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

Noaani

Laetitian wrote: »

Sorry, that's too simple for me. I think it's fair to consider that the faults of ESO and WoW attracted a more hiveminded crowd, but tools like the DPS meter further manifested their dominance.

I'm not going to comment on whether this is true or not, I don't have any reason to assume either to be the case. I'm just going to state that if it is true, then having a combat tracker but not having that instigator that caused the hivemind crowd to initially form is not going to lead to the same situation.

In your scenario, the issue is the faults in those two games that caused the hivemend crowd that you are talking about. A combat tracker may have made that worse, but if it wasn't there to start with, a combat tracker could not do any harm. Thus, don't blame the tracker, blame those faults.

When you are listing pros and cons of trackers in your head, if this is listed as a con, cross it out, as it is not the fault of trackers.

Yes, teach. But would they have been open to figuring out how to play with you without adjusting your gameplay to their preference?

I am unsure I understand the question, but I will answer it as best I can.

When joining a guild in EQ2, the implicit (though often explicit) understanding is that you are joining them to do things their way. You don't change the way 30 players run content in order to accommodate 1 new player.

That said, the role that this player is expected to fulfil in the raid is clear. If the guild is looking for a Wizard, that is what they will be looking for. That means you are expected to be a single target DPS specalist, because that is what a Wizard was in that game. If you were a Wizard, it is because you wanted to be a single target DPS specalist. The guild isn't going to look for a Wizard and expect them to be an AoE DPS specalist, or be a tank, or anything like that. Likewise, that Wizard is not going to expect to join that guild as a Wizard and then expect to do anything other than single target DPS. If they wanted to do something else, they would be a different class.

Where the differences are is in things like where the mob is pulled to, what methods the guild is using to deal with different abilities the mob has, things like that. It may well be that I am expected to joust an AoE in some guilds (run out of its range, then back in once it has gone off), while in other guilds the expectation is that the healers can heal through it, or AoE blockers can prevent it. All are valid, all are built in to the game as viable ways to deal with an AoE, different guilds have different methods for how they wish to go about things.

Why do they deprive themselves of fun challenges and human interactions just to save some time in order not to talk to people, learn from each other, and adapt their playstyle by a hair?

A better question is, why would they?

If what they do now works, why change it?

It isn't as if there was no interaction happening, it just wasn't happening in relation to working out a better build. In fact, a big part of the reason people were happy to run the "required" builds for that content is because that is where the most player interaction happened in the game. People wanted to be a part of that content because that is where you met up with friends that had housing on a different continent, and these raids (specifically CR/GR in Archeage) often used to morph in to Library runs or open PvP. People wanted to be a part of it, and so were happy to be one of the required builds.

So, in a situiation where there is no incentive to find a better build, there is every incentive to be one of the meta builds, there is no data to prove a build is better, one can't be surprised that no one attempted to come up with a better meta.

Laetitian

Noaani wrote: »

I'm just going to state that if it is true, then having a combat tracker but not having that instigator that caused the hivemind crowd to initially form is not going to lead to the same situation.

Yes, but the opposite isn't guaranteed. If the hivemind is already there, the DPS meter might make it worse, and I'd rather avoid that potential where possible.

Noaani wrote: »

I am unsure I understand the question, but I will answer it as best I can.
When joining a guild in EQ2, the implicit (though often explicit) understanding is that you are joining them to do things their way. You don't change the way 30 players run content in order to accommodate 1 new player.

What about when not joining a guild, but just a scenario you referenced earlier, when you're trying to run a dungeon with them because they got 1 missing? That's more what I was referring to. Same for scenarios where no guilds are involved.

Noaani wrote: »

The guild isn't going to look for a Wizard and expect them to be an AoE DPS specalist, or be a tank, or anything like that. Likewise, that Wizard is not going to expect to join that guild as a Wizard and then expect to do anything other than single target DPS. If they wanted to do something else, they would be a different class.

Yea, that's all okay by me, or even good.

Noaani wrote: »

Where the differences are is in things like where the mob is pulled to, what methods the guild is using to deal with different abilities the mob has, things like that. It may well be that I am expected to joust an AoE in some guilds (run out of its range, then back in once it has gone off), while in other guilds the expectation is that the healers can heal through it, or AoE blockers can prevent it. All are valid, all are built in to the game as viable ways to deal with an AoE, different guilds have different methods for how they wish to go about things.

Yeah, I'm more talking about more specific quirks. Say your clan is used to amplifying burst damage by timing debuffs or whatever in order to deal with a boss mechanic. And that player instead uses poison. It might be possible to combine your strategies for this run, as long as you play more defensively than your clan is used to.

If your guild party now either refuses this player and continues to look for a perfect match for another 20 minutes, or does accept them, but insists on playing the way they're used to, and then gets wiped and flames the player for not being meta enough...to me that's a missed opportunity.
Edit: perspective.

Noaani wrote: »

Laetitian wrote:

Why do they deprive themselves of fun challenges and human interactions just to save some time in order not to talk to people, learn from each other, and adapt their playstyle by a hair?
I can't believe that players want to be that bound by convention. There's just no advantage to it besides saving time. If you hate spending time interacting in a game so much, what are you doing playing it? They'd literally rather save extra time to sit at the auction house afking than risk having to talk to a player that might not turn out optimal for their dungeon run because they don't conform directly to their comfortable expectations.

A better question is, why would they?
If what they do now works, why change it?

More opportunities for fun interactions. You know. Enjoying a game. What "works" depends on your goals.
I think success is a flawed primary motivator in any gaming endeavour. It's a fantastic secondary motivator, but if you centre the core of your decisionmaking around it, you're missing out.

Noaani wrote: »

If what they do now works, why change it?

In a game where you might run into a dozen players every day who are trying out a new build, you don't have to be the one exploring a new build, the question is about why you're rejecting them by default instead of finding out where your priorities overlap, and where you'd have to make concessions, and whether they're acceptable.
It's just a flawed hyperoptimisation of time that kills genuine interaction in my experience.

I wanna make it clear that I'm not some cuckoo off-meta-only player by a long shot. I don't copy the meta by default either, but I have a decently conventional role-optimisation-driven playstyle.
But what I do do is adjust my playstyle to other player's quirks if it means I get more productive interaction out of it. Cause it's fun as hell, and it gives me more people to interact and cooperate with. And learn from, though that's a sidenote.

Depraved

Noaani wrote: »

@Laetitian

I'm putting this in it's own post before I reply to the rest of your above post, as I consider this point to be of supreme importance specifically to you. This is something you really do need to understand.

Laetitian wrote: »

Whereas with a perfect dps meter, you know full well after a month 80% of players will be expected to be playing the same builds.

Without abundant access to combat trackers, this will be the case before the game leaves beta testing.

and that wont be the case with combat trackers? when people figure out the best builds using the combat trackers, they will play those and expect others to do so.

Noaani

Laetitian wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

I'm just going to state that if it is true, then having a combat tracker but not having that instigator that caused the hivemind crowd to initially form is not going to lead to the same situation.

Yes, but the opposite isn't guaranteed. If the hivemind is already there, the DPS meter might make it worse, and I'd rather avoid that potential where possible.

The way to avoid that hivemind is to not have the game at all. Or to have the game but make it single player, or to make it so players can't group, or to not have combat. There are thousands of other points that this line could be drawn.

Saying that you think a combat tracker is the line that should be drawn in the sand as opposed to drawing the line in any other place makes no sense without context as to why that is where the line should be drawn.

Laetitian wrote: »

What about when not joining a guild, but just a scenario you referenced earlier, when you're trying to run a dungeon with them because they got 1 missing? That's more what I was referring to. Same for scenarios where no guilds are involved.

I believe it is your turn.

I answered the question here as you said you would refrain from answer the question I posed to you until I answered the above question - since this discussion was in relation to guilds, it seems to me that only the guild aspect is relevant right now.

Quotes for a reminder

The question I asked you;

Noaani wrote: »

The question I have for you in relation to this point is - why do you think that guilds in WoW were against spending any time training new players, yet guild in other games knew it was something they needed to do?

Your response;

Laetitian wrote: »

I'll reserve my answer for when you've responded to the question above.

And the question you asked and wanted answered before answering my question

Yes, teach. But would they have been open to figuring out how to play with you without adjusting your gameplay to their preference?

So yeah, I think it's your turn in this specific exchange - why do you think guilds in WoW are so uninterested in training/teaching players, while guilds in other games consider this a requirement/obligation?

More opportunities for fun interactions. You know. Enjoying a game.

But they were enjoying the game.

The vast majority of players simply aren't interested in coming up with their own build. They don't want to spend time doing something that they don't enjoy, that may end up in them not being taken along on content (this is a point of discussion specific to Archeage, keep in mind). There is simply no incentive at all to look for a different build, just as there is no incentive in WoW.

Generally, players don't care about the class options they have not taken, they care that they have a functional class. If they do, the vast majority of players consider that 'done'. Trackers aren't really for these people - they are for those of us that want to expirement, want to find better and be better.

In a game where you might run into a dozen players every day who are trying out a new build, you don't have to be the one exploring a new build, the question is about why you're rejecting them by default instead of finding out where your priorities overlap, and where you'd have to make concessions, and whether they're acceptable.

I agree - and the way to find out if they are acceptable is by using a combat tracker.

Again, in EQ2, or any game where trackers are common, I am not going to reject a player to a piece of content based on their build. If they are of a role that fits in to what we are looking for, sure, give them a go. I am aware that this isn't the case in WoW - but the reason for this is something that you may well discover when you answer the question about why guilds in WoW also aren't willing to train players.

Noaani

Depraved wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

@Laetitian

I'm putting this in it's own post before I reply to the rest of your above post, as I consider this point to be of supreme importance specifically to you. This is something you really do need to understand.

Laetitian wrote: »

Whereas with a perfect dps meter, you know full well after a month 80% of players will be expected to be playing the same builds.

Without abundant access to combat trackers, this will be the case before the game leaves beta testing.

and that wont be the case with combat trackers? when people figure out the best builds using the combat trackers, they will play those and expect others to do so.

It wouldn't be guaranteed. If tracker use were openly allowed (or even encouraged), a meta would be built for the game that is based more on the design of the game. Essentially, it would then be up to the developers to develop the class system in a way where there is no clear best, in which case having trackers will make that obvious, leading to either no meta or (more likely) a very open meta with many hundreds of accepted builds.

However, not having trackers will guarantee the above.

Xeeg

Noaani wrote: »

However, not having trackers will guarantee the above.

Your doing The Lord's work Noanni.

Endowed

Noaani wrote: »

Endowed wrote: »

You got dps -- that doesn't mean you did anything else right.

If you are in the group or raid for DPS, you shouldn't be doing anything else.

Bullshit.

Noaani

Endowed wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Endowed wrote: »

You got dps -- that doesn't mean you did anything else right.

If you are in the group or raid for DPS, you shouldn't be doing anything else.

Bullshit.

If you want to give me a scenario in which you have asked to be DPS, and the right thing to do is something other than dealing damage, I'd be happy to point out how you are wrong.

Texas

I don't really care one way or the other but want to say something as someone who has enjoyed theorycrafting for some 20 odd years now.

1) Metas are formed without using DPS meters to determine the best build. People already have adapted their theorycrafting databases for Ashes. They are being updated every showcase and reveal. There are simulations ready to be fed new information. I'm sure content creators will have build tier lists and meta build videos way before launch even happens. People don't use or need DPS meters to figure this stuff out. They are far more likely to find combat bugs with a DPS meter than happen upon a new build.

2) I think DPS meters actually lend themselves to meta shifts and having an open mind about emerging builds. Not everyone is pouring over every update patch or the cutting edge of class meta. You will notice when the Spellhunter suddenly starts showing on the top of the meters after a major update. And pretty much everyone can discover new things taking a deep look at other people in the DPS meters.

3) Along those lines, they cut both ways. You discover not only who/what might be underperforming, but who/what isn't. I had a Hunter alt in WoW during WotLK. Towards the end of the expansion, Survival Hunter went from one of the worst dps classes to one of the best. I definitely remember more than one pug raid commenting how I was Survival and wanting me to respec for raid, and I would just reply, "if I'm not top DPS, just kick me." Two bosses in, they figured out what they thought was meta was just plain wrong. I'm not sure I would have had raid spots without DPS meters giving instant feedback.

4) 3rd-party combat log websites, if they exist for this game, are going to use the combat logs not DPS meters. They, too, have their uses and flaws.

Ruerik

Oh, a kind necromancer raised this thread! Thank you Valknar!!

However we feel positive towards having DPS meters in this game and we want them very much... For the ability to research our builds, even without a tool to measure DPS, us theory crafting types will still find metrics to measure different setups against each other, methods that exist within the ToS even.

Its more important to focus on discouraging toxicity than praying that somehow there wont be any metrics used to measure one build against another.

They will be weighed, they will be measured, and they will be found... suboptimal.

Endowed

Noaani wrote: »

Endowed wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Endowed wrote: »

You got dps -- that doesn't mean you did anything else right.

If you are in the group or raid for DPS, you shouldn't be doing anything else.

Bullshit.

If you want to give me a scenario in which you have asked to be DPS, and the right thing to do is something other than dealing damage, I'd be happy to point out how you are wrong.

You mean like switching targets and positioning to do interrupts. You mean like going into cleanse so healers dont have to. You mean like pulling agro to kite something special off the tank and party/raid. You mean like locking down stuff with your banish or root or fear. You mean like getting the fuck out of X/fire so your dps drops and you dont eat up the healers attention. Like not over-dpsing and drawing agro.

Your statement was complete BS. From UO in '97 to today. Unquestionable BS.

RagingWarrior

I don't mind DPS meters in the game, but I like the approach FF14 took. This may have changed since I have been gone... Their approach was you can use it but don't talk about it. Don't bring it up in party chat, chastise people about their numbers, and don't brag. It was a good measure for me, and I could try different things and see improvements. I would work on target dummies to test what was better, worse, etc.

Noaani

Endowed wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Endowed wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Endowed wrote: »

You got dps -- that doesn't mean you did anything else right.

If you are in the group or raid for DPS, you shouldn't be doing anything else.

Bullshit.

If you want to give me a scenario in which you have asked to be DPS, and the right thing to do is something other than dealing damage, I'd be happy to point out how you are wrong.

You mean like switching targets and positioning to do interrupts. You mean like going into cleanse so healers dont have to. You mean like pulling agro to kite something special off the tank and party/raid. You mean like locking down stuff with your banish or root or fear. You mean like getting the fuck out of X/fire so your dps drops and you dont eat up the healers attention. Like not over-dpsing and drawing agro.

Your statement was complete BS. From UO in '97 to today. Unquestionable BS.

Yeah, those things.

Ifyou were bought in to a group or a raid for DPS, don't do them.

There is nothing more frustrating as a tank than being ready to taunt an add the moment it is in range, only for some upstart DPS to CC them out of range. Mobs should never be CC'd in group content unless it is specifically requested.

Expect to be blacklisted from thst tanks future groups I'd you do it - unless you were specifically asked.

The notion that a DPS should ever kite something in a group situation is ludicrous. Doing so of your own volition without any suggestion thst it is what the group wants - that is the fastest way to get yourself booted from a group.

Keeping out of the fire and not pulling aggro are both factors of doing the most DPS you can. Your DPS tends to drop off when you die.

The notion of kiting a mob in a group setting of your own volition, or CC'ing a mob that you have no way of knowing if the tank has it under control or not are actual issues.

In WoW, when people use combat trackers to find the lowest DPS and boot them, it is often because shit like this is going on, and the assumption then becomes that the lowest FPS is probably ly the one doing it (a good tracker will tell them who is doing it, if they know how to use it).

So yeah, these examples you are saying you should do are the exact things you absolutely should never do.

Laetitian

Noaani wrote: »

Endowed wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Endowed wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Endowed wrote: »

You got dps -- that doesn't mean you did anything else right.

If you are in the group or raid for DPS, you shouldn't be doing anything else.

Bullshit.

If you want to give me a scenario in which you have asked to be DPS, and the right thing to do is something other than dealing damage, I'd be happy to point out how you are wrong.

You mean like switching targets and positioning to do interrupts. You mean like going into cleanse so healers dont have to. You mean like pulling agro to kite something special off the tank and party/raid. You mean like locking down stuff with your banish or root or fear. You mean like getting the fuck out of X/fire so your dps drops and you dont eat up the healers attention. Like not over-dpsing and drawing agro.

Your statement was complete BS. From UO in '97 to today. Unquestionable BS.

There is nothing more frustrating as a tank than being ready to taunt an add the moment it is in range, only for some upstart DPS to CC them out of range. Mobs should never be CC'd in group content unless it is [?]

The notion that a DPS should ever kite something in a group situation is ludicrous. Doing so of your own volition without any suggestion thst it is what the group wants - that is the fastest way to get yourself booted from a group.

That sounds pretty boring. Every game I've ever played forced DPSs to be able to fend for themselves in order to take pressure off of the tank and healer. Otherwise what's the skill expression for DPS players besides their rotation and knowing the dungeon design to step out of damage? How is it not more fun if they actually have to make decisions about which defensive skills to use in the moment?

Noaani

Laetitian wrote: »

Every game I've ever played forced DPSs to be able to fend for themselves in order to take pressure off of the tank and healer.

I would suggest that this.may be either a misunderstanding on your part, or it may be the tanks and healers you are dealing with. Knowing the games you often cite, it isn't standard in those games.

The very point of tanks and healers is to free the DPS up to be able to deal damage uninterrupted, and hold the emcounter still in order to make that DPS'ing easier. Every tank and healer I've ever grouped with has understood this to be their mission.

Generally speaking, they don't want you taking pressure off by fending for yourself in some manner, they want you taking pressure off by killing what ever it is you are killing.

Dead mobs take pressure off, DPS pulling mobs and running all over the place adds pressure.

It makes no sense for you to spend your time as a DPS freeing up tanks and healers, when it is the role of tanks and healers to free up the DPS to kill the mob.

Honestly, most tanks and healers consider it disrespectful for a DPS to do anything other than damaging the mob. They are spending their time enabling the DPS to be able to do this, the least the DPS players can do is take that opportunity.

Some may well consider this boring, many others consider it great gameplay, if you consider it boring then perhaps DPS isnt the role for you.

Laetitian

The point isn't whether players strategically want to do that, it's whether good game design should force them to have to do it anyway, so they have to employ a more well-rounded set of skills than just optimising their rotations and execution of the dungeon mechanics. I am a healer. I love when my DPS can hyperoptimise their DPS because I am just that good at healing. I just also know that that's simply not an option I am allowed to depend on in well-designed games.

Edit to clarify: I said "fend for themselves" above. Better phrasing would have been "have a fallback for particularly challenging moments." Obviously the tank + healer's role is to reduce the amount of times those tools are necessary. But they should still be necessary.

Edit to add: And like, there are interesting dynamics you can create with that. One DPS build might rely on short burst windows and be highly mobile in-between windows. That safety of the DPS might enable the party to focus their defensive resources, allowing them to play differently than a party whose DPS can fall under threat during the dangerous moments of the encounter.
Which might lead to two different setups that can both excel at different ways of clearing the encounter. Both might be favoured among different communities, which might lead to requirements for more versatility when players from different groups mix.
Not having a DPS meter to clarify exact advantages would leave ambiguity open that would allow for these different meta groups to form.

Noaani

Laetitian wrote: »

I just also know that that's simply not an option I am allowed to depend on in well-designed games.

The thing is, all of this isn't a matter of game design or anything, it is a matter of scale.

The more people you have on hand, the more specific each person's task will be. This is just a fact of scaling up. It applies to everything - sport, manufacturing, business, everything.

A group or raid may indeed designate a player to CC adds - that is absolutely a thing that could happen. However, if you are that person, you haven't been asked to join that group or raid as DPS, you are now DPS/CC, or even just specifically CC.

If the group or raid does have someone designated to perform this role, then it is counter-productive for anyone else to step in unasked. If they do not have someone in this role, it is because they feel the tank and healer(s) can handle what is to come, and don't want anyone CC'ing mobs as this is also counter productive.

In order for there to be content where it is expected that one player may make use of their full spectrum of abilities as you are saying, you would need content designed for 3 or 4 players at the most - once you hit 5 players, you are at the point where everyone has a specific role.

Laetitian

In order for there to be content where it is expected that one player may make use of their full spectrum of abilities as you are saying, you would need content designed for 3 or 4 players at the most - once you hit 5 players, you are at the point where everyone has a specific role.

No. You can create the demand for self-sufficiency in a ton of ways. Limitation to tank mechanics. Split players up across the battlefield, so CC can't efficiently be delegated to a subgroup, and every player needs survivability tools.
In some games, the impossibility of the hyperspecialisation you are describing even happens by accident.
Do you ever make concessions in discussions btw? All that has been said is that it might be possible for non-hyperspecialisation to be a viable advantage, and you can't even give that much ground?

Noaani

Laetitian wrote: »

Do you ever make concessions in discussions btw? All that has been said is that it might be possible for non-hyperspecialisation to be a viable advantage, and you can't even give that much ground?

When a statement is incorrect, I give it no ground.

As I said, content could be probably designed around players having to be more generalists if that content is being limited to 3 or 4 players. Larger group content could split groups off in to 3 or 4 player groups and achieve this - but that is still creating content for 3 or 4 player groups. I've seen content that splits the raid up in to smaller groups before, it isn't a new thing, but that is then creating content for those smaller groups - I've even seen a raid that breaks off one player at a time to kill mobs solo, but that is then designed for a solo player.

As far as I am concerned, that is a concession to your point/question, but while not making any incorrect statements.

You may be thinking you are discussing something specific, something no one had thought of, but specialization and efficiency is a well studied field. The notion that more people result in more specialization is a well understood fact - it isn't me having an opinion on something. Even bees and ants understand this (well, follow the basic principles of it, at least).

The only opinion here that I have shared is in relation to it being possible to have content for more generalized players at a player count of 3 or 4. I've not seen it happen, but I am of the opinion that it would be possible. The raid content I talked about above didnt really ask anything od players that they werent already doing. I'd actually be excited to see content like this if someone made it.

Take note as well, I am not saying a group can't decide they want to go in and be all generalist on some content. Players are free to do that, and may even be successful (there was a situation in EQ2 where 24 Paladins did some raid content, all of them able to tank, heal and deal some damage).

What I am saying is that it will never be even close to the most efficient way to do things - because again, that is a well understood field of study.

Further, what I am actually saying is that if you are bought along on a group or raid as DPS, then thst is your sole task. If they want more from you, they will ask.

Endowed

Seems like someone desperate to push addons and meters at any cost. Sounds exactly like modern politicians.

Child Item