DPS Meter Megathread

Mag7spy wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

WoW is a better game, numbers speak for themselves

By this logic, McDonalds is the best restaurant in the world.

I'm not talking about anything else, I'm talking about EQ and WoW. Trying to compare food makes no sense.

If numbers speak for themself, then numbers speak for themself.

If WoW is the beat because of numbers, McDonalfs is the best because of numbers.

If you actually believe this, then I can see why you wouldn't want a tracker.

Mag7spy wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

A handful are trying to push for people to view anyone's logs under the guise of being in the same guild.

Actually, that is technically not true.

If there is a guild combat tracker, it wouldn't be viewing other players logs - it would be creating a log for individual guild groups and raids. Rather than it being a case of others looking at your log, it would be a case of you contributing data to the guilds log.

This seems like a small difference, but when you consider what a log contains in most games (literally everything, including all conversations), sharing logs is something that I would never want to see happen.

^this guy above will 100% eventually push for logs everywhere. What is he saying makes it even worse than I thought talking about a data base of logs in a guild.

Actually, in pushing for a first party tracker, I am pushing for players not even having access to a log file at all.

It's a shame you keep making baseless accusations without understanding the topic at hand.

Aerlana wrote: »

Chickenlipzz wrote: »

but since AOC is focusing on large groups of players NEEDING each other, the less that tends to encourage separation the better.

Yes... and no.

This is true if you consider that top end fight can be finished with unlimited amount of people... being designed for 40 people (a raid) but if yo uwant to bring a whole big guild of 300 people ? fine go on.
but at this point the fight is easy... you have 7,5 time the amount of people... so anyone on each server can kill any boss going this way. . . Far from the "single digit" promised.
So you can then do a dynamic balance : the more people are in the fight, the more damages and life the boss has. but then the amount will just reduce the lack of effectivness of some people, and reduce the impact of personnal mistakes, but the need to minmax the personnal gameplay and the teamplay stays the same

Teamplay is a thing i want in AoC... and because of it, to maximize (and even min-max) the synergies between the forty characters of the raid, there will be needed test, tons of tests, tons of log line to analyse, to dissect, and also to compare with other tons of other log line from another test...

the simple "ok, because it is more teamplay there is no need for minmaxing" is just out of topic... you can minmax thru teamplay. I do Pen & Paper RPG... it is a lot around teamplay... and i can totally confirm that 4-5 average character but with excellent teamplay are far less good that a team of 4-5 optimised character, with excellent teamplay... and even this can still be even more improved when minmaxing the teamplay.

People body-block one another and there might be Line of Sight blocking (should be). Friendly Fire should be a reality.

So a lot of Raids are still ~40 no matter what. Depending on the design. Of course you can meatground 260 people into the Boss then win with the remainder, and that would be easier.
The more tactical positions the enemy can use, such as chokepoints with AoE defensive siege weaponry, the more AoE they have, and if Friendly Fire is a reality. . . 300 can be a problem unless they're quite competently organized and disciplined.
In fact the raids could be designed to be completed over multiple days. Controlled cave-ins so your miners have to work for a long time, gated steel doors you have to slowly breakdown while they fire ballistas and drop hot oil on your group then set yall on fire, Dragons that fly out of the cave when it reaches 70% health and just destroys your node (LOL). . . . .. it could require a lot of time and organization to 'Raid'.

If at the same time undefended nodes are sieged by opportunistic 'factions'/NPCs/NPC groups and there's Node vs Node incentivized, the 300 person raid will not be so popular.
I hope there's a siege on each Node daily or semi-daily. Even NPC groups moving in and harvesting everything, destroying some periphery buildings and demolitioning roads would be better than nothing but not enough.

I can see there being NPCs and NPC groups that will inform Nodes of there being a raid and no one defending a nearby Node simply because they're from that area and want the Node there destroyed so they can expand.

IMPORTANT: When you have the PvE attacking Nodes all over one can assume it's balanced for a very high population already. This is a solution in and of itself.

These balancing concerns are exactly why I make the sort of threads I do.

HOSTILE ARCHITECTURE FOR THE METAGAMING NERDRAGE TRACKING SCRIPTING BOTTERS

Azherae wrote: »

NiKr wrote: »

And as an addition to that question, would you want to have the same kind of combat mechanic in Ashes, or is it not even a "want" but a "need" because this mechanic promotes the use of your analysis abilities?

No, I hate this. This has nothing to do with analysis abilities in the way that I view them.

This is exactly what people complain about. Someone is telling you 'the way to maximize a situation that is almost always available to you'.

You're not adapting, and the optimal build is almost always 'figure out whether the window is more important than the between' (definitionally it is).

The whole thing is terrible for me personally, but the video creator does a good job of explaining that this IS also skill related, but the skill it is rewarding is 'relatively binary', so it empowers build so much more than actual skill of either of the other two types (coordination with others, and ability to notice what's happening).

I have so many complaints about this, that it would become essays again. I am deeply saddened by the fact that WoW has made this the standard for so many MMO players, because it means that it's harder to have conversations, as you've seen.

You've just made me realize that people might just be expecting Ashes to do something like 'force the Window to synergize over multiple players', which would be a step in the right direction, but is only a quarter (in my estimation) of what needs to be fixed for this to be good.

But trying to explain it all...? It would literally be faster to gift you Monster Hunter World on Steam (you want it?) and even if I did, you'd have to find someone to play it with. Then again, you are tenacious enough to just work it all out over time, as you've said.

tl;dr this is not analysis to me, this is bad design propped up by meters which then in turn reinforces the need/use for the meters. WoW is the antithesis of what I like in game design.

Windows, tab target, rotations. I mean it's just slim combat.
Execution isn't high until you factor in the occassional mechanic and that just requires a reaction time under .3 seconds if you're optimizing, and some baseline knowledge or quick thinking if it's unexpected. Beyond that there's not much else.
I theorycraft plenty but it's boring because the combat is boring.

If the combat required more execution than windows and meters, they wouldn't be a significant topic in the first place; there's just not much else to focus on for some people LMAO

I hope people start talking about weapon combos and enemy mechanics and AI more. I hope people start cherry picking really well done AI, combat, movement, et cetera and there's more focus on that. THAT is a direction that will make a good and fun game.

Ace1234 is right to try and draw from Fighting games. It's just too little and without literal application ideas. If no one has a clue what's good what isn't, have no thought in their head of what good action combat could be; then there is no good feedback to the Devs. Even Tab combat can evolve.

@akabear
lmao

I'll ask you all this:

Why do you want an MMO? Why do you not like Overwatch or some other game, where you generally get a Score Screen that tells you everyone's Damage, Kills, Deaths, et cetera after?

Genuine Question. Might help illucidate some things.

akabear wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

A handful are trying to push for people to view anyone's logs under the guise of being in the same guild.

Actually, that is technically not true.

From a quick calc, I`d say this is very true.
Near 5k posts in this thread

Noaani, with 10k posts, and the majority of posts are within this thread only

Kind of suggests this thread is propogated by only a few.

The majority of my posts over the last few weeks have been in this thread, but not the majority over all.

Simple math will tell you that must be the case. 5k posts in this thread, I have posted over 10k on the forums in total, if every post in this thread was me, it still wouldn't make up the majority of my posts.

It isnt uncommon for me to just go about daily life, come back to the forums and see 30+ new posts in this thread.

It's happened twice over the last few days.

While there are indeed a few people that have posted the bulk of posts in this thread, there are literally dozens of people that have jumped in, said their piece and left (occasionally coming back in to answer some questions, but not always).

Sapiverenus wrote: »

People body-block one another and there might be Line of Sight blocking (should be). Friendly Fire should be a reality.

A lot of what you are talking about here may well be fine, but not for Ashes.

Friendly fire wont be a thing in Ashes. You have to force target any player to be able to attack them.

Raids lasting multiple days aren't likely to be a thing, that would be an event, not a raid - it is a different type of content. Both are viable to have in a game.

Nodes wont be sieges daily. Sieging a node will take time, organization and money (in game, not real money). You need to declare a siege on a node before hands and in the case of larger nodes, you need to declare a siege 5 days before the siege even happens. Then, if a siege fails, there is a period of time before a siege can be declared again. On those same larger nodes, that is 50 days.

This means that at absolute most, top level node can be sieged once every 55 days.

Basically, you are talking about ideas in regards to the game, but without the base understanding of what the game is so far. You are essentially talking about another game.

@Sapiverenus i could totally answer this question... explain why i love MMORPG, etc...
but i will wait for you to first answer the simple question i asked to you...

Also, your ideas are not bad for a game, or bad for a mmorpg, but a MMORPG is not another MMORPG, and each have its own base philosophy and design, your ideas could be great in other games, and i would enjoy it, but for ashes, it is just out of place and would lead to a failure... A good game is a subtil alchemy, or a cooking recipe, you have to use the good ingredients, in good proportions, at the good time to have a succulent result. But taking all wonderfull taste of the world to mix them in a single recipe would lead to... a failure. There is not one perfect game design, one perfect MMORPG, but many way to do them... and just have to try to get the puzzle as coherent as possible, and avoid the patchwerk of ideas...

I prefer PvE to PvP (like both but still prefer one) ... raid spread on days without teleport (so character evolving) and a node vs IA i would love it. Really. This could make me return to hardcore PvE endgame...
Why i don't defend your idea there so ? because it wouldn't fit at all inside ashes of creation.
(the "raid along days" would not really be "a raid" but more an event, you engage your guild in with marvellous reward in the end, but high preparation, logistic etc before)

@Aerlana
You're full of it. Just tune the difficulty. Any idea can be tuned.
Who characterizes a cohesive and living world as a patchwork lmao.
Just say you think the Dev team can't manage it lol.

Every time you get a legitimate answer you have nothing to say to it. Just be honest for once.

Lets move out of MMORPG and watch another genre : RTS

on the RTS history, two are part of the appearance of esport, like CS, quake and other game, it is players who created esport around them; not developers...
those two comes from a same developer

War3 and SC : they have different system, rules, mechanics. different ideas. to for a coherent game.
I was a big RTS player, loved AoE2 but also war3 AND SC (and then SC2 which is similar to SC)
Blizzard totally made 2 different great game there, but taking all good ideas from both to mix them in one game would make it a patchwerk without sense...

A coherent game is not just adding lot of good ideas, it is be sure to have them interact well, and see how it will impact players gameplay... and if it fits the game aim...

Just one thing on those idea i say i like but i won't defend on Ashes of Creation... I don't fear dev to not be able to balance it... but the simple explanation about why i love it also explain why i think it won't fit in ashes of creation... I love it as PvE boy... It would totally push the game far deeper on PvE side... This game aim for PvX... so a well delicate balance between PvE and PvP...

My thought is from years of gaming, good and bad games,
Good games with lot of bad ideas, and bad game with lot of good ideas. (and bad with only bad shits, or good with mostly good things)
if creating a good game was simply "just take lot of good ideas, balance them well, build a coherent world, and here you go" ... we would have lot more top tier game... if this miracle recipe you try to sell was really so miracle, it would already be in use...

@Aerlana
Warcraft, Starcraft, and Starcraft 2 are all successes though, while being basically similar games. So I don't see any connection between your words and reality.

A game requires good execution but your fear of a 'patchwork' game is really a lack of trust/ faith in developers lmao.
I guess we're in the same boat in that case. But I don't see anyone even trying to design something better? Most anything can simply be written down and be part of a design document, with painfully precise details. Image reference, video reference included too.

I understand what a patchwork is but the only specific issue I see you have is the PvX one.
I think any scarcity of resources where gatherables and processed goods are Necessary, will encourage PvP. At the very least it encourages Mercenaries and Trade along with the Crime that entails lol.

A lack of pressure from PvE actually decreases the need for PvP. Unless you think getting bored of PvE and messing around in PvP is peak game design?

Hopefully repairs are not commonly available due to the unviability of repairing something degraded rather than scrapping it (such as in a Smelter) or limited such as with limited Leather patches one can apply to something before you just need a new complete hide. Leather scraps can still be used for Leather widgets I guess. Or used on the liner of something that doesn't take much damage at all.

So what I hope is in the game is a bit more strategy. I am guessing that is why you mention strategy games.

As for a more direct way of encouraging PvP: XP on Use.

PvP usually exists from a lack of fun. If PvE is fun and engaging, PvP needs more incentive to exist or the players need to grow hungrier for War. lol.
At the very least PvPers can progress through XP on Use rather than the current system that is basically PvE with a small side salad of PvP.
I want legitimate PvX and better PvE that isn't a bore.

XP on Use with a bonus in PvP -> Incentive. Less XP on Kill -> incentive to fight and be territorial rather than kill, if that's important at all to you.
Instead PvP could be incentivized more with extra XP on kill as well though; would you prefer that?

Reverse ratio on PvE stuff -> Incentive to kill PvE.

So what issues do you have with this?

Sapiverenus wrote: »

@Aerlana
Warcraft, Starcraft, and Starcraft 2 are all successes though, while being basically similar games.

If you didnt play them more than the campaign, you could consider being similar game, two RTS... because it is where the "similar games" stop.

But i invite you to read again your messages in fact...
your last one just understand my complain about an idea of yours, so you get another idea of yours to then say "with those, the problem you fear is no more"
ok but ... when you accumulate your ideas, sure it could be a good game, i never denied it... "so why not support them" ...

Because at this point, you are just keeping the node idea from ashes of creation, change the class design (transform sumoner into vampire, the fighter being a smashing button class...) , change the PvE design, the PvP design, the character management design (with the exhaustion, and backpack, leading to a change to the farm design). You also change part of the gameplay feelings with your first person as default view. And add a gameover on servers... At one point, after changing all this, the original project that was Ashes of Creation would still be "ashes of creation" or... another MMORPG project ?

You come here, to say "ok, this game could be great, but we have to change nearly all in it" ...
And you don't understand why most people laugh of you ? really ?

Ace1234

@Sapiverenus

Every time you get a legitimate answer you have nothing to say to it. Just be honest for once.

So hypocritical. If you had taken your own advice you would have just admitted you were wrong long ago, but you always derail the convo when you are backed into a corner.

@Aerlana
I played SC2 and got to Plat 1 in 3 months of serious playing 4 years ago. I owned SC2 since maybe 2010 but didn't do much ladder. I just got good with Zerg and started going 50/50 vs low diamonds after 3 months, then quit.

I played the entire Starcraft and Broodwar campaign and have looked somewhat deeply into at least SC2 competitive scene, but have seen Artosis play Starcraft and seen some pro highlights of Starcraft.

I have not played Warcraft 3 but I've seen some competitive matches, played a little Dota 2, and played a lot of League of Legends.

Yes they are all RTS and that makes them very similar. lol. Compare that to FPS and the difference is clear.
There are still significant differences but I don't see any connection to this topic.
Just exclaiming "it's different!" says nothing about whether a suggestion/ design/ idea is good or not lmao.

As for accumulating all of my suggestions: How about the 1 or 2 I'm talking about at any one time.

You even admit it "could be a good game" when all accumulated together, so your anxieties have even less merit. . .

If every suggestion recieves resistance with no willingness to simply say "yes that idea or few ideas together are good/ bad" because of some anxiety that all of the ideas will suddenly coalesce into a monster and take over Sharif's brain. . . then why the hell is there a forum.
Are you so resistant because it sounds good enough that devs will pick it up?

The Summoner -> Vampire idea was for Sub-Tank. You just read the headline I guess. It could be better suited to another sub-class.
Fighter smashing a button is not strange and isn't a fundamental game changer lmao it's still an MMO with classes.

Anyone can make suggestions for PvE or PvP. What are your actual issues with them though.

Exhaustion and many mechanic suggestions I have are for balancing the game and adding depth & texture. The other stuff in this list don't even rely on Exhaustion or whatever to work very well.

You can forget about the first person stuff. The limited field of view gives people anxiety and there are other things to discuss.

First Person's an Idea that allowed Cleric to have Third Person to make them more thematic and unique, and to give Mage a costly Third Person for their theme. Both give the squishy class a better chance at assessing the situation and defending themself or helping others. First person also allows for legit ambushing; Rogue shit. Ranger shit. Any Class shit. But more importantly it allows for in-the-moment tactics involving flanking, surrounding, et cetera and this means it allows NPCs more intelligent AI.

tl;dr I have my reasons.

It has its legitimate use. I even gave suggestions for how a broader field of view would work, that feels more organic. A programmer could playtest it but I'm not a programmer.

The game over stuff is also something you can leave out since it is causing people anxiety or whatever and there are other things to discuss.

I don't think people are laughing I think they're anxious.

@Ace1234
People don't have much to say about individual ideas once discussion begins and you make useless arguments for something that isn't a problem or is a solution for a non-problem and shuts out other game design choices that have merit and are impactful to the enjoyment of a game.

Also you ignore most of what I say anyway lmao.
HOSTILE ARCHITECTURE

You should redo the assignment btw. You got a D-.

Ace1234

@Sapiverenus

you make useless arguments for something that isn't a problem or is a solution for a non-problem and shuts out other game design choices that have merit and are impactful to the enjoyment of a game.

Lmao- the merit comes through the ability for the design mechanic to provide its an intended design goal- with the "goal" often being something subjectively "fun". In this case we are arguing on how this particular mechanic affects the ability to accomplish said goal. You have no grounds for determining something's "merit", unless we have the same goal in mind, in which case it seemed like we did, so an objective argument can be made from that standpoint to determine the merit of said mechanics- in which case I blew you out of the water.

So yes the problem of accomplishing said goal does exist and the argument does indeed have merit- the only thing that doesn't have merit is your pathetic responses to the topic at hand

You should redo the whole converstion- you got an F

@Ace1234
Right. You always think someone is talking about what you're talking about and nothing else. So you can 'blow them out of the water' instead of it being about communication.

All your vain attempts to hide your true motivations didn't work. Transparent.

As if all you can see is what you want to talk about --> nope! You see everything else you just don't want to talk about anything but what you feel you can 'win' in an argument.

Transparent.

i have no anxiety. ... I mean this is a game still in project, only ideas are there, the philosophy, the global design, we don't even know how it will be while playing... for some topics we are just "lets wait to see in alpha 2"... How could i have anxiety about a thing that is still close to nothing ?

But while you consider "there is one way to have a good game"
i consider "there are many way to have a good game"
Your idea is one of those many way
Steven Sharif's idea, the current AoC project, is another way

This is what, strangely, you seems to not be able to understand.

Not because your idea could make a good game this is the only way to go...
build a project, open a forum around it, gather people, do a crowdfunding...
Oh yes, easier to try to change the project of another to fit your own egoistic preferences. try to convert it to your own personal taste...

Ace1234

@Sapiverenus
The problem with that deflection attempt, is that you intially responed to me, so the burden is on you to conform to what you were responding too- not bait me into an argument about something I wasn't initially talking about.

Ace1234 wrote: »

@Sapiverenus
The problem with that deflection attempt, is that you intially responed to me, so the burden is on you to conform to what you were responding too- not bait me into an argument about something I wasn't initially talking about.

What are you even talking about? Arcane procedure? I'm referring to the way you talk about anything; your entire trend.