly optimal" raid-sized build in Ashes. You could have 5 killer parties, but, in theory, they should be able to be beaten by a combination of 5 other parties that have classes that might, at the very least, semi-counter them. This way each former party could be seen as the peak performers and could be able to outplay any "100%er" party, but it might not be as easy to do in a raid vs raid situation. Though my designing abilities are not strong enough to come up with a way to properly implement that w/o it feeling cheap for the "90%ers".
I lost my point in that last post. I was trying to get at the point of "trackers might not give you the perfect solution for mass pvp, so their presence or absence wouldn't really be felt there".
I lost my point in that last post. I was trying to get at the point of "trackers might not give you the perfect solution for mass pvp, so their presence or absence wouldn't really be felt there".
Well remember that we are on the Meritocracy tangent atm.
I agree with everything you say about the design itself, which could put us back at 'the issue with challenging PvE being disrupted by other groups' instead.
Mostly I was addressing @MrPockets flow. The game creates the Meritocracy and this incentivizes some people to use Trackers to keep up with the crazy savants. I think I can clarify something else though.
I care about other people having fun. Without tools, many people have less fun. I won't use Trackers in Ashes, but I know that 'not being able to figure out what to do' in MMOs for your own style and build is not generally fun. And MMOs are complicated, or at least I figure this one could be.
If it were me, I would not be willing to tell a person who is not good at figuring these things out 'well you have to wait for someone to explain it to you'. There are SO many random bullshit issues with the WAY human minds see patterns that datasets on the scope of 'MMOs' just straight up trick people. Clusters, streaks, all completely misleading.
One of my tests for my own game has me convinced that a certain mob in it just rolls Nat 20 more often for no clear reason. I am leaning into it for the story, and it's both 'unlikely to be for any in-code reason' and even more likely to be a specific form of observational bias, but I have checked and purely by CHANCE, this mob type crits more often.
I've seen the code, I know that it isn't based on some hidden thing. But that's a good example. If you had gear that would protect more against crits but less against regular damage, in Ashes, how would you ever know if it was worth wearing it? Against my mob, you should always wear it (based on the data from the streaky sample set). In 'expected reality', you should never wear it.
I want the person who is frustrated that this mob SEEMS to always crit them at the worst times, to be able to get the data to confirm that isn't true statistically across all usage without having to ask EVERY guild member they have for their own combat logs, and then go through the combat logs of over a hundred people by hand to verify 'no this mob does not have a higher critrate'.
Because otherwise they're going to have to convince everyone else 'yeah this mob crits extra so I bought some crit-resist gear'. And because (in this scenario) they are WRONG, then if the mob does NOT crit but just does consistent damage, then they've made things harder for their group by coming to the wrong conclusion.
I don't fault your reasoning that somehow it's important that this unlucky person needs to figure it out with the help of others. I just don't want their experience to be everyone else going 'man idk doesn't seem that way to me, but you can go through everyone's logs if you want'.
Guild Tracker version of the same situation:
"Guys I keep getting crit by Minotaurs do they have higher critrate to you?"
"Lemme check my parser... nope, actually seems a little lower than I expect?"
"Nah mine's normal I think."
"Also lower, my dude, it's just you."
"Oh ok I won't worry about getting this no-crit gear."
"Maybe we should check if your OTHER gear has some sort of hidden 'enemy critical hit rate up'?"
"Oh yeah that'd be good, but that could take days..."
"You can lend it to us and we'll help test it."
I know you've said many times that to you, the other way is how it should be. I just don't think the other way's fun.
[SOLVED]
no meter or logs
##s all obfuscated
variables all intertwine
gg gamers
The number of people that would look at a game that did this with nothing other than suspicion would see that game dead on arrival.
While we may all like Intrepid, and perhaps even have faith in them, that doesnt mean we trust them. Players in general dont trust MMO developers (as MMO developers have proven to not be trustworthy).
As such, most players will look at any game that doesnt give players any feedback as trying to hide something, and many will simply not play the game.
Among those that do play, the developer is already on the back foot in terms of developer/playerbase relations, and it will be very hard to win players over from that starting point.
Fortunately, we all know you dont want this. Tou are just upset that your idea was deemed to not be a solution to the situation at hand, and after this was very politely pointed out to you, rather than trying to find a way to make your suggestion work, you instead decided to just get salty.
@Azherae
Ok. Why would there be a normal crit rate?
If there is no real reason something crits then it's arbitrary and probably shouldn't be in the game. There can be and are real reasons something does more damage though.
@Noaani
I do not think auditing the game makes sense except out of a warped consumer's hysteria.
Either the game seems to make sense or it doesn't. Any change to numbers is generally felt through the outcome not the details of numbers in a combat log.
You insist on characterizing everything you don't like as an extreme for the sake of a dumb argument and it's fuckin' obnoxious:
"most players will look at any game that doesnt give players any feedback as trying to hide something"
@Azherae
Ok. Why would there be a normal crit rate?
If there is no real reason something crits then it's arbitrary and probably shouldn't be in the game. There can be and are real reasons something does more damage though.
@Noaani
I do not think auditing the game makes sense except out of a warped consumer's hysteria.
Either the game seems to make sense or it doesn't. Any change to numbers is generally felt through the outcome not the details of numbers in a combat log.
You insist on characterizing everything you don't like as an extreme for the sake of a dumb argument and it's fuckin' obnoxious:
"most players will look at any game that doesnt give players any feedback as trying to hide something"
Stop replying
I don't know why things like this are put in games @Sapiverenus
I only know that they are, and there are designers AND players who consider them important.
I know games that hide stats, hide effects, not just on gear but on mobs, and if anyone EVER wanted to understand why I don't like the 'Trackerless' world, it's because games create VARIATION on MOBS by changing certain non-damage based aspects of them.
Gear can show you every single little stat on it. Mobs do not. And whenever the thing you're dealing with is random chance of X, a Tracker is often the only SANE way to know.
Why did BDO hide its real Defense and Evasion stats for years? Idk. Why did Ashes hide that weird mob-stat scaling thing that affected the damage of Castigation in Alpha-1? Don't know. Was that thing that the Dragons near the Gateway did, an intentional thing or a bug? I don't know.
All I know is that MMO developers do this stuff, and whenever 'this stuff' has RNG in it, you're guessing relative to how you should respond. I won't ask the people who are against trackers 'how to deal with the streaky-crit minotaur'. I already know many of the answers. But unless you have a way to convince Intrepid 'Don't make Critical Hits a thing from Mobs, or if you do, give them all the same Crit Rate at all times', I am unlikely to change my perspective.
I don't mind discussing solutions of 'how to figure out whether a mob has a higher critrate, whether it's just after a specific ability, whether it's a specific ability itself, whether it does it in response to damage, whether it does it in response to your position', but I will point out that this is what we use Trackers for.
Because MMO devs throw 'hidden mob stats that affect RNG' at us, and then give us different types of damage reduction on gear, and then say 'Tank this'.
Everything should be designed to be intuitive and organic rather than arbitrary and artificial.
If the minotaur does a different animation when critting then that at least is transparent where it should be if Crit means "Randomly Hits Harder or Something".
Just have raid content be high action oriented with high levels of skill required. You can easily make that only the top 1-10% of players can handle that content with a lot of work put in. Easy done and done, now you have the raid scene with no trackers and a game that will be far more difficult than any mmorpg ever with the mechanics involved as well ;o.
Im sure someone is going to try to say tab target is more advanced and be lying to themselves. They are trying to use raid content as a scapegoat for why they need trackers in a hybrid game.
Hardest content revolves around using heavy action and having mechanics as well, mentally and psychically people won't have the skill to do it, nor desire to improve enough.
SQL tables don't make for a great game.
Let it be transparent where it should be, intertwined where it should be, organic as it should be, intuitive as it should be, and so on.
Trackers are just irrelevant to a good game. Unless you're trying to exploit and get info you should have to work for or not have access to: that's a hack.
Everything should be designed to be intuitive and organic rather than arbitrary and artificial.
If the minotaur does a different animation when critting then that at least is transparent where it should be if Crit means "Randomly Hits Harder or Something".
While I agree with this, it wouldn't really tell you the thing I'm talking about nor solve it, as long as the RNG is happening.
Because it will visually tell you the same thing as the combat log would. 'How often it Crits you'.
It won't tell you 'that you're just unlucky, the critrate is still 10% overall, you just happen to be the player that gets crit 17-20% of the time so far in your experience'.
What would tell you that is a sample size of about 22,000 attacks gathered from your guildmates who also get hit by Minotaurs. Maybe. Might still be too small a sample.
I can tell by experience I always getting parried first strike, or miss or sometimes they dodge, and I tend to parry their first strike or they miss or sometimes I dodge in Vanilla WoW. I don't need to start collecting stats for that and I don't care; my experience is relevant to my solo experience and I can use the information right away.
It's clear that there's a mechanic there.
Thus I don't use my melee ability right away and I don't use it after a parry because it will probably miss (unless I don't care) due to the streaky nature of RNG in WoW because it's constrained RNG with hidden mechanics.
SQL tables don't make for a great game.
Let it be transparent where it should be, intertwined where it should be, organic as it should be, intuitive as it should be, and so on.
Trackers are just irrelevant to a good game. Unless you're trying to exploit and get info you should have to work for or not have access to: that's a hack.
I find that a lot of people on these forums have a habit of making big claims about what Intrepid 'would never do' and saying 'it would be stupid if it was done that way' or 'that would be a dumb idea'.
Sometimes I wonder how many developers are experiencing 'being called stupid' because that's exactly how they intend to do something, while in the weird situation of people 'having a lot of faith in them'.
You've just reminded me of that, that's all.
This isn't a point on whether you are right or wrong. I don't know how many 'SQL tables' Ashes will have. I don't know exactly what the Devs consider a 'good game'.
I know there's a Critical Hit Rate in Ashes though.
But would you say that IF they were 'stupid enough' to put a variable random hitrate in the game that could be different between mobs, that you feel it is unfair to have statistical analysis tools anyway?
But would you say that IF they were 'stupid enough' to put a variable random hitrate in the game that could be different between mobs, that you feel it is unfair to have statistical analysis tools anyway?
Nvm, saw the post in which you clarified as predicted.
I am not quite sure what you mean by 'constrain probability', but I'm willing to bet you're a top tier Texas sharpshooter.
But would you say that IF they were 'stupid enough' to put a variable random hitrate in the game that could be different between mobs, that you feel it is unfair to have statistical analysis tools anyway?
Sounds like variable skill. That's fine. Each mob is alive and can have some variable strength/weaknesses/progression. It's immersive.
But would you say that IF they were 'stupid enough' to put a variable random hitrate in the game that could be different between mobs, that you feel it is unfair to have statistical analysis tools anyway?
Sounds like variable skill. That's fine. Each mob is alive and can have some variable strength/weaknesses/progression. It's immersive.
What about the fact that as a Cleric my healing could randomly crit?
My healing could randomly crit on a Regeneration tick, too.
But would you say that IF they were 'stupid enough' to put a variable random hitrate in the game that could be different between mobs, that you feel it is unfair to have statistical analysis tools anyway?
Nvm, saw the post in which you clarified as predicted.
I am not quite sure what you mean by 'constrain probability', but I'm willing to bet you're a top tier Texas sharpshooter.
I don't need to be the best to get better or progress. If i'm unwilling to sink 200 hours to get to end-game content then I'm not playing and most others aren't either.
I'm fine with killing boars. I'll kill boars. The constant NPC beelining for fake story progression is BS though. The tremendous XP gained from them is BS though.
Put the game first. Put World and Meaning first.
Trackers are not important. Logs are not important. They detract from the game. Everyone that likes them or think they're important don't care about creating an immersive and well-designed game; they assume the MMO is dogshit but that means less competition or something.
But would you say that IF they were 'stupid enough' to put a variable random hitrate in the game that could be different between mobs, that you feel it is unfair to have statistical analysis tools anyway?
Sounds like variable skill. That's fine. Each mob is alive and can have some variable strength/weaknesses/progression. It's immersive.
What about the fact that as a Cleric my healing could randomly crit?
My healing could randomly crit on a Regeneration tick, too.
Unless it's just a method to add slight variability like chance to get 5 - 15% more healing/ damage it's not a focus and it doesn't require tracking to notice.
It's like having a damage range on a weapon. It's basic and low effort, and it does what a crit would do. Statistically, by layering the two, it has a graph shape and that shape has an impact on feel. Just get a good feel that fits the unit or something.
A lack of cool combat is more of an issue than numbers. Number variability can be conservative; focus on mechanics and such fiddling isn't required.
But would you say that IF they were 'stupid enough' to put a variable random hitrate in the game that could be different between mobs, that you feel it is unfair to have statistical analysis tools anyway?
Nvm, saw the post in which you clarified as predicted.
I am not quite sure what you mean by 'constrain probability', but I'm willing to bet you're a top tier Texas sharpshooter.
I don't need to be the best to get better or progress. If i'm unwilling to sink 200 hours to get to end-game content then I'm not playing and most others aren't either.
I'm fine with killing boars. I'll kill boars. The constant NPC beelining for fake story progression is BS though. The tremendous XP gained from them is BS though.
Put the game first. Put World and Meaning first.
Trackers are not important. Logs are not important. They detract from the game. Everyone that likes them or think they're important don't care about creating an immersive and well-designed game; they assume the MMO is dogshit but that means less competition or something.
Ok, ok, sorry.
It's not necessary for you to care about Healing Crit Rate or builds, it's my bad for addressing you when you already have such clear perspectives.
@Azherae
Trying to make up for the lack of features with number interactions that have no presence in the game except as numbers is bad game design.
That's the only context that really matters here. Everything else is fiddling with pennies while the pounds are ignored.
Either there is design or standins for design.
Comments
This brings us back to 'which things people can notice', but for clarity, remember, I am not saying 'I believe everyone should have a way to notice things'. I'm still standing precisely on the spot of 'Wait, if you make a game hard enough that only I notice the things, won't people stop playing it?'
For now give me the benefit of 'believing I'm as good as I say at these things', then apply the reasoning. I have only ever directly met one other person that can do what I do consistently. I don't do it in PvE as much because it has been so long since I played a game with PvE that required it and didn't just give an easy bypass for all the people who can't do it.
That's the level of difference between 'Tracker' and 'DPS dummy'. Remember, I'm a healer, I am not even watching my own DPS, I'm watching everyone else's DPS and the Tank's mitigation at the same time. And this is in MOBAs. I did it in Ashes Sieges and it was effective to a level that made me think something was off in balance.
I'm quite literally saying that there's no way for most people to understand what I'm talking about because I can see things/make connections that they CANNOT make. The usual response to this, as you could probably guess, is to deny the possibility of that (either for people in general, or just for me, if I'm in an argument). But that's literally what those supposed 'IQ' tests are really testing. I don't care whether or not a high score on an IQ test means I am better than, or smarter than, people, in GENERAL, but I know what they test. They test 'the ability to make abstract connections about patterns'. Their entire purpose (especially the higher level specialized ones) is to present the test subject with patterns that require increasingly more abstract thought or pattern recognition until they can no longer even conceptualize how to arrive at the answer.
That's the gap they're meant to show.
"This is your limit, you literally cannot comprehend how this thing is possible, as opposed to this person who has a higher IQ than you, who can comprehend it."
So either IQ tests are bullshit even at testing the SPECIFIC thing that we know they ACTUALLY test... or a high IQ person can do things that other people quite possibly NEED a tool to do. And if that is the case and the game is a challenge to that person, those who cannot will either follow that person's directives, or rely on a tool.
As for what one should do to change the way players are rewarded, that is a matter of something that I don't know how people react to, but Intrepid already may have and Aerlana has already discussed.
Outright make builds that are 80-90% as effective as a build that is harder to play and master for others. Then do the same for PvE encounters, then do whatever it takes to make players who use those builds or specialize in those encounters, feel meaningful.
But there does always need to be that '100% max build', that 'How is this even possible?' level of opponent, and that's partially why games tend to need either PvE or P2W.
I've seen those things happen in L2 countless times and I've been in such situations qutie a bit too. And pretty much everyone, including the main victims, knew what had happened and why it did.
And that is why I made the comparison of scripted pve where super detailed patterns could be designed and then figured out by players (with or without trackers), and the chaotic mass pvp stuff where you have the super obvious stuff that I mentioned and the super obscure situations that, even if you did recognize them as a valuable info point, you might never encounter again just because that exact situation might never come up in that exact way. When you have even 50x50 pvp (which will most likely be one front of attack/defense during sieges), the sheer amount of variables is just insane, mainly because people aren't robots so they can't replicate each and every fight 1-to-1.
So imo a tracker wouldn't really influence that part of the meritocracy equation. And if the other part doesn't even come up, then the losers wouldn't really care about it in the first place. Hell, they might not even know that it's happening, unless they try to party up with the winners. But quite often the winners don't want to work together with the weak, cause why even would they (well except if they're super kind and no longer need to farm that content). And here, I'd say, we're back to my expectation of content reveal
I'm used to a very straightforward balancing so I don't really have anything to add to this particular discussion except for "I agree with it and hope it works out". And to me, this "build" comes through OE. That reasoning is mainly based on the combination of straightforward gear design combined with rps class design, but if Intrepid went for some skill-based methods of OE acquisition (especially if they're class-based), I think it could still be considered a good way to stand out from the crowd.
I'd personally be fine with a solo class-based instanced dungeon that rewards you with some OE items or maybe catalysts that ensure that OE doesn't fail. And when you see someone with a full set of OEd complex build - you know that bastard excels at his class and at the game itself.
Imagine you have a character/build that has an answer to EVERYTHING, but they therefore have so many moves and options that their gameplan is fluid, and you must be constantly thinking and perfectly reacting, but if you can do it, you're basically untouchable.
And then you have a character/build that has three main options and spends their time 'trying to get to the position to use them and defending until the opponent makes an error' and then does considerable damage with those simple options.
In order for the game to be balanced normally, the first character has to have the potential to theoretically always win. They are 'the best, on paper', because they could handle any situation. If you wanted to be the strongest POSSIBLE, you would need to play that build and play it perfectly.
Extend this to group composition. Extend this to raid composition. The user of that one feels rewarded because they do the right thing 90% of the time but have complete freedom. The user of the other feels rewarded because they do the 'right thing' 100% of the time. But if they ever meet a group/player/guild that can actually do the right thing 100% of the time with the first build type, defeat is basically guaranteed, by whatever definition of defeat you have.
Both sides complain equally. The 100% crowd complains that they are not 'really' the best and can't ever theoretically win against the 'normally 90%' crowd if the latter suddenly played perfectly. The 'normally 90% crowd' complains because they 'have to maintain at least 90% and work harder or they will lose to the simpler tactic'.
The design concept has to reach that razor-thin point where the requirement for beating the absolute hardest content is '101%' of the simple build, and '91%' of the complex one. One wins by luck (usually taking a risk and getting away with it, which gives them their thrill), and the other wins by 'skill' (but really just luck of how focused they are when doing it).
As for the other point, I'll just remind again that I only think in terms of Chaotic PvE being hard. You say 'mainly because people aren't robots', but that's really not the point.
One only ever needs to learn to counter OPTIMAL opposing strategies. If the '100% group' is actually fighting at less than 100%, then the 'normally 90%' don't need to keep up perfection. And vice versa. If the normally 90% group are making mistakes, the 100% rotation group can take a risk and still win.
Idk if you don't encounter it, but top level gamers are VERY close to 'robots'. There have been I believe MULTIPLE situations at this point where a player was banned for botting in a game and then had to prove that they could physically do the thing.
But in the end I guess this is not really a thing that can be explained because of the exact thing I'm talking about. You say 'the amount of variables is insane', but to me it just... isn't. I just dump all the variables for all the options that 'could be defeated without specific responses'.
This isn't to say that there isn't a level where the number of variables becomes too much for me. The only point I'm making is that before it gets to that point, other people start 'cheating' (or complaining that the game is too hard and impossible and just stop).
In some recent thread, Mag7 was trolling JustVine about Malenia from Elden Ring, I think... I watched her fight Malenia, about twice, and then said "Aim at her left shoulder instead".
And that was it. Two tries later she won.
I don't play Elden Ring.
no meter or logs
##s all obfuscated
variables all intertwine
gg gamers
And if you're suggesting a balance design that allows those 90%ers to literally always win, as long as they perform well, then the razor-thin design should apply to the mass-pvp too, and in such a way that the always-losers don't feel so utterly defeated that they just give up. And I'm personally not sure if such a design is even possible. Especially if you consider a group of people that can potentially perfectly execute any gameplay action at all times.
I've narrowly lost encounters against better geared and better skilled players when I was a guild leader and even then quite a few guildmates became defeatists almost immediately because they thought it'd be impossible to win again. And that was in L2 where that kind of interaction was way more mundane. I'm not sure how the current crowd of gamers would take multiple successive losses against the same enemy.
And that doubt is probably the main reason why I'd be against having a "truly optimal" raid-sized build in Ashes. You could have 5 killer parties, but, in theory, they should be able to be beaten by a combination of 5 other parties that have classes that might, at the very least, semi-counter them. This way each former party could be seen as the peak performers and could be able to outplay any "100%er" party, but it might not be as easy to do in a raid vs raid situation. Though my designing abilities are not strong enough to come up with a way to properly implement that w/o it feeling cheap for the "90%ers".
Well remember that we are on the Meritocracy tangent atm.
I agree with everything you say about the design itself, which could put us back at 'the issue with challenging PvE being disrupted by other groups' instead.
Mostly I was addressing @MrPockets flow. The game creates the Meritocracy and this incentivizes some people to use Trackers to keep up with the crazy savants. I think I can clarify something else though.
I care about other people having fun. Without tools, many people have less fun. I won't use Trackers in Ashes, but I know that 'not being able to figure out what to do' in MMOs for your own style and build is not generally fun. And MMOs are complicated, or at least I figure this one could be.
If it were me, I would not be willing to tell a person who is not good at figuring these things out 'well you have to wait for someone to explain it to you'. There are SO many random bullshit issues with the WAY human minds see patterns that datasets on the scope of 'MMOs' just straight up trick people. Clusters, streaks, all completely misleading.
One of my tests for my own game has me convinced that a certain mob in it just rolls Nat 20 more often for no clear reason. I am leaning into it for the story, and it's both 'unlikely to be for any in-code reason' and even more likely to be a specific form of observational bias, but I have checked and purely by CHANCE, this mob type crits more often.
I've seen the code, I know that it isn't based on some hidden thing. But that's a good example. If you had gear that would protect more against crits but less against regular damage, in Ashes, how would you ever know if it was worth wearing it? Against my mob, you should always wear it (based on the data from the streaky sample set). In 'expected reality', you should never wear it.
I want the person who is frustrated that this mob SEEMS to always crit them at the worst times, to be able to get the data to confirm that isn't true statistically across all usage without having to ask EVERY guild member they have for their own combat logs, and then go through the combat logs of over a hundred people by hand to verify 'no this mob does not have a higher critrate'.
Because otherwise they're going to have to convince everyone else 'yeah this mob crits extra so I bought some crit-resist gear'. And because (in this scenario) they are WRONG, then if the mob does NOT crit but just does consistent damage, then they've made things harder for their group by coming to the wrong conclusion.
I don't fault your reasoning that somehow it's important that this unlucky person needs to figure it out with the help of others. I just don't want their experience to be everyone else going 'man idk doesn't seem that way to me, but you can go through everyone's logs if you want'.
Guild Tracker version of the same situation:
"Guys I keep getting crit by Minotaurs do they have higher critrate to you?"
"Lemme check my parser... nope, actually seems a little lower than I expect?"
"Nah mine's normal I think."
"Also lower, my dude, it's just you."
"Oh ok I won't worry about getting this no-crit gear."
"Maybe we should check if your OTHER gear has some sort of hidden 'enemy critical hit rate up'?"
"Oh yeah that'd be good, but that could take days..."
"You can lend it to us and we'll help test it."
I know you've said many times that to you, the other way is how it should be. I just don't think the other way's fun.
The number of people that would look at a game that did this with nothing other than suspicion would see that game dead on arrival.
While we may all like Intrepid, and perhaps even have faith in them, that doesnt mean we trust them. Players in general dont trust MMO developers (as MMO developers have proven to not be trustworthy).
As such, most players will look at any game that doesnt give players any feedback as trying to hide something, and many will simply not play the game.
Among those that do play, the developer is already on the back foot in terms of developer/playerbase relations, and it will be very hard to win players over from that starting point.
Fortunately, we all know you dont want this. Tou are just upset that your idea was deemed to not be a solution to the situation at hand, and after this was very politely pointed out to you, rather than trying to find a way to make your suggestion work, you instead decided to just get salty.
Ok. Why would there be a normal crit rate?
If there is no real reason something crits then it's arbitrary and probably shouldn't be in the game. There can be and are real reasons something does more damage though.
@Noaani
I do not think auditing the game makes sense except out of a warped consumer's hysteria.
Either the game seems to make sense or it doesn't. Any change to numbers is generally felt through the outcome not the details of numbers in a combat log.
You insist on characterizing everything you don't like as an extreme for the sake of a dumb argument and it's fuckin' obnoxious:
"most players will look at any game that doesnt give players any feedback as trying to hide something"
Stop replying
You lose the point of any conversation like an Alzheimers patient so go back to your Home
I don't know why things like this are put in games @Sapiverenus
I only know that they are, and there are designers AND players who consider them important.
I know games that hide stats, hide effects, not just on gear but on mobs, and if anyone EVER wanted to understand why I don't like the 'Trackerless' world, it's because games create VARIATION on MOBS by changing certain non-damage based aspects of them.
Gear can show you every single little stat on it. Mobs do not. And whenever the thing you're dealing with is random chance of X, a Tracker is often the only SANE way to know.
Why did BDO hide its real Defense and Evasion stats for years? Idk. Why did Ashes hide that weird mob-stat scaling thing that affected the damage of Castigation in Alpha-1? Don't know. Was that thing that the Dragons near the Gateway did, an intentional thing or a bug? I don't know.
All I know is that MMO developers do this stuff, and whenever 'this stuff' has RNG in it, you're guessing relative to how you should respond. I won't ask the people who are against trackers 'how to deal with the streaky-crit minotaur'. I already know many of the answers. But unless you have a way to convince Intrepid 'Don't make Critical Hits a thing from Mobs, or if you do, give them all the same Crit Rate at all times', I am unlikely to change my perspective.
I don't mind discussing solutions of 'how to figure out whether a mob has a higher critrate, whether it's just after a specific ability, whether it's a specific ability itself, whether it does it in response to damage, whether it does it in response to your position', but I will point out that this is what we use Trackers for.
Because MMO devs throw 'hidden mob stats that affect RNG' at us, and then give us different types of damage reduction on gear, and then say 'Tank this'.
If the minotaur does a different animation when critting then that at least is transparent where it should be if Crit means "Randomly Hits Harder or Something".
Im sure someone is going to try to say tab target is more advanced and be lying to themselves. They are trying to use raid content as a scapegoat for why they need trackers in a hybrid game.
Hardest content revolves around using heavy action and having mechanics as well, mentally and psychically people won't have the skill to do it, nor desire to improve enough.
Let it be transparent where it should be, intertwined where it should be, organic as it should be, intuitive as it should be, and so on.
Trackers are just irrelevant to a good game. Unless you're trying to exploit and get info you should have to work for or not have access to: that's a hack.
While I agree with this, it wouldn't really tell you the thing I'm talking about nor solve it, as long as the RNG is happening.
Because it will visually tell you the same thing as the combat log would. 'How often it Crits you'.
It won't tell you 'that you're just unlucky, the critrate is still 10% overall, you just happen to be the player that gets crit 17-20% of the time so far in your experience'.
What would tell you that is a sample size of about 22,000 attacks gathered from your guildmates who also get hit by Minotaurs. Maybe. Might still be too small a sample.
I can tell by experience I always getting parried first strike, or miss or sometimes they dodge, and I tend to parry their first strike or they miss or sometimes I dodge in Vanilla WoW. I don't need to start collecting stats for that and I don't care; my experience is relevant to my solo experience and I can use the information right away.
It's clear that there's a mechanic there.
Thus I don't use my melee ability right away and I don't use it after a parry because it will probably miss (unless I don't care) due to the streaky nature of RNG in WoW because it's constrained RNG with hidden mechanics.
So no you don't get a tracker
I find that a lot of people on these forums have a habit of making big claims about what Intrepid 'would never do' and saying 'it would be stupid if it was done that way' or 'that would be a dumb idea'.
Sometimes I wonder how many developers are experiencing 'being called stupid' because that's exactly how they intend to do something, while in the weird situation of people 'having a lot of faith in them'.
You've just reminded me of that, that's all.
This isn't a point on whether you are right or wrong. I don't know how many 'SQL tables' Ashes will have. I don't know exactly what the Devs consider a 'good game'.
I know there's a Critical Hit Rate in Ashes though.
I don't care if I call Intrepid stupid
Oh I definitely understand that, don't worry.
But would you say that IF they were 'stupid enough' to put a variable random hitrate in the game that could be different between mobs, that you feel it is unfair to have statistical analysis tools anyway?
Nvm, saw the post in which you clarified as predicted.
I am not quite sure what you mean by 'constrain probability', but I'm willing to bet you're a top tier Texas sharpshooter.
Sounds like variable skill. That's fine. Each mob is alive and can have some variable strength/weaknesses/progression. It's immersive.
What about the fact that as a Cleric my healing could randomly crit?
My healing could randomly crit on a Regeneration tick, too.
I don't need to be the best to get better or progress. If i'm unwilling to sink 200 hours to get to end-game content then I'm not playing and most others aren't either.
I'm fine with killing boars. I'll kill boars. The constant NPC beelining for fake story progression is BS though. The tremendous XP gained from them is BS though.
Put the game first. Put World and Meaning first.
Trackers are not important. Logs are not important. They detract from the game. Everyone that likes them or think they're important don't care about creating an immersive and well-designed game; they assume the MMO is dogshit but that means less competition or something.
Unless it's just a method to add slight variability like chance to get 5 - 15% more healing/ damage it's not a focus and it doesn't require tracking to notice.
It's like having a damage range on a weapon. It's basic and low effort, and it does what a crit would do. Statistically, by layering the two, it has a graph shape and that shape has an impact on feel. Just get a good feel that fits the unit or something.
A lack of cool combat is more of an issue than numbers. Number variability can be conservative; focus on mechanics and such fiddling isn't required.
Ok, ok, sorry.
It's not necessary for you to care about Healing Crit Rate or builds, it's my bad for addressing you when you already have such clear perspectives.
@NiKr, back to you.
How do I tell the difference between:
"Randomly increases Amount Healed by between 45 and 55%"
and
"Randomly increases Target's Healing Received Bonus by between 45 and 55%"?
Assume that a Target could build for 'Healing Received % up', and that it's possible that CON affects Healing Received % Value.
If I understand your usual stance correctly, the answer is 'you shouldn't care'?
Trying to make up for the lack of features with number interactions that have no presence in the game except as numbers is bad game design.
That's the only context that really matters here. Everything else is fiddling with pennies while the pounds are ignored.
Either there is design or standins for design.