ITs funny why would people that dislike each other has a positive feeling? The way you present yourself and you view it, the way i view it and our negative interactions. One would have to be very silly to think either one has a clear understanding of the other in a truthful way.
The thing is, that I am aware I am making assumptions that may be incorrect, which is why I said that if you are unhappy with the observations people make about you, alter how you present yourself.
Interestingly, this lack of clear understanding you are talking about is exactly what you have in regards to combat trackers, and yet you feel free to discuss them at will, while refusing to alter your opinions when presented with actual fact that contradicts what you want to believe.
So, if you are able to spout actual rubbish on a topic you know nothing at all about and refuse to actually become educated on, why would you have any issue with anyone else being supposidly incrrect on a topic but willing to have their opinion changed?
Fact is, when you say things like combat trackers make games less social, all that does is show that you don't know what you are talking about. There are many ways in which you may not know what you are talking about, but the basic fact that you are wrong in that statement holds true. If you aren't going to fill us in on why you think that to be the case, on why you are so incorrect, you leave us to make assumptions.
The actual most likely reason for it is that you just have no idea at all and are making up bullshit in order to maintain an argument, but I am not going to just assume that to be the case because that is the worst of all possible scenarios (I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you absolutely do not deserve).
ITs funny why would people that dislike each other has a positive feeling? The way you present yourself and you view it, the way i view it and our negative interactions. One would have to be very silly to think either one has a clear understanding of the other in a truthful way.
The thing is, that I am aware I am making assumptions that may be incorrect, which is why I said that if you are unhappy with the observations people make about you, alter how you present yourself.
Interestingly, this lack of clear understanding you are talking about is exactly what you have in regards to combat trackers, and yet you feel free to discuss them at will, while refusing to alter your opinions when presented with actual fact that contradicts what you want to believe.
So, if you are able to spout actual rubbish on a topic you know nothing at all about and refuse to actually become educated on, why would you have any issue with anyone else being supposidly incrrect on a topic but willing to have their opinion changed?
Fact is, when you say things like combat trackers make games less social, all that does is show that you don't know what you are talking about. There are many ways in which you may not know what you are talking about, but the basic fact that you are wrong in that statement holds true. If you aren't going to fill us in on why you think that to be the case, on why you are so incorrect, you leave us to make assumptions.
The actual most likely reason for it is that you just have no idea at all and are making up bullshit in order to maintain an argument, but I am not going to just assume that to be the case because that is the worst of all possible scenarios (I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you absolutely do not deserve).
That is not a mean thing that is actually a you needing to not assume things on people when you have no solid evidence to actually observe. The worse crime is you should have some information to observe but you are extreme combative and aren't looking to understand another. A FACT being I have told you what mmorpgs I have played and you can't recall them yet you say you have knowledge fro "observing" which looks bad on multiple levels.
I offer my facts / opinions , you or others offer their facts and opinions. Does that mean I will convince you or another no, and that goes for the other way as well. I strongly disagree but i don't resort to throwing passive aggressive laced assumptions not taken from a single actual fact or conversation point.
We can both say we are both incorrect all day on our opinions. But there is a different in stating your points and sitting down having a decent disccusion, which relies on being cordial with each other (hence why i said lets cut out the the assumptions / passive aggressiveness). Issue starts when you think you are right and someone else is wrong when they are both opinions at the end of the day and take it to a personal level like your opinion is some form of law.
I've pointed out why imo which i back up with comments to me it is fact it reduces social elements. You don't talk about those points to skip past it and say its social in other ways without understanding the point I'm getting across.
Why i feel it makes it less social is not something to get that personal over at the end of the day, its a small drop of many issues with the level of trackers you want. You can believe what you want to believe it doesn't effect me i just say my view point.
That is not a mean thing that is actually a you needing to not assume things on people when you have no solid evidence to actually observe.
No, assumptions are fine.
At the end of the day though, since assumptions people make are based on what they are presented with, if someone makes a false assumption about you, it is your fault and not theirs. Your fault, and you have the power to change peoples assumptions.
This is the same with everyone, including myself. I know there are posters on these forums that have false assumptions about me, and in some cases I have gone out of my way to correct those assumptions - in other cases I have not bothered, and left those posters with the assumption of me they have.
There is nothing at all wrong with that.
I've pointed out why imo which i back up with comments to me it is fact it reduces social elements.
I didn't need to talk about the points you thought you made, because I proved the over all point I was taking aim at (combat trackers being less social) to be factually incorrect.
I've pointed out why imo which i back up with comments to me it is fact it reduces social elements.
See, this is the problem, this is why people can't have discussions with you, why people are happy making assumptions about you regardless of what you think about it, and why you piss off so many people.
There is no such thing as "a fact to you". There are facts, and then there are your opinions. Who ever you picked up the notion that you can have your own facts from - that person has done you dirty.
You can perfectly well say that in your opnion, in your experience, combat trackers make games less social. Not only would I not argue with that, but I'd probably agree that this is your experience. However, since others here have told you of personal experiences of the exact opposite, it means this opinion of yours is simply not a fact.
What you should be doing with that information - rather than arguing that people can't make those arguments - is trying to work out why people have vastly different experiences from you. If your experience is that combat trackers lead to less social interaction, but others are saying they lead to far more social interaction, what is it that you are missing? Since social interaction is a good thing, if others are gaining social interaction from something and you are losing social interaction from the same thing, you are clearly missing something.
Figuring that out is what you should be doing, rather than continuing to argue your opinion and experience.
In a good faith hope that you will do this, I will provide you with a piece of information that I think is different between you and I, and is a large part of the reason why I gain social interaction from trackers and you do not.
When I play MMORPG's, I surround myself with people that enjoy data collection and analysis as much as I do. Thus, we actually enjoy talking about it, and so talk about it often. Should you not surround yourself with such people, it is logical that you will not have that same social interaction.
If this is true, if it is a case of you simply not surrounding yourself with people that enjoy data collection and analysis as much as I do, then the solution here isn't to say no one should use a combat tracker because it reduces social interaction. Rather, the solution is that only those that enjoy using a combat tracker should use them.
However, that is something that should be so obvious it shouldn't need to be said - if you don't enjoy using a combat tracker, don't.
That is not a mean thing that is actually a you needing to not assume things on people when you have no solid evidence to actually observe.
No, assumptions are fine.
At the end of the day though, since assumptions people make are based on what they are presented with, if someone makes a false assumption about you, it is your fault and not theirs. Your fault, and you have the power to change peoples assumptions.
This is the same with everyone, including myself. I know there are posters on these forums that have false assumptions about me, and in some cases I have gone out of my way to correct those assumptions - in other cases I have not bothered, and left those posters with the assumption of me they have.
There is nothing at all wrong with that.
I've pointed out why imo which i back up with comments to me it is fact it reduces social elements.
I didn't need to talk about the points you thought you made, because I proved the over all point I was taking aim at (combat trackers being less social) to be factually incorrect.
I've pointed out why imo which i back up with comments to me it is fact it reduces social elements.
See, this is the problem, this is why people can't have discussions with you, why people are happy making assumptions about you regardless of what you think about it, and why you piss off so many people.
There is no such thing as "a fact to you". There are facts, and then there are your opinions. Who ever you picked up the notion that you can have your own facts from - that person has done you dirty.
You can perfectly well say that in your opnion, in your experience, combat trackers make games less social. Not only would I not argue with that, but I'd probably agree that this is your experience. However, since others here have told you of personal experiences of the exact opposite, it means this opinion of yours is simply not a fact.
What you should be doing with that information - rather than arguing that people can't make those arguments - is trying to work out why people have vastly different experiences from you. If your experience is that combat trackers lead to less social interaction, but others are saying they lead to far more social interaction, what is it that you are missing? Since social interaction is a good thing, if others are gaining social interaction from something and you are losing social interaction from the same thing, you are clearly missing something.
Figuring that out is what you should be doing, rather than continuing to argue your opinion and experience.
In a good faith hope that you will do this, I will provide you with a piece of information that I think is different between you and I, and is a large part of the reason why I gain social interaction from trackers and you do not.
When I play MMORPG's, I surround myself with people that enjoy data collection and analysis as much as I do. Thus, we actually enjoy talking about it, and so talk about it often. Should you not surround yourself with such people, it is logical that you will not have that same social interaction.
If this is true, if it is a case of you simply not surrounding yourself with people that enjoy data collection and analysis as much as I do, then the solution here isn't to say no one should use a combat tracker because it reduces social interaction. Rather, the solution is that only those that enjoy using a combat tracker should use them.
However, that is something that should be so obvious it shouldn't need to be said - if you don't enjoy using a combat tracker, don't.
Already know where is this going between us we hashed this out enough no need to do it again. We aren't here to convince each other. We can agree to disagree as there is a lack of actually understanding are points and just wanting to say one is wrong.
That is not a mean thing that is actually a you needing to not assume things on people when you have no solid evidence to actually observe.
No, assumptions are fine.
At the end of the day though, since assumptions people make are based on what they are presented with, if someone makes a false assumption about you, it is your fault and not theirs. Your fault, and you have the power to change peoples assumptions.
This is the same with everyone, including myself. I know there are posters on these forums that have false assumptions about me, and in some cases I have gone out of my way to correct those assumptions - in other cases I have not bothered, and left those posters with the assumption of me they have.
There is nothing at all wrong with that.
I've pointed out why imo which i back up with comments to me it is fact it reduces social elements.
I didn't need to talk about the points you thought you made, because I proved the over all point I was taking aim at (combat trackers being less social) to be factually incorrect.
I've pointed out why imo which i back up with comments to me it is fact it reduces social elements.
See, this is the problem, this is why people can't have discussions with you, why people are happy making assumptions about you regardless of what you think about it, and why you piss off so many people.
There is no such thing as "a fact to you". There are facts, and then there are your opinions. Who ever you picked up the notion that you can have your own facts from - that person has done you dirty.
You can perfectly well say that in your opnion, in your experience, combat trackers make games less social. Not only would I not argue with that, but I'd probably agree that this is your experience. However, since others here have told you of personal experiences of the exact opposite, it means this opinion of yours is simply not a fact.
What you should be doing with that information - rather than arguing that people can't make those arguments - is trying to work out why people have vastly different experiences from you. If your experience is that combat trackers lead to less social interaction, but others are saying they lead to far more social interaction, what is it that you are missing? Since social interaction is a good thing, if others are gaining social interaction from something and you are losing social interaction from the same thing, you are clearly missing something.
Figuring that out is what you should be doing, rather than continuing to argue your opinion and experience.
In a good faith hope that you will do this, I will provide you with a piece of information that I think is different between you and I, and is a large part of the reason why I gain social interaction from trackers and you do not.
When I play MMORPG's, I surround myself with people that enjoy data collection and analysis as much as I do. Thus, we actually enjoy talking about it, and so talk about it often. Should you not surround yourself with such people, it is logical that you will not have that same social interaction.
If this is true, if it is a case of you simply not surrounding yourself with people that enjoy data collection and analysis as much as I do, then the solution here isn't to say no one should use a combat tracker because it reduces social interaction. Rather, the solution is that only those that enjoy using a combat tracker should use them.
However, that is something that should be so obvious it shouldn't need to be said - if you don't enjoy using a combat tracker, don't.
Already know where is this going between us we hashed this out enough no need to do it again. We aren't here to convince each other. We can agree to disagree as there is a lack of actually understanding are points and just wanting to say one is wrong.
Mag, the phrase "we can agree to disagree" isn't meant to be used to just put any opinion back next to any other opinion for absolutely "free" without any work on the part of you. It's not a catch-all for an argument.
The reason I say this is because Noaani here actually put in some effort and highlighted an important point. It is important even if you literally don't agree with anything he says at any point. Which is that some people get more social interaction out of combat trackers and based on what you've said, it seems you gain less. Let's perhaps at least engage with that earnestly? Where does that difference come from in your opinion?
Bow before the Emperor and your lives shall be spared. Refuse to bow and your lives shall be speared.
It is 8 classes with 8 flavours each. I still think its a convoluted approach. There are so many games that could have influenced the class system, instead we get a half baked class system that's not DnD, not AA and not L2. It's a kind of halfway house and a half assed attempt at variety. We can't actually build how we want and we can't actually break from the base archetypes either.
We don't actually know how much the secondaries will be able to push our effect the primaries. I'm hoping it's enough to make this system with while.
I believe it won't be substantial because Steven stated we can only move the needle closer and not get an exact match. That dictates that the transition would be less than the whole. However, we can also get powerful augments from race, religion, social orgs etc which won't move the needle closer but might make the needle bigger.
Already know where is this going between us we hashed this out enough no need to do it again. We aren't here to convince each other. We can agree to disagree as there is a lack of actually understanding are points and just wanting to say one is wrong.
Let's shift perspective here a bit.
You like pvp, right? I'd assume you consider it a fairly social feature, cause people group up and work together to fight enemies, and they can find great rivals to respect and potentially even befriend for years to come.
So let's say a person says that they find pvp mmo utterly unsocial. And when you ask them why they think so they say "several of my friends played pvp mmos and they'd always get kicked from parties/guilds for being too weak, and then they'd get killed in pvp because they were alone".
Would you say that this person is factually incorrect?
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited January 16
Kind of sad that we got a multi-page DPS meter derail...
But, super-awesome that we got to hear from Song_Warden, SongRune and JustVine.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I took Noaani's comment as "if you were hit with an axe - your character would know that. if you were hit with an ice arrow - same. etc etc." We could get into pointless arguments of "but what if the character was hit in the back and didn't see shit", but I feel like that would be a petty argument even for these here parts.
I think we don't need a combat log - especially not DPS meters - to determine that.
We should be able to notice the effects of being hit in the back with an Ice Arrow without reviewing combat logs.
We should be able to see who is using Ice Arrows and other Ice effects and adjust our tactics accordingly.
Our group mates should also be able to see us get hit in the back with an Ice Arrow... especially if it happens frequently... and say "Uh. You might want to turn around or move so you don't keep getting hit in the back by an Ice Arrow."
I took Noaani's comment as "if you were hit with an axe - your character would know that. if you were hit with an ice arrow - same. etc etc." We could get into pointless arguments of "but what if the character was hit in the back and didn't see shit", but I feel like that would be a petty argument even for these here parts.
I think we don't need a combat log - especially not DPS meters - to determine that.
We should be able to notice the effects of being hit in the back with an Ice Arrow without reviewing combat logs.
We should be able to see who is using Ice Arrows and other Ice effects and adjust our tactics accordingly.
Our group mates should also be able to see us get hit in the back with an Ice Arrow... especially if it happens frequently... and say "Uh. You might want to turn around or move so you don't keep getting hit in the back by an Ice Arrow."
Sure, but a combat log exists to review all of that after the fact. If I am reviewing it the following day, or the following week, that information should be in the combat log.
I get you may not care or want to review things after the fact, and that's fine. You don't have to, and shouldn't have to. However, those that enjiy it should be able to.
The game absolutely should be designed in a way where an a character attacking you with a cold sword should appear to have a cold sword, but we already know that won't be the case.
If I have a sword with a cold damage effect, but equip a cosmetic club with a fire theme, you probably want combat logs on screen mid combat to check.
We should be able to notice the effects of being hit in the back with an Ice Arrow without reviewing combat logs.
As has been pointed out before, logs are purely there to review what happened w/o needless arguments about the facts.
In a big pvp every person will have at least 5 things to look at/out for, so tracking all the actions of every of your mates is not really feasible. And as Azherae likes to say, quite a lot of people have an upper limit on how much info they can process at any given moment in time. And mass pvp (and especially mass pvx) puts people beyond that limit quite often, with several dmg sources, several dmg targets, several buff/debuff trackings, etc etc.
And even with the current pace of combat, noticing all potential happenings in an encounter would be almost impossible. Which is why having at least even a basic log is a good thing for people to know how to play better (party play included).
I don't necessarily agree with Azherae's group and Noaani on the detailness of that log, but that's gonna be a whole different discussion when we get to test it in A2.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited January 16
Combat Logs are there for individuals to be able to review their own tactics - should they choose to do so.
They absolutely are not there for debates or arguments because they are intended for individual review; not for party review -- especially in the Ashes design.
Combat Trackers/DPS Meters exist for groups to review. Where there are multiple perspectives and interpretations of data - expect debate and arguments to ensue.
Don't have to notice all potential happenings in an encounter. Just have to be aware enough to be successful.
And, we shouldn't need to rely on combat logs to be successful.
Especially when they are reviewed after the encounter has ended.
Anyway... enough derail for me....
This can be continued in the DPS Meters Megathread, if necessary.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I believe it won't be substantial because Steven stated we can only move the needle closer and not get an exact match. That dictates that the transition would be less than the whole. However, we can also get powerful augments from race, religion, social orgs etc which won't move the needle closer but might make the needle bigger.
"Substantial" is subjective.
Substantial enough to provide signifcant variety in how a Primary Archetype plays their "primary" role.
Not substantial enough that they adequately replace a different Primary Archetype role.
The group can rely on the Cleric Primary Archetype to Heal with Hallowed Ground.
The Cleric/Rogue Hallowed Ground might be augmented with Poison Damage to enemies.
The Cleric/Ranger Hallowed Ground might be augmented to Root or Snare enemies.
The Ranger/Cleric Scatter Shot might be augmented with a Heal for allies.
Etc.
Back to the original post, I think the 64 class design can work and if implemented correctly won't cause too much development time while creating a lot of versatility for the players.
Hear me out.
It sounds like much of the content in Ashes is going to be soft/hard gated behind certain archetypes or skills/abilities. However, 8 player group content will still need a way for most competent groups of 8 to be able to beat it. If each class has 8 sub archetypes/augment trees available to them, that's a lot of ways to approach the content.
All of these options may allow us to replace a player here or there and still be able to adjust. Even if we can't get a perfect comp and there are 3 ranger mains and 2 bards, maybe we can still find a way through the augment system.
A side effect of this approach is that when we go out in the world after redoing our augments and aligning builds, we might be tailored for specific content. A specific world boss, a specific dungeon, a caravan raid, an ore farming location, etc. This creates a huge variety of "sub metas" and is a great way of resolving some of the problems with metas in games. Especially with the threat of pvp always on the radar.
However I still think the approach to augments as posted in the wiki doesn't really make sense. They can't attach "teleport" to 320 abilities.
A far more sensible way is to group abilities into categories, and then template the ability for a given category. For example on a X/Mage, the "mobility" category abilities can have teleport or illusion attached to it. "Defensive" category abilities can have a shock shield or a fire shield. Makes way more sense to me and still fits in with the original design intent.
It is much easier to design AND BALANCE a new "mobility" ability if you already know that it has to accommodate teleport, illusion, speed buff, invulnerability, and 28 other specific augments.
They haven't really shown us archetype augments yet. People talk about seeing all the classes but this is something i would LOVE to see. A ranger and cleric with all the secondary augments and which ones are templated and shared stream. =D
Back to the original post, I think the 64 class design can work and if implemented correctly won't cause too much development time while creating a lot of versatility for the players.
Hear me out.
It sounds like much of the content in Ashes is going to be soft/hard gated behind certain archetypes or skills/abilities. However, 8 player group content will still need a way for most competent groups of 8 to be able to beat it. If each class has 8 sub archetypes/augment trees available to them, that's a lot of ways to approach the content.
All of these options may allow us to replace a player here or there and still be able to adjust. Even if we can't get a perfect comp and there are 3 ranger mains and 2 bards, maybe we can still find a way through the augment system.
A side effect of this approach is that when we go out in the world after redoing our augments and aligning builds, we might be tailored for specific content. A specific world boss, a specific dungeon, a caravan raid, an ore farming location, etc. This creates a huge variety of "sub metas" and is a great way of resolving some of the problems with metas in games. Especially with the threat of pvp always on the radar.
However I still think the approach to augments as posted in the wiki doesn't really make sense. They can't attach "teleport" to 320 abilities.
A far more sensible way is to group abilities into categories, and then template the ability for a given category. For example on a X/Mage, the "mobility" category abilities can have teleport or illusion attached to it. "Defensive" category abilities can have a shock shield or a fire shield. Makes way more sense to me and still fits in with the original design intent.
It is much easier to design AND BALANCE a new "mobility" ability if you already know that it has to accommodate teleport, illusion, speed buff, invulnerability, and 28 other specific augments.
They haven't really shown us archetype augments yet. People talk about seeing all the classes but this is something i would LOVE to see. A ranger and cleric with all the secondary augments and which ones are templated and shared stream. =D
I think they've specifically said that not all Augment Schools can be attached to every skill, so we might be a bit more limited there.
There's also the option to simply not have the Augment do 'what you'd expect'. For example, there's a Mage skill that does a line of earth damage and then knocks up (this may no longer be current but it's a general example), and applying 'Teleport' to this, might increase the knock-up, or teleport the enemy instead.
This would lead to some situations where your augmented skill is LESS obviously useful (think 'Gift of the Magi + Teleport Augment causes the players to swap positions, which you might not always want) but you'd still have the options.
Since 'making an ability that is seldom used and isn't consistently strong' is technically 'better' than 'just not bothering to make it', I would moreso expect the 'Gift of The Magi Teleswap' to exist, but then nearly no one be expected to use it as their normal build.
Combat Logs are there for individuals to be able to review their own tactics - should they choose to do so.
They absolutely are not there for debates or arguments because they are intended for individual review; not for party review -- especially in the Ashes design.
No.
You may well review your logs by yourself if you wish. However, everything in an MMORPG is to be shared among friends, should a player wish to do so.
The suggestion otherwise is asinine.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I think they've specifically said that not all Augment Schools can be attached to every skill, so we might be a bit more limited there.
There's also the option to simply not have the Augment do 'what you'd expect'. For example, there's a Mage skill that does a line of earth damage and then knocks up (this may no longer be current but it's a general example), and applying 'Teleport' to this, might increase the knock-up, or teleport the enemy instead.
This would lead to some situations where your augmented skill is LESS obviously useful (think 'Gift of the Magi + Teleport Augment causes the players to swap positions, which you might not always want) but you'd still have the options.
I'm not aware of a quote that says not all Augment Schools can be applied to every Active Skill.
I think it's closer to being that not every individual Augment can be applied to every Active Skill.
Seems more likely that in your example, adding that Augment from the Teleport School would still do some form of line of damage but may no longer knock up at the end. Very likely to allow that line of damage to teleport past a barrier rather than being blocked by the barrier.
And, yeah... it wouldn't really be about "what you'd expect", rather it would be about whether the Augmented Active Skill provides results you prefer.
"The Secondary Class augments should be applicable across all Active Skills. So, the 4 Schools of Augmentation provided by your Secondary Class choice... those are going to be present across all Active Skills."
--- Steven
BCG 100th Podcast Sep 29, 2021
It is 8 classes with 8 flavours each. I still think its a convoluted approach. There are so many games that could have influenced the class system, instead we get a half baked class system that's not DnD, not AA and not L2. It's a kind of halfway house and a half assed attempt at variety. We can't actually build how we want and we can't actually break from the base archetypes either.
We don't actually know how much the secondaries will be able to push our effect the primaries. I'm hoping it's enough to make this system with while.
I believe it won't be substantial because Steven stated we can only move the needle closer and not get an exact match. That dictates that the transition would be less than the whole. However, we can also get powerful augments from race, religion, social orgs etc which won't move the needle closer but might make the needle bigger.
I can go find it if you want, but I did a full collection of secondaries and augments quotes a while back, and there were a few that were more open-ended. Completely changing an abilities function was not off the table. The framework is there for them to make the changes as big or small as they want. Either way someone will complain though...
I feel like the more powerful augments that cause those big changes will come from secondaries not those other categories. My understanding is they want the races to have distinct flavors, but don't want to make one 'autopick' for a class.
Combat Logs are there for individuals to be able to review their own tactics - should they choose to do so.
They absolutely are not there for debates or arguments because they are intended for individual review; not for party review -- especially in the Ashes design.
No.
You may well review your logs by yourself if you wish. However, everything in an MMORPG is to be shared among friends, should a player wish to do so.
The suggestion otherwise is asinine.
I actually think that could be a good middle ground... Recorded logs and numbers for me, but not visible to you. That would be a solution to the argument that logs cause toxic interactions.
Combat Logs are there for individuals to be able to review their own tactics - should they choose to do so.
They absolutely are not there for debates or arguments because they are intended for individual review; not for party review -- especially in the Ashes design.
No.
You may well review your logs by yourself if you wish. However, everything in an MMORPG is to be shared among friends, should a player wish to do so.
The suggestion otherwise is asinine.
I actually think that could be a good middle ground... Recorded logs and numbers for me, but not visible to you. That would be a solution to the argument that logs cause toxic interactions.
Logs do not cause toxic interactions. Toxic people cause toxic interactions.
Logs are the most neutral and based in facts compared to anything else. What people do with those facts are up to the individual player.
Combat Logs are there for individuals to be able to review their own tactics - should they choose to do so.
They absolutely are not there for debates or arguments because they are intended for individual review; not for party review -- especially in the Ashes design.
No.
You may well review your logs by yourself if you wish. However, everything in an MMORPG is to be shared among friends, should a player wish to do so.
The suggestion otherwise is asinine.
I actually think that could be a good middle ground... Recorded logs and numbers for me, but not visible to you. That would be a solution to the argument that logs cause toxic interactions.
Sure, some games do this.
The point I was making is that reviewing logs is still a valid group activity.
It is also worth pointing out that a number of trackers have a function to collate multiple sources - they can take data from every in the raid if they have individual logs, and produce a combined raid parse.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I can go find it if you want, but I did a full collection of secondaries and augments quotes a while back, and there were a few that were more open-ended. Completely changing an abilities function was not off the table. The framework is there for them to make the changes as big or small as they want. Either way someone will complain though...
I'm quite sure there is no quote that has a context of "compeletely" changing an Active Skill's function.
So if you do find a quote that says "completely" please share it.
I think the quotes you will find will say "fundamentally" change. There may be very significant changes, but the Active Skill will still perform its primary function.
I feel like the more powerful augments that cause those big changes will come from secondaries not those other categories. My understanding is they want the races to have distinct flavors, but don't want to make one 'autopick' for a class.
All Augments have the potential to signifcantly change an Active Skill... as far as I know.
The same Augment will not change every Active Skill its attached to to the same degree.
A Racial Augment fundamentally changing an Active Skill does not mean it will be an auto-pick for a Class.
Augments are not really about power - rather they are about how individual players choose to play the same Class differently - especially how to use an Active Skill differently from others while still providing the same primary results that a group relies on from that Primary Archetype.
Comments
Interestingly, this lack of clear understanding you are talking about is exactly what you have in regards to combat trackers, and yet you feel free to discuss them at will, while refusing to alter your opinions when presented with actual fact that contradicts what you want to believe.
So, if you are able to spout actual rubbish on a topic you know nothing at all about and refuse to actually become educated on, why would you have any issue with anyone else being supposidly incrrect on a topic but willing to have their opinion changed?
Fact is, when you say things like combat trackers make games less social, all that does is show that you don't know what you are talking about. There are many ways in which you may not know what you are talking about, but the basic fact that you are wrong in that statement holds true. If you aren't going to fill us in on why you think that to be the case, on why you are so incorrect, you leave us to make assumptions.
The actual most likely reason for it is that you just have no idea at all and are making up bullshit in order to maintain an argument, but I am not going to just assume that to be the case because that is the worst of all possible scenarios (I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you absolutely do not deserve).
That is not a mean thing that is actually a you needing to not assume things on people when you have no solid evidence to actually observe. The worse crime is you should have some information to observe but you are extreme combative and aren't looking to understand another. A FACT being I have told you what mmorpgs I have played and you can't recall them yet you say you have knowledge fro "observing" which looks bad on multiple levels.
I offer my facts / opinions , you or others offer their facts and opinions. Does that mean I will convince you or another no, and that goes for the other way as well. I strongly disagree but i don't resort to throwing passive aggressive laced assumptions not taken from a single actual fact or conversation point.
We can both say we are both incorrect all day on our opinions. But there is a different in stating your points and sitting down having a decent disccusion, which relies on being cordial with each other (hence why i said lets cut out the the assumptions / passive aggressiveness). Issue starts when you think you are right and someone else is wrong when they are both opinions at the end of the day and take it to a personal level like your opinion is some form of law.
I've pointed out why imo which i back up with comments to me it is fact it reduces social elements. You don't talk about those points to skip past it and say its social in other ways without understanding the point I'm getting across.
Why i feel it makes it less social is not something to get that personal over at the end of the day, its a small drop of many issues with the level of trackers you want. You can believe what you want to believe it doesn't effect me i just say my view point.
At the end of the day though, since assumptions people make are based on what they are presented with, if someone makes a false assumption about you, it is your fault and not theirs. Your fault, and you have the power to change peoples assumptions.
This is the same with everyone, including myself. I know there are posters on these forums that have false assumptions about me, and in some cases I have gone out of my way to correct those assumptions - in other cases I have not bothered, and left those posters with the assumption of me they have.
There is nothing at all wrong with that. I didn't need to talk about the points you thought you made, because I proved the over all point I was taking aim at (combat trackers being less social) to be factually incorrect. See, this is the problem, this is why people can't have discussions with you, why people are happy making assumptions about you regardless of what you think about it, and why you piss off so many people.
There is no such thing as "a fact to you". There are facts, and then there are your opinions. Who ever you picked up the notion that you can have your own facts from - that person has done you dirty.
You can perfectly well say that in your opnion, in your experience, combat trackers make games less social. Not only would I not argue with that, but I'd probably agree that this is your experience. However, since others here have told you of personal experiences of the exact opposite, it means this opinion of yours is simply not a fact.
What you should be doing with that information - rather than arguing that people can't make those arguments - is trying to work out why people have vastly different experiences from you. If your experience is that combat trackers lead to less social interaction, but others are saying they lead to far more social interaction, what is it that you are missing? Since social interaction is a good thing, if others are gaining social interaction from something and you are losing social interaction from the same thing, you are clearly missing something.
Figuring that out is what you should be doing, rather than continuing to argue your opinion and experience.
In a good faith hope that you will do this, I will provide you with a piece of information that I think is different between you and I, and is a large part of the reason why I gain social interaction from trackers and you do not.
When I play MMORPG's, I surround myself with people that enjoy data collection and analysis as much as I do. Thus, we actually enjoy talking about it, and so talk about it often. Should you not surround yourself with such people, it is logical that you will not have that same social interaction.
If this is true, if it is a case of you simply not surrounding yourself with people that enjoy data collection and analysis as much as I do, then the solution here isn't to say no one should use a combat tracker because it reduces social interaction. Rather, the solution is that only those that enjoy using a combat tracker should use them.
However, that is something that should be so obvious it shouldn't need to be said - if you don't enjoy using a combat tracker, don't.
Already know where is this going between us we hashed this out enough no need to do it again. We aren't here to convince each other. We can agree to disagree as there is a lack of actually understanding are points and just wanting to say one is wrong.
Mag, the phrase "we can agree to disagree" isn't meant to be used to just put any opinion back next to any other opinion for absolutely "free" without any work on the part of you. It's not a catch-all for an argument.
The reason I say this is because Noaani here actually put in some effort and highlighted an important point. It is important even if you literally don't agree with anything he says at any point. Which is that some people get more social interaction out of combat trackers and based on what you've said, it seems you gain less. Let's perhaps at least engage with that earnestly? Where does that difference come from in your opinion?
I believe it won't be substantial because Steven stated we can only move the needle closer and not get an exact match. That dictates that the transition would be less than the whole. However, we can also get powerful augments from race, religion, social orgs etc which won't move the needle closer but might make the needle bigger.
You like pvp, right? I'd assume you consider it a fairly social feature, cause people group up and work together to fight enemies, and they can find great rivals to respect and potentially even befriend for years to come.
So let's say a person says that they find pvp mmo utterly unsocial. And when you ask them why they think so they say "several of my friends played pvp mmos and they'd always get kicked from parties/guilds for being too weak, and then they'd get killed in pvp because they were alone".
Would you say that this person is factually incorrect?
But, super-awesome that we got to hear from Song_Warden, SongRune and JustVine.
We should be able to notice the effects of being hit in the back with an Ice Arrow without reviewing combat logs.
We should be able to see who is using Ice Arrows and other Ice effects and adjust our tactics accordingly.
Our group mates should also be able to see us get hit in the back with an Ice Arrow... especially if it happens frequently... and say "Uh. You might want to turn around or move so you don't keep getting hit in the back by an Ice Arrow."
Sure, but a combat log exists to review all of that after the fact. If I am reviewing it the following day, or the following week, that information should be in the combat log.
I get you may not care or want to review things after the fact, and that's fine. You don't have to, and shouldn't have to. However, those that enjiy it should be able to.
The game absolutely should be designed in a way where an a character attacking you with a cold sword should appear to have a cold sword, but we already know that won't be the case.
If I have a sword with a cold damage effect, but equip a cosmetic club with a fire theme, you probably want combat logs on screen mid combat to check.
In a big pvp every person will have at least 5 things to look at/out for, so tracking all the actions of every of your mates is not really feasible. And as Azherae likes to say, quite a lot of people have an upper limit on how much info they can process at any given moment in time. And mass pvp (and especially mass pvx) puts people beyond that limit quite often, with several dmg sources, several dmg targets, several buff/debuff trackings, etc etc.
And even with the current pace of combat, noticing all potential happenings in an encounter would be almost impossible. Which is why having at least even a basic log is a good thing for people to know how to play better (party play included).
I don't necessarily agree with Azherae's group and Noaani on the detailness of that log, but that's gonna be a whole different discussion when we get to test it in A2.
They absolutely are not there for debates or arguments because they are intended for individual review; not for party review -- especially in the Ashes design.
Combat Trackers/DPS Meters exist for groups to review. Where there are multiple perspectives and interpretations of data - expect debate and arguments to ensue.
Don't have to notice all potential happenings in an encounter. Just have to be aware enough to be successful.
And, we shouldn't need to rely on combat logs to be successful.
Especially when they are reviewed after the encounter has ended.
Anyway... enough derail for me....
This can be continued in the DPS Meters Megathread, if necessary.
Substantial enough to provide signifcant variety in how a Primary Archetype plays their "primary" role.
Not substantial enough that they adequately replace a different Primary Archetype role.
The group can rely on the Cleric Primary Archetype to Heal with Hallowed Ground.
The Cleric/Rogue Hallowed Ground might be augmented with Poison Damage to enemies.
The Cleric/Ranger Hallowed Ground might be augmented to Root or Snare enemies.
The Ranger/Cleric Scatter Shot might be augmented with a Heal for allies.
Etc.
Hear me out.
It sounds like much of the content in Ashes is going to be soft/hard gated behind certain archetypes or skills/abilities. However, 8 player group content will still need a way for most competent groups of 8 to be able to beat it. If each class has 8 sub archetypes/augment trees available to them, that's a lot of ways to approach the content.
All of these options may allow us to replace a player here or there and still be able to adjust. Even if we can't get a perfect comp and there are 3 ranger mains and 2 bards, maybe we can still find a way through the augment system.
A side effect of this approach is that when we go out in the world after redoing our augments and aligning builds, we might be tailored for specific content. A specific world boss, a specific dungeon, a caravan raid, an ore farming location, etc. This creates a huge variety of "sub metas" and is a great way of resolving some of the problems with metas in games. Especially with the threat of pvp always on the radar.
However I still think the approach to augments as posted in the wiki doesn't really make sense. They can't attach "teleport" to 320 abilities.
A far more sensible way is to group abilities into categories, and then template the ability for a given category. For example on a X/Mage, the "mobility" category abilities can have teleport or illusion attached to it. "Defensive" category abilities can have a shock shield or a fire shield. Makes way more sense to me and still fits in with the original design intent.
It is much easier to design AND BALANCE a new "mobility" ability if you already know that it has to accommodate teleport, illusion, speed buff, invulnerability, and 28 other specific augments.
They haven't really shown us archetype augments yet. People talk about seeing all the classes but this is something i would LOVE to see. A ranger and cleric with all the secondary augments and which ones are templated and shared stream. =D
I think they've specifically said that not all Augment Schools can be attached to every skill, so we might be a bit more limited there.
There's also the option to simply not have the Augment do 'what you'd expect'. For example, there's a Mage skill that does a line of earth damage and then knocks up (this may no longer be current but it's a general example), and applying 'Teleport' to this, might increase the knock-up, or teleport the enemy instead.
This would lead to some situations where your augmented skill is LESS obviously useful (think 'Gift of the Magi + Teleport Augment causes the players to swap positions, which you might not always want) but you'd still have the options.
Since 'making an ability that is seldom used and isn't consistently strong' is technically 'better' than 'just not bothering to make it', I would moreso expect the 'Gift of The Magi Teleswap' to exist, but then nearly no one be expected to use it as their normal build.
You may well review your logs by yourself if you wish. However, everything in an MMORPG is to be shared among friends, should a player wish to do so.
The suggestion otherwise is asinine.
I think it's closer to being that not every individual Augment can be applied to every Active Skill.
Seems more likely that in your example, adding that Augment from the Teleport School would still do some form of line of damage but may no longer knock up at the end. Very likely to allow that line of damage to teleport past a barrier rather than being blocked by the barrier.
And, yeah... it wouldn't really be about "what you'd expect", rather it would be about whether the Augmented Active Skill provides results you prefer.
"The Secondary Class augments should be applicable across all Active Skills. So, the 4 Schools of Augmentation provided by your Secondary Class choice... those are going to be present across all Active Skills."
--- Steven
BCG 100th Podcast Sep 29, 2021
I'm just worried about meta and having some class combos being insanely better than others.
I'm still going to play something completely off-meta and rare, otherwise I feel disgusted with myself.
I can go find it if you want, but I did a full collection of secondaries and augments quotes a while back, and there were a few that were more open-ended. Completely changing an abilities function was not off the table. The framework is there for them to make the changes as big or small as they want. Either way someone will complain though...
I feel like the more powerful augments that cause those big changes will come from secondaries not those other categories. My understanding is they want the races to have distinct flavors, but don't want to make one 'autopick' for a class.
I actually think that could be a good middle ground... Recorded logs and numbers for me, but not visible to you. That would be a solution to the argument that logs cause toxic interactions.
Logs do not cause toxic interactions. Toxic people cause toxic interactions.
Logs are the most neutral and based in facts compared to anything else. What people do with those facts are up to the individual player.
Sure, some games do this.
The point I was making is that reviewing logs is still a valid group activity.
It is also worth pointing out that a number of trackers have a function to collate multiple sources - they can take data from every in the raid if they have individual logs, and produce a combined raid parse.
So if you do find a quote that says "completely" please share it.
I think the quotes you will find will say "fundamentally" change. There may be very significant changes, but the Active Skill will still perform its primary function.
All Augments have the potential to signifcantly change an Active Skill... as far as I know.
The same Augment will not change every Active Skill its attached to to the same degree.
A Racial Augment fundamentally changing an Active Skill does not mean it will be an auto-pick for a Class.
Augments are not really about power - rather they are about how individual players choose to play the same Class differently - especially how to use an Active Skill differently from others while still providing the same primary results that a group relies on from that Primary Archetype.