DPS Meter Megathread

This discussion was created from comments split from: DPS Meter Megathread.

I’ve instructed the mods to focus any dps meter threads into a single mega thread to help focus and centralize the discussion 👍

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Sapiverenus

@Chickenlipzz
precise values on damage, health, logs of abilities and their effect, et cetera builds a database of the game.

It means the game is quickly Solved; and execution is just a matter of grinding some gear for something you know you'll get no matter what if you just spend 999 hours doing something tedious.

INSTEAD of a focus on the qualitative experience of the game, the devs just slap some effects together and add numbers to it.

Number 'mechanics' are nowhere as interesting as the more wholistic 'mechanics'.
Like, Tanks physically blocking damage and being in the way of attacks due to attacks being physical collisions could be a normal part of the game and how things work.

But when devs are allowed to just make "number mechanics" you get World of Warcraft where abilities are tab, attacking has no hitbox, no one has a collisionbox, and physics based anything isn't much of a reality.

Aerlana

Sapiverenus wrote: »

If you do not even know the precise damage but simply time to kill then you do have information but it doesn't "solve the game".

Sure you could do a game with no life bar, no visual information, nothing.
And i won't play it it wouldnt interest me. It would fast end to be boring...

But just a question, if there are no life information of anykind, how do you are able to decide the heal you use ? (Don't say "healing should instead heal broken legs" this is not how it will work, and i am not interested in a survival MMORPG game. not my taste, and not what ashes of creation will be)
So you will allow player to have information about their own healthbar right ? so people can find out the damages of their skills... so the DPS of each skill if spammed. And because life = time to kill divided by DPS . . . People will be able to define at first approximately the range of health of ennemies.

You change data ? People will get bored of this game with random rules you can't rely on... Game master changing the rules of their table rarely keep their player for long (saw many doing it... all ended alone at their table)
And doing so, you have to lower the fight difficulties... you can reach highest fight difficulties only when people are able to minmax. In such case, you can predict the overall DPS, HPS, HPM, mitigation of the raid of 40 people, and so, design the fight to fit this. else, you risk to create boss mathematically impossible to kill.

You say you want the game to be less niche... but people who supported on KS are ok with the niche... For many it was probably even why they gave money...
And the funny thing : you want to add survival game features to make it less niche... while survival games being a niche genre ?

And for your complains :
PvE pressure : not for this game, aside specific events (thru event you can do lot of things if you do it mostly opt in / minor long term impact)
PvX progression : don't understand what you are speaking about, we don't know what will happen in the game life... maybe people will spam siege when guild go on the hardest boss, maybe not. I don't see how to complain about a thing we have no information

Classes : you should read a topic from nooani where he expresses that for him, the secundary archetype is meaningless in it. but there are also weapons that will help to have a character different to the other, and lot more augments than the secundary archetype (i don't know why you said 8x8x4 while there are far more than 4 augments . . . and why you consider using a sword or a bow is the same thing)
But also, we have no class design yet, so... how could you speak about the lack of uniqueness if we know nothing about it ? The first information we have are far from allowing us to speak about uniqueness or not.

Sapiverenus wrote: »

Many decisions you support is a turn down to people that would like to play the game and already support it.
Many ideas I suggest are appealing to supporters and those that would play the game.
[...]

Those that like to sit in this forum are not even close to the majority of people that would spend money on the game.
And neither of us are developing it or have invested millions.

Ok and ? you consider that you speak for all those who could like the game if your ideas are added to it, and so steven should consider it, even if it is losing all those who are currently doing free marketing (and would turn it to a negativ marketing about lying, not reaching promises, etc) in the hope to get people who don't care about the game to suddenly get interested ?

Sure on forum it is a small minority speaking here. but if people don't share their opinion... they don't use their voice, they can't be heared.
I have friends interested a lot in the game... and don't speak here. i don't claim "i speak for tens of people" while i know what they like and dislike...
You are not speaking for hundreds, thousands or millions people, you are speaking for you. i speak for myself, and people who said "no" to your ideas are speaking for themselves.
Steven himself has his own idea of this game, and already stated it won't be a survival one... making most of your idea clearly out of context here...

To end this message : until now, the more complex to understand the game mechanics (even without data changing) the less friendly it is for casuals/low skill players and the bigger the gap is between top and low players...
This is clearly not a good thing, in my opinion...

Sapiverenus

Aerlana wrote: »

Sapiverenus wrote: »

If you do not even know the precise damage but simply time to kill then you do have information but it doesn't "solve the game".

Sure you could do a game with no life bar, no visual information, nothing.
And i won't play it it wouldnt interest me. It would fast end to be boring...

But just a question, if there are no life information of anykind, how do you are able to decide the heal you use ? (Don't say "healing should instead heal broken legs" this is not how it will work, and i am not interested in a survival MMORPG game. not my taste, and not what ashes of creation will be)

I think you've read what my suggestion is already. Let rough health estimates be a thing, with 'Inspect' providing more info, being in the same group enhancing that, and let Clerics see Health even better (to the point of % health and some visual indication of relative Max if in the same group and 'Inspecting').

Max health shouldn't be totally obfuscated either.

I don't see an issue with wound healing though. Specific limbs is tedious but "Bone mend" and various stuff sounds pretty good.
Regular healing may exist in the form of adding 'Lifeforce' which I think would be great as the natural form of healing in a person. Thus a person gets regen with this heal and is saved from the brink of death when it reaches a critical low.

The wound system and certain CC/ debuff removal can be tied together as well.

Of course, certain damage can inflict certain wounds and impede some forms of healing. This can be relatively intuitive and organic. It can be learned in-game as well. At least Class Trainers and Skill Tomes would make sense then.

So you will allow player to have information about their own healthbar right ? so people can find out the damages of their skills... so the DPS of each skill if spammed. And because life = time to kill divided by DPS . . . People will be able to define at first approximately the range of health of ennemies.

I think obfuscation of exact health is good, but it should still be clear if something has about 2x one's own health (might be actually 2.2x).
I don't think the game should lie to the player but be 'coarse' in its updates and representation of things, with variability in exact value and moment it changes from 1 UI visual representation to another so it's again, 'coarse'.

You change data ? People will get bored of this game with random rules you can't rely on... Game master changing the rules of their table rarely keep their player for long (saw many doing it... all ended alone at their table)
And doing so, you have to lower the fight difficulties... you can reach highest fight difficulties only when people are able to minmax. In such case, you can predict the overall DPS, HPS, HPM, mitigation of the raid of 40 people, and so, design the fight to fit this. else, you risk to create boss mathematically impossible to kill.

Most mathematical changes can be to exact moment UI changes, mob variability, even Raid boss variability (not sure how static the raid content will be).
A 'raid boss' that rewards players may simply be an NPC faction without an actual raid boss though. It's up to another's decision, and I don't think raid bosses are necessary for every difficult 'crawl'.

Microscopic changes in other places can have an impact on how things are represented in game and even time to kill if it just so happens to be that before, some mob you use to test something was always 10 hp before the last blow; thus diminishing your evaluation of some rotation/ ability/ attack since it seemed to require too many uses to kill.

You say you want the game to be less niche... but people who supported on KS are ok with the niche... For many it was probably even why they gave money...
And the funny thing : you want to add survival game features to make it less niche... while survival games being a niche genre ?

The survival elements were for balancing and to build up the world and resource management; including Farming and Fishing, and even the Nodes given there are desert and mountainous biomes.

What I think is currently more critical though, I've made clear.

And for your complains :
PvE pressure : not for this game, aside specific events (thru event you can do lot of things if you do it mostly opt in / minor long term impact)

PvE pressure is already basically planned for and I'm not sure what your issue with it is. It's like a "fantastical world you live in" is not what you want. It makes no sense.

Is there really no game you can play that requires less execution but rewards meta-gaming and time?

PvX progression : don't understand what you are speaking about, we don't know what will happen in the game life... maybe people will spam siege when guild go on the hardest boss, maybe not. I don't see how to complain about a thing we have no information

For this I mean XP from PvP, or simply On Use.

But yes the level of PvX intertwining is important as well.

Classes : you should read a topic from nooani where he expresses that for him, the secundary archetype is meaningless in it. but there are also weapons that will help to have a character different to the other, and lot more augments than the secundary archetype (i don't know why you said 8x8x4 while there are far more than 4 augments . . . and why you consider using a sword or a bow is the same thing)
But also, we have no class design yet, so... how could you speak about the lack of uniqueness if we know nothing about it ? The first information we have are far from allowing us to speak about uniqueness or not.

Alpha 1 and another showcase had classes and they were not good. 5+ years in and it does not encourage hope or excitement in me.

I am simply stating what I see as important.

Ok and ? you consider that you speak for all those who could like the game if your ideas are added to it, and so steven should consider it, even if it is losing all those who are currently doing free marketing (and would turn it to a negativ marketing about lying, not reaching promises, etc) in the hope to get people who don't care about the game to suddenly get interested ?

I will simply reiterate:
"Try to see the broadening of the game as an opportunity for growth and a broadening of your mind as well. An evolution for the game, for the players."

If you'd like to be more specific about what promises wouldn't be reached go ahead and elaborate.

I wasn't trying to characterize this as simply a business decision; I am trying to characterize everyone that doesn't share your tastes as people.

To end this message : until now, the more complex to understand the game mechanics (even without data changing) the less friendly it is for casuals/low skill players and the bigger the gap is between top and low players...
This is clearly not a good thing, in my opinion...

I have in other places made it clear that I'd like to increase the value of "unskilled manpower" and require "more manpower" for the effective and efficient doing of things.
Hopefully this addresses what you are speaking of.

Thank you.

Noaani

Mag7spy wrote: »

I dont need to prove you wrong, WoW killed EQ, and eq is still dead. You are so desperate to want some new eq when no one wants anything like that kind of game. It isn't even inspiration for AoC.

And desperate I didn't even @ your ass wit the original comment, like who are you. You are in here desperately trying to defend your game and have yourself be right because that is all you can do even though you are wrong more than half the time with some of the worst takes I've seen on a forum.

I mean, both EQ games are getting full expansions later on this year.

Can you name me any other MMO exclusive franchise that is getting two full expansions this year?

I mean, sure, neither EQ is as popular as WoW, or ESO, or FFXIV, but that doesnt make them dead.

As to you complaining that you didnt @ me, so what? This is a discussion forum, not a shut-your-damn-mouth-unless-I-@ -you forum.

Most people on these forums know if someone posts something dumb or factually incorrect, and if I read it, I will respond calling it out. To be fair, when it comes to you, I've had to lower my standards to only bothering with the most egregious offenses, as trying to get them all would be a near full time job.

If you dont want me to respond to your posts, dont say dumb things. It's that simple.

And hey, if you dont want to take the time to.prove me wrong, all that says is that you know you cant make an argument without saying something dumb.

Data exist doesn't mean its important to a game based on how it is designed.

If data exists, there is something that can be learned from it. It may not be important to you, and that's great. It not being important to you does not mean that other people should not be able to have access to it.

I dont give a shit about RP content in a game, but you wont see me arguing that Intrepid shouldnt add RP content to Ashes, because other people will use it.

You not seeing any importance in data and a tracker does not mean they shouldnt exist.

Also, your comment about fighting games is interesting. As I have said before, you use different tools to analyze different games. In a fighting game, you use replays of fights and analyze them.

If I am not mistaken, most fighting games that the community takes somewhat seriously have some form of replay functionality built in (or the ability to watch matches between top ranked players).

A combat tracker is an MMO version of that. A simple replay isnt sufficient, as there is several orders of magnitude more happening in any given moment in a top end raid than in a fighting game, so trackers are the way everything is presented.

Since you want to bring up sports(lol) they aren't looking at a tracker to improve they are using skill and knowledge.

Literally every professional (and most amateur) sports gather and analyze data in order to improve.

I mean, I cant see how you could say they dont. You dont even need to follow sport closely to know this. 12 year olds use data and analysis in sport.

The post from NiKr above about Moneyball is a perfect example, but it is worth pointing out that Baseball was (as far as I know) the last major sport anywhere in the world to switch to analysis driven management.

This isn't about them not being in the game, this is about you personally trying to have them in the game and create weird arguments for it.

My argument for trackers is actually fairly straight forward. It can basically be boiled down to the following;

Some people enjoy using trackers, they are also useful tools for finding bugs in any MMO. This should see them existing as the default choice.

The only reason Intrepid have stated for not including them is due to toxicity that they claim they will bring. They believe that people will exclude others based on class or build if trackers exist.

To this I way no, players will exclude others because they can. In the absence of objective data to back up their opinion, people will simply fabricate their own facts (a recent phenomenon, due in no small part to recent world politics, I assume).

This is what I have been saying for years. The fact that there are currently two posters in this thread that are against trackers, both of whom make shit up to support their arguments is just poetry, as far as I am concerned.

The two of you are literally proving why trackers may as well exist.

Noaani

Mag7spy wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Sapiverenus wrote: »

You respond to Mag with another, where you say "organically uncovering info from an enemy is part of the strategy"
yet don't understand the issue with DPS numbers and how that reveals enemy resistances, health pool, et cetera.

The problem is, a tracker cant do this.

Like you, Mag is arguing from a position of not knowing how trackers actually work.

Imagine tracking how much dmg it took to kill a player number wise and then making this statement.

Noaani likes to be manipulative also enjoys being insulting to people that don't agree with him, ALSO enjoys not respecting people and thrives on the tension it creates

Imagine not knowing how trackers work, but arguing against them anyway.

A tracker will not tell me if you are regenerating health, self healing, using a potion, and often wont tell me if you have a third party healing you (this last one is situational, generally).

If you run out of log distance, I wont know if someone else is attacking you.

The only way I will know what your hit points are is if you and I agree that I will attack you until you die. If we are in this situation, I do not need a tracker to tell me.

In any hostile situation though, a tracker will not tell you how many hit points a rival player has.

Chickenlipzz

Sapiverenus wrote: »

@Chickenlipzz
Number 'mechanics' are nowhere as interesting as the more wholistic 'mechanics'.

As a data analyst of over 25 years, I could argue that statement in many ways...but it's boring so I won't LOL

Sapiverenus wrote: »

@Chickenlipzz
But when devs are allowed to just make "number mechanics" you get World of Warcraft where abilities are tab, attacking has no hitbox, no one has a collisionbox, and physics based anything isn't much of a reality.

Hmmm...Interesting choice of words here when you say "Dev are allowed". I think it would be safe to say most game encounters start as pure numeric equations (this is even true in pen and paper rpgs, look at DnD as an example and encounter levels) so its not that "they are allowed to make number mechanics" but that they HAVE to in order to design the encounters

Sapiverenus wrote: »

@Chickenlipzz
you get World of Warcraft where abilities are tab, attacking has no hitbox, no one has a collisionbox, and physics based anything isn't much of a reality.

I don't think that this is necessarily a bad thing if the design was intentional to enhance or facilitate gameplay and is what the game had to offer based on what technology was available at the time it was created. Many MMO's don't allow collision as it prevents severe in game trolling crap. I have been a longtime WOW player and enjoy what the game has but I am really drawn to other MMO's that offer new experiences. That is why I play New World as well and I am looking forward to AOC.

Ace1234

@Sapiverenus

Instead of creating something complex or arbitrary I'd rather have the people already dealing with something complex and sometimes arbitrary [coding & design] figure out how to get qualitative results rather than Data Structure results.

Give me an example of something complex that requires theorycrafting, that isn't arbitrary.

You can have both though. It adds a another layer to the whole. The "qualitative" aspect is most important for the gameplay itself but there is no reason the 2 cant be intertwined.

There is nothing wrong with requiring some "data structuring" that is somewhat arbitrary in a sense because it still requires a skill which can be fun and add the the overall experience. It just comes down to what skills you want to reward in your game systems. I generally think that the more skills-checks intertwined within the system the better. If thats not a skill you would like to see tested in the game you can have that opinion. Its a preference of fun. I like the dynamic moment-to-moment skill checks (pobably more), but I also like having that strategic/preparation "data structuring" skill-check as well. There is nothing wrong with that, you can appeal to different types of people.

If Attributes affected relevant things in a 'realistic' manner then that's a sort of time management and situation-prediction theory craft.
There's various situations to consider; Agility might not let you kill something but allow you to run from certain death.

Absolutely, i agree and that is my preference which is why I excel at competitive fighting games. As I said above you can have that while also having different kinds of skill-checks intertwined to appeal to those types of people as well. Its preference.

Regardless of your preference though, the clincher is that there is no down-side to having proper build feedback (without exploiting the enemy).
- If they are going with the design decision to make "numbers" impactful then having that feedback would be beneficial for that system.
- If they choose to not make numbers impactful then at that point it just wouldn't affect anything having the ability to "measure your own numbers" because it won't affect the fact that the game would be soley combat oriented with situation based gameplay. So it literally doesn't really matter whether you like it or not, because it wouldn't help your cause in either scenario by trying to remove the feature.

Based on this- assuming they go with having your "numbers" be relevant, there is no good reason to try to detract from the theory crafting experience to try to make it "worse" just because you think it shouldn't exist in the first place. It would be more out of spite to advocate for this.

Noaani

Sapiverenus wrote: »

Number 'mechanics' are nowhere as interesting as the more wholistic 'mechanics'.
Like, Tanks physically blocking damage and being in the way of attacks due to attacks being physical collisions could be a normal part of the game and how things work.

I dont see how having this prevents numbers being used.

I mean, exactly what you are talking about here with tanks is already known to be intended gameplay. That doesn't mean analysis stops for those that enjoy it.

The thing I still dont get is, if the game does have the combat we all know it will have, and if combat trackers are a thing for those that want to use them, if you do not want to use them, what is wrong with just... not?

Aerlana

As ever, won't answer to most because it would just be boring, you just focus on your own taste and say "i don't see problem" where i just say before that this taste is not mine.

But great news for you, there is another MMORPG in development, in which, there will be the "classic" healing system AND the broken bones (and other thing) healing system alltogether.
Do i spit on this other game ? no... i also support this.

2 different games, 2 different set of ideas, and totally different in the end (maybe not for you who consider war3 and SC1/2 being the same thing... )

Sapiverenus wrote: »

Alpha 1 and another showcase had classes and they were not good. 5+ years in and it does not encourage hope or excitement in me.

I am simply stating what I see as important.

Did you see class in their final state in alpha 1 ? Funny, because i played alpha1 and still saw nothing about classes...
Those were placeholder, and was explained this way. they were far from a final design...

Sapiverenus wrote: »

I have in other places made it clear that I'd like to increase the value of "unskilled manpower" and require "more manpower" for the effective and efficient doing of things.
Hopefully this addresses what you are speaking of.

This will happen, until people get bored from this large gap due to a design making the game hard to learn...
The casual/low players get a far lower retention in such game. So, bad idea.

Noaani wrote: »

This is what I have been saying for years. The fact that there are currently two posters in this thread that are against trackers, both of whom make shit up to support their arguments is just poetry, as far as I am concerned.

One of them is not even defending the current project, but try to convert people into supporting its own project v_v"
While claiming he dislike MMORPG, and have clear disdain to video-gamer...

Noaani

Sapiverenus wrote: »

But when devs are allowed to just make "number mechanics" you get World of Warcraft where abilities are tab, attacking has no hitbox, no one has a collisionbox, and physics based anything isn't much of a reality.

Well, literally all of this is untrue enough for me to comment.

Games can have "number mechanics" and action combat just fine. Look at any action combat MMO ever and you will see that.

Hitboxes exist in tab target games, and in "number mechanic" games.

Collision is something that game developers can choose to add or not add based on their game. Has literally nothing at all to do with anything. Same with physics based anything, I fail to see how having "number mechanics" prevents developers from implementing physics in to their game if they want to.

This is just another one of those times you've made things up in an attempt to further your argument.

Sapiverenus

Chickenlipzz wrote: »

Sapiverenus wrote: »

@Chickenlipzz
Number 'mechanics' are nowhere as interesting as the more wholistic 'mechanics'.

As a data analyst of over 25 years, I could argue that statement in many ways...but it's boring so I won't LOL

Sapiverenus wrote: »

@Chickenlipzz
But when devs are allowed to just make "number mechanics" you get World of Warcraft where abilities are tab, attacking has no hitbox, no one has a collisionbox, and physics based anything isn't much of a reality.

Hmmm...Interesting choice of words here when you say "Dev are allowed". I think it would be safe to say most game encounters start as pure numeric equations (this is even true in pen and paper rpgs, look at DnD as an example and encounter levels) so its not that "they are allowed to make number mechanics" but that they HAVE to in order to design the encounters

Sapiverenus wrote: »

@Chickenlipzz
you get World of Warcraft where abilities are tab, attacking has no hitbox, no one has a collisionbox, and physics based anything isn't much of a reality.

I don't think that this is necessarily a bad thing if the design was intentional to enhance or facilitate gameplay and is what the game had to offer based on what technology was available at the time it was created. Many MMO's don't allow collision as it prevents severe in game trolling crap. I have been a longtime WOW player and enjoy what the game has but I am really drawn to other MMO's that offer new experiences. That is why I play New World as well and I am looking forward to AOC.

They are 'allowed' to leave things at barebone number mechanics rather than having to invent new ones based on the qualitatively (and numerically) deeper reality of something like a Physical (or simply more physical) system.

If a dev team thinks it's perfectly OK to go the lazier route then it just falls into a smaller and smaller niche as the quality and effort never reaches a high level and gets lazier over time.
If that is the intention then fuck that.

Anything can be said to be for the "sake of enhancing or facilitating gameplay" but removing entire dimensions of the game is only facilitating a much smaller scope.

Some collision/ physics is good for differentiating classes, characters, CC, abilities, and so on.

Most projects focus too much on "thinking" and just don't do the work honestly; hence number mechanics.

Honestly the hardest part of business in general and game dev is probably Co-Workers LMAO

Sapiverenus

Ace1234 wrote: »

@Sapiverenus

Instead of creating something complex or arbitrary I'd rather have the people already dealing with something complex and sometimes arbitrary [coding & design] figure out how to get qualitative results rather than Data Structure results.

Give me an example of something complex that requires theorycrafting, that isn't arbitrary.

You can have both though. It adds a another layer to the whole. The "qualitative" aspect is most important for the gameplay itself but there is no reason the 2 cant be intertwined.

There is nothing wrong with requiring some "data structuring" that is somewhat arbitrary in a sense because it still requires a skill which can be fun and add the the overall experience. It just comes down to what skills you want to reward in yoir game systems. I generally think that the more skills-checks intertwined within the system the better. If thats not a skill you would like to see tested in the game you can have that opinion. Its a preference of fun. I like the dynamic moment-to-moment skill checks (pobably more), but I also like having that strategic/preparation "data structuring" skill-check as well. There is nothing wrong with that, you can appeal to different types of people.

If Attributes affected relevant things in a 'realistic' manner then that's a sort of time management and situation-prediction theory craft.
There's various situations to consider; Agility might not let you kill something but allow you to run from certain death.

Absolutely, i agree and that is my preference which is why I excel at competitive fighting games. As I said above you can have that while also having different kinds of skill-checks intertwined to appeal to those types of people as well. Its preference.

as long as it gets done

Azherae

Mag7spy wrote: »

Your takes are so bad actually full of manipulation, i know you aren't dumb. Data exist doesn't mean its important to a game based on how it is designed. When you play a fighting game a tracker isn't going to make you better, your skill and knowledge of the game and characters is what is going to be the difference on who wins.

This is of course, also untrue.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxyMqZdIzeI

Newest game intends to add explicit frame data visualizations to help players improve.

Mag is going to make a self-revealing incorrect counterpoint to this, so I'll wait for it before saying more. Feel free to use this until he does.

Ludullu

Azherae wrote: »

This is of course, also untrue.

Ahhh, you changed your pfp again. Thought it was a post from some new chatter

Sapiverenus

Aerlana wrote: »

As ever, won't answer to most because it would just be boring, you just focus on your own taste and say "i don't see problem" where i just say before that this taste is not mine.

But great news for you, there is another MMORPG in development, in which, there will be the "classic" healing system AND the broken bones (and other thing) healing system alltogether.
Do i spit on this other game ? no... i also support this.

2 different games, 2 different set of ideas, and totally different in the end (maybe not for you who consider war3 and SC1/2 being the same thing... )

Yes it is boring talking about tastes when you know you will never compromise on anything and simply want someone to pop out a finished product that suits you and no one else.

Sapiverenus wrote: »

Alpha 1 and another showcase had classes and they were not good. 5+ years in and it does not encourage hope or excitement in me.

I am simply stating what I see as important.

Did you see class in their final state in alpha 1 ? Funny, because i played alpha1 and still saw nothing about classes...
Those were placeholder, and was explained this way. they were far from a final design...

Its been over 5 years.

So to be clear, do you think a strong class identity is important? Or do you not care if everything blends into one another and no class is really deeply explored on its basic premise, without borrowing from other classes? Being truly its own thing?

Sapiverenus wrote: »

I have in other places made it clear that I'd like to increase the value of "unskilled manpower" and require "more manpower" for the effective and efficient doing of things.
Hopefully this addresses what you are speaking of.

This will happen, until people get bored from this large gap due to a design making the game hard to learn...
The casual/low players get a far lower retention in such game. So, bad idea.

What is this large complicated gap? Why do you care about mass appeal?

I don't think the game should be trying to appeal to everyone but simply expand and do the work of elaborating on its basic premises.

Noaani wrote: »

This is what I have been saying for years. The fact that there are currently two posters in this thread that are against trackers, both of whom make shit up to support their arguments is just poetry, as far as I am concerned.

One of them is not even defending the current project, but try to convert people into supporting its own project v_v"
While claiming he dislike MMORPG, and have clear disdain to video-gamer...

But I thought you support all kinds of projects and like all sorts of games? You said so multiple times.

So you like all kinds of games, support them, yet resist expansion and elaboration of any single one of them?
You also seem concerned with casual appeal, yet want to keep the game niche?
It's clear that I simply want to expand this niche game to have broader appeal; not to appeal to "everyone".

I've asked you to consider things with 'survival' elements aside; to focus on the issues that I think matter most; but have you?

The coherency of what you think is "alright" and what is "not alright" is lacking from what I can tell.
Do you like different kinds of games or do you like only 1 kind of game? Do you want a niche game or a popular game?

I will simply reiterate:
"Try to see the broadening of the game as an opportunity for growth and a broadening of your mind as well. An evolution for the game, for the players."

Thank you

Azherae

NiKr wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

This is of course, also untrue.

Ahhh, you changed your pfp again. Though it was a post from some new chatter

Sorry to disappoint(?).

Would you like more variety? As noted, I only do this because the rest of my group doesn't generally have the time/patience, but I could honestly leave 'Mag Fact Checks' to other people.

EDIT: I have been reminded that they have lunch dates today, so you're stuck with me after all.

Ace1234

@Sapiverenus

as long as it gets done

Then please focus your attention on the combat system instead of the dps feedback

The combat will be the thing that will provide the experience you seek. Try to let others have their fun by not being a roadblock to them getting the proper build feedback they want.

Ludullu

Azherae wrote: »

Sorry to disappoint(?).

Would you like more variety? As noted, I only do this because the rest of my group doesn't generally have the time/patience, but I could honestly leave 'Mag Fact Checks' to other people.

Nah, but I mainly judge what I wanna read and pay attention to by pfp first and then by the name if the pfp is the auto-generated one (hate them with a passion cause half of these fuckers look the same). So when I saw your pfp and read the comment I thought it was someone new. Then read the comment and double-checked the name cause the comment read like you

Sapiverenus

Ace1234 wrote: »

@Sapiverenus

as long as it gets done

Then please focus your attention on the combat system instead of the dps feedback

The combat will be the thing that will provide the experience you seek. Try to let others have their fun by not being a roadblock to them getting the proper build feedback they want.

So an encyclopedic database can be built? It's an MMO; a game of exploration. Uncertainty is part of the appeal.

I'm fine with the Training Dummy tests. Not with numbers. Seeing how far something sticks in a plank of wood is all good. Seeing how easy it is to cut a rope is all good. There are a hundred tests and interactions that can be elaborated upon.

Frame data is fine to me in a Fighting Game because it's basically about timing windows in a reaction-based pure action game. They aren't necessary though, since trial and error is more straightforward. It makes comparing characters and choosing one to main easier perhaps.

MMOs are more about exploration, and rudimentary feedback is part of that. The class is suppose to make it clear how it plays, what it can do.
Fighter characters are often very similar in appearance and function, or are unpredictable, and simply have regular names like "Ken".

Ace1234

@Sapiverenus

So an encyclopedic database can be built? It's an MMO; a game of exploration. Uncertainty is part of the appeal.

???????

I thought we went over this, leading to your eventual "as long as it gets done"- I don't understand why you are now backtracking to a point we already had a resolution over.

I said I don't desire for this, I also said that even if you remove all ability to get direct enemy data feedback, the facts that
A)you can yield a specific result (with some variability) against said enemies, as a way of comparing/contrasting builds
B)trial and error exists
means that you might eventually get those databases anyway from people who live to test and figure out that variability.

In agreeance with you, I also still think it is best to not give that direct enemy data feedback. Hense detering from said databases, but not excluding the potential existence of dps build feedback- hense the "training ground dummy" suggestion.

Child Item