DPS Meter Megathread

We have not received permission from MrPockets to share the quoted post.

This is a slightly flawed perspective that applies primarily to individualistic societies, further multiplied by strongly capitalist ones.

It is true that there is a pressure to excel in such societies, but it doesn't come about as a result of the meritocracy itself, moreso as a function of the type of personality that pushes hard and then feels happy only when they devalue others.

This particular thing is common to almost all individualistic societies, regardless of how exactly they measure 'merit'. Been dealing with it since serfdom.

So yes, it's relevant here, but unfortunately games DO give you a few objective concepts of 'merit' that you must personally ignore in order to reach the sort of peace required to not trigger this effect. MMOs are a meritocracy already, particularly PvX ones (no matchmaking, competition for resources). This is another case where the Trackers are a 'tool', to be used by either the 'oppressor' or the 'uplifter', the game itself is creating the meritocratic tilt.

We have not received permission from Sapiverenus to share the quoted post.

Oh? Let's try a test, then...

I can do it without the tracker. I'm basically savant-level superhuman.

The game says I win. Games always say I win. My IQ is amazing and my data processing ability is ridiculous. I want the tracker so that other people can keep up with me.

So I support the option for trackers so that I'm not alone here at the top with my genius and incredible skill.

I get to lead the strong Guild then, right?

Good people trying to ruin chads' lives yet again Not letting gods just be gods

NiKr wrote: »

Good people trying to ruin chads' lives yet again Not letting gods just be gods

That's a perspective for single player games, tho.

We have not received permission from MrPockets to share the quoted post.

Agreed, but again bear in mind that the entire premise of this discussion is that Intrepid claims to offer powerful enemies that only the top percentage of players on the server can defeat.

Not 'will'. 'Can'. It is required for 'aspiration of those who are less skilled than that'.

Intrepid says 'this is a form of merit we wish for players to aspire to'.

If they found that 95% of their playerbase never even tried because the game was so fun otherwise that their raiding scene did not matter, I would expect and hope that they would spend less time on that type of PvE content. But for the purposes of the 'Trackers' part of this, the concern is always 'having objective data for one's own build' (could be done without a Tracker by most people) and 'having objective data for performance in a full raid against powerful high-tier enemies (cannot be done without a Tracker by most people without spending up to 3x as long outside of game as in it, GENERALLY).

So the meritocracy here that 'is going to be subject to meters' is the high end content. With the suggested method, there's no way that 'random PvE groups just leveling in a dungeon' who don't already have a Guild Tracker for a different reason would ever see use of such a thing.

So yes, MMOs are social, but THIS MMO contains high end PvE combat, or supposedly will, and it contains high end group vs group contests, which both lead to meritocratic win/loss situations.

If I can kill your character in every fight we have, I might not be fun to play with, I might not make you laugh or cheer you up or offer you anything other than 'an unbeatable opponent'. To overcome that part of it, you would need 'better performance', not 'social skill'.

Azherae wrote: »

That's a perspective for single player games, tho.

Eh, it's just a perspective of someone who's fine with others being stronger than them if it's deserved. A "bucket of crabs" kind of approach, but from the pov of the crab

NiKr wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

That's a perspective for single player games, tho.

Eh, it's just a perspective of someone who's fine with others being stronger than them if it's deserved. A "bucket of crabs" kind of approach, but from the pov of the crab

I want my GuildMates to be able to keep up, is what I'm saying here.

Azherae wrote: »

I want my GuildMates to be able to keep up, is what I'm saying here.

Yeah, and I'm the crab that would hold them down if they couldn't break through on their own. Which is why I said that kind people like you and Noaani are stopping the naturally superior people from standing out as much, because with you helping non-superior people the success of "gods" won't seem as big.

Well, Intrepid claim that skill will amount to at least half of player's power so I might be wrong in my assumption but we'll see about that.

NiKr wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

I want my GuildMates to be able to keep up, is what I'm saying here.

Yeah, and I'm the crab that would hold them down if they couldn't break through on their own. Which is why I said that kind people like you and Noaani are stopping the naturally superior people from standing out as much, because with you helping non-superior people the success of "gods" won't seem as big.

Well, Intrepid claim that skill will amount to at least half of player's power so I might be wrong in my assumption but we'll see about that.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that in our current climate of gaming, those who won't continue to play a game that is not rewarding their level of ability will simply move to a game that does.

I am not convinced that the reason we get all these 'easy' and 'dumbed down' games isn't almost entirely because the retention on harder games is too low. Now, that's fine when the game doesn't have the 'meritocracy' that (I hope) we are discussing, but if a game says it from the start, then I'll take them at their word.

Don't get me wrong, I'm quite tired of the opposite too, where everything is so easy that there's no way to use any unique skills one happens to have in a way that matters, but in the end, we'd end up back at the other side of this discussion. The 'there's no way you will stop cheaters from keeping up with me anyway' side. I prefer not to discuss that side anymore unnecessarily.

We have not received permission from MrPockets to share the quoted post.

Hm. I can agree with this, actually. I do hope that wouldn't happen.

But I can also say that if 'the numbers' seemed meaningful to design in the first place, the game has other problems. So I'll try to pare it down to one concept.

"If you have an objective way of determining how well you are doing at the thing you are trying to do, the game is usually more fun. If you allow others or THE GAME ITSELF to dictate 'what thing you should be doing', then that is where your problem lies."

Is the person whose personality demands that they are 'in the top percentage of players' for success and happiness, able to achieve this more easily because they have no Tracker available to use for improvement?

Is the person whose personality demands that they consistently inform others that they are not average and would definitely overcome a challenge, less likely to claim that others are weaker than them, because they don't have a tracker to measure with?

Azherae wrote: »

I am not convinced that the reason we get all these 'easy' and 'dumbed down' games isn't almost entirely because the retention on harder games is too low. Now, that's fine when the game doesn't have the 'meritocracy' that (I hope) we are discussing, but if a game says it from the start, then I'll take them at their word.

I'm not completely sure that retention was lower. Maybe it's nostalgic super bias, but older games seemed harder but still fun (even when difficulty came from unfair mechanics sometimes). And if you beat some commonly regarded as super difficult stage of some game, you'd be seen as superior and more skillful (one of the bigger examples of this I remember is the toy helicopter mission from Vice City).

And if you couldn't beat it yourself but knew someone who could, you'd try to socialize with them and ask for help, be it verbal or direct "do it for me" one. And when you played multiplayer (and especially mmo) games, those difficult parts would bring people together. And maybe it was my own gamer bubble, but those kind of games promoted themselves on difficulty and people were more interested in trying them out and then trying to beat them for as long as it took. The retention was quite high.

And I think that the Souls games showed that being considered a difficult game is enough to grow hype to unreasonable levels. Yes, Elden Ring has several "easy modes", but its initial hype was built on the back of all the other souls games, which were so infamously difficult that any other difficult game was "the souls game of their genre".

And I think that the top skill people in the "meritocracy" of those difficult games were one of the appealing factors for those games. But that is also the reason why I want those skillful people to stand out that much, because everyone else would have someone to look up to.

Now I'm obviously not sure whether the Intrepid's tracker would in any way dilute the "skillfulness" of the playerbase and maybe Noaani's idea of guild trackers would be the same as those guilds just using a 3rd party one, in case Intrepid kept their current stance, but, as I've said multiple times before in this thread - we gotta see the content first.

NiKr wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

I am not convinced that the reason we get all these 'easy' and 'dumbed down' games isn't almost entirely because the retention on harder games is too low. Now, that's fine when the game doesn't have the 'meritocracy' that (I hope) we are discussing, but if a game says it from the start, then I'll take them at their word.

I'm not completely sure that retention was lower. Maybe it's nostalgic super bias, but older games seemed harder but still fun (even when difficulty came from unfair mechanics sometimes). And if you beat some commonly regarded as super difficult stage of some game, you'd be seen as superior and more skillful (one of the bigger examples of this I remember is the toy helicopter mission from Vice City).

And if you couldn't beat it yourself but knew someone who could, you'd try to socialize with them and ask for help, be it verbal or direct "do it for me" one. And when you played multiplayer (and especially mmo) games, those difficult parts would bring people together. And maybe it was my own gamer bubble, but those kind of games promoted themselves on difficulty and people were more interested in trying them out and then trying to beat them for as long as it took. The retention was quite high.

And I think that the Souls games showed that being considered a difficult game is enough to grow hype to unreasonable levels. Yes, Elden Ring has several "easy modes", but its initial hype was built on the back of all the other souls games, which were so infamously difficult that any other difficult game was "the souls game of their genre".

And I think that the top skill people in the "meritocracy" of those difficult games were one of the appealing factors for those games. But that is also the reason why I want those skillful people to stand out that much, because everyone else would have someone to look up to.

Now I'm obviously not sure whether the Intrepid's tracker would in any way dilute the "skillfulness" of the playerbase and maybe Noaani's idea of guild trackers would be the same as those guilds just using a 3rd party one, in case Intrepid kept their current stance, but, as I've said multiple times before in this thread - we gotta see the content first.

Arrogance incoming (sorta?)

There's a difference between being perceived as difficult and actually being difficult.

In a COMPETITIVE game, if you are trying to get to the top, your measuring stick is not 'this is kind of hard', it is 'peak human relative to the thing in question'.

This is not something most MMO-heavy players experience. I say that AS an MMO-heavy player for the most part.

Souls games are sorta hard, but they are not very hard. In a way, their reputation comes from the reverse situation. They are POPULAR and that means more people who aren't particularly good at them, play them and consider them hard, so they get a reputation for being hard. So, if you focus on 'can I win a fight against another player/group' and 'can I get there first', the difficulty rating skyrockets well beyond what most people call 'hard'.

But if you say 'hey let's play a Modern MMO with players from all over the world', particularly now that being good is worth more than just bragging rights, you get a lot more of those 'peak humans' staying instead of just going 'ok that was fun' and moving on long before they even realize that other people find it to be difficult.

It literally doesn't even occur to them that the thing they are doing is 'hard' until weeks later when it's in some gaming magazine. .

And that's good, when there is no actual Competition, when it can't be forced on you even when it exists, and when there's matchmaking. When a person can just go 'well the point is to beat the boss at all and I can do that too I just can't do it as stylishly/perfectly as Top Player ItsYaBoiMaxSkilz', they're fine.

If we were talking about that sort of game, I would not have anything to say.

Azherae wrote: »

In a COMPETITIVE game, if you are trying to get to the top, your measuring stick is not 'this is kind of hard', it is 'peak human relative to the thing in question'.

This is not something most MMO-heavy players experience. I say that AS an MMO-heavy player for the most part.

How difficult is it to win in BDO's pvp against someone with better gear? Is it impossible due to bad gear design or is it just very hard and depends on the difference of skill?

Obviously mmo's balancing is never as tight as fighting games' one and never as fair as smth like a CSGO or other team shooter, but pvp mmos still present you with the "beat the human" difficulty rather than just a pve one.

But I guess that's kinda what you were talking about here

Azherae wrote: »

So, if you focus on 'can I win a fight against another player/group' and 'can I get there first', the difficulty rating skyrockets well beyond what most people call 'hard'.

Which usually resulted in most players leaving because they weren't prepared for the difficulty of going against superior players (be that through gear or just skill).

Azherae wrote: »

And that's good, when there is no actual Competition, when it can't be forced on you even when it exists, and when there's matchmaking. When a person can just go 'well the point is to beat the boss at all and I can do that too I just can't do it as stylishly/perfectly as Top Player ItsYaBoiMaxSkilz', they're fine.

If we were talking about that sort of game, I would not have anything to say.

Yeah, AoC's design is pretty much the opposite of that. And I guess that if Intrepid go through with the supposed pve design, it's gonna be an even worse situation, where a pretty big part of the content will be completely inaccessible to the majority of players because either its difficulty is too high or the "superior" players stop that majority from even attempting the content.

So then @NiKr , that is why I feel one can at least somewhat speculate on what will happen without seeing the content.

Meritocracy is created automatically when the strong can prevent the weaker from HAVING things, and also have skills above them.

Azherae wrote: »

So then NiKr, that is why I feel one can at least somewhat speculate on what will happen without seeing the content.

Meritocracy is created automatically when the strong can prevent the weaker from HAVING things, and also have skills above them.

I must've just gone down a self-imposed tangent in my head and missed the thread of the overall conversation Yeah, I agree that any PvX mmo is a pure meritocracy because there'll always be someone who'll stop you from increasing your "merit". Especially pvx mmos with free market.

Want to kill mobs? Fuck you, you can't because another dude played x2 as much as you and/or has better gear and skill, and he always kills you when you approach the mobs.

Want to become a top trader? Fuck you, a mafia guild is controlling the market completely.

Want to become a top crafter? Same shit, you got no resources to use in crafting and no mobs to get those resources from.

And imo any social "merit" comes from outside of the game, because being social is not a gameplay mechanic so it doesn't really have anything to do with your merit in the game. And I think that's exactly the reason why social media has pushed out and kinda replaced the mmo genre. Because that social "merit" suddenly became much higher on the social media, due to the deeper irl ties and more potential consequences (be they positive or negative).

NiKr wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

So then NiKr, that is why I feel one can at least somewhat speculate on what will happen without seeing the content.

Meritocracy is created automatically when the strong can prevent the weaker from HAVING things, and also have skills above them.

I must've just gone down a self-imposed tangent in my head and missed the thread of the overall conversation Yeah, I agree that any PvX mmo is a pure meritocracy because there'll always be someone who'll stop you from increasing your "merit". Especially pvx mmos with free market.

Want to kill mobs? Fuck you, you can't because another dude played x2 as much as you and/or has better gear and skill, and he always kills you when you approach the mobs.

Want to become a top trader? Fuck you, a mafia guild is controlling the market completely.

Want to become a top crafter? Same shit, you got no resources to use in crafting and no mobs to get those resources from.

And imo any social "merit" comes from outside of the game, because being social is not a gameplay mechanic so it doesn't really have anything to do with your merit in the game. And I think that's exactly the reason why social media has pushed out and kinda replaced the mmo genre. Because that social "merit" suddenly became much higher on the social media, due to the deeper irl ties and more potential consequences (be they positive or negative).

I believe that MMOs are not doomed in this way. I simply believe that they need to take an entirely different approach than they have ever taken towards rewarding people.

I just also don't think that it's sensible to create a Meritocracy game and then tell people 'don't use tools to close the gap between you and the naturally talented, you should either befriend/serve those people or not play/expect to do well because that's what MMOs are all about'.

It's not an invalid option. It just isn't the option I see leading to good outcomes. Especially when it relies on:

"Oh and if you do use them we will use surveillance on your computer to catch you and possibly ban you so only the people who know how to evade our surveillance actually get to get ahead/catch up, sorry you don't have any programming skills either but that's sometimes just how the world works, go defend/level your Node'.

That's just double Meritocracy, and one half of that isn't even game related.

Azherae wrote: »

I believe that MMOs are not doomed in this way. I simply believe that they need to take an entirely different approach than they have ever taken towards rewarding people.

Do you have any ideas for this? Cause I can't really come up with any that would fit a pvx game, outside of the obvious instanced content that is either easy enough or just doesn't scale the loot value with its difficulty.

Azherae wrote: »

I just also don't think that it's sensible to create a Meritocracy game and then tell people 'don't use tools to close the gap between you and the naturally talented, you should either befriend/serve those people or not play/expect to do well because that's what MMOs are all about'.

Would trackers give a much bigger advantage than, say, a dps dummy? Obviously they provide some tangible advantage against a semi or fully scripted pve encounter, but in my experience mass pvp is just too chaotic to properly assess what led to what, if you were trying to figure out what to avoid in future mass pvp encounters (well, at least nothing that you wouldn't have seen with your own eyes, like "people stood in aoes" or "enemy rogue killed our healer").

And if you can't even attempt the pve part of the game because you lose every pvp encounter before it, I'd assume that it wouldn't really matter whether your enemy used trackers for the pve or not because their inherent merit is just way higher than yours already.

NiKr wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

I believe that MMOs are not doomed in this way. I simply believe that they need to take an entirely different approach than they have ever taken towards rewarding people.

Do you have any ideas for this? Cause I can't really come up with any that would fit a pvx game, outside of the obvious instanced content that is either easy enough or just doesn't scale the loot value with its difficulty.

Azherae wrote: »

I just also don't think that it's sensible to create a Meritocracy game and then tell people 'don't use tools to close the gap between you and the naturally talented, you should either befriend/serve those people or not play/expect to do well because that's what MMOs are all about'.

Would trackers give a much bigger advantage than, say, a dps dummy? Obviously they provide some tangible advantage against a semi or fully scripted pve encounter, but in my experience mass pvp is just too chaotic to properly assess what led to what, if you were trying to figure out what to avoid in future mass pvp encounters (well, at least nothing that you wouldn't have seen with your own eyes, like "people stood in aoes" or "enemy rogue killed our healer").

And if you can't even attempt the pve part of the game because you lose every pvp encounter before it, I'd assume that it wouldn't really matter whether your enemy used trackers for the pve or not because their inherent merit is just way higher than yours already.

This brings us back to 'which things people can notice', but for clarity, remember, I am not saying 'I believe everyone should have a way to notice things'. I'm still standing precisely on the spot of 'Wait, if you make a game hard enough that only I notice the things, won't people stop playing it?'

For now give me the benefit of 'believing I'm as good as I say at these things', then apply the reasoning. I have only ever directly met one other person that can do what I do consistently. I don't do it in PvE as much because it has been so long since I played a game with PvE that required it and didn't just give an easy bypass for all the people who can't do it.

That's the level of difference between 'Tracker' and 'DPS dummy'. Remember, I'm a healer, I am not even watching my own DPS, I'm watching everyone else's DPS and the Tank's mitigation at the same time. And this is in MOBAs. I did it in Ashes Sieges and it was effective to a level that made me think something was off in balance.

I'm quite literally saying that there's no way for most people to understand what I'm talking about because I can see things/make connections that they CANNOT make. The usual response to this, as you could probably guess, is to deny the possibility of that (either for people in general, or just for me, if I'm in an argument). But that's literally what those supposed 'IQ' tests are really testing. I don't care whether or not a high score on an IQ test means I am better than, or smarter than, people, in GENERAL, but I know what they test. They test 'the ability to make abstract connections about patterns'. Their entire purpose (especially the higher level specialized ones) is to present the test subject with patterns that require increasingly more abstract thought or pattern recognition until they can no longer even conceptualize how to arrive at the answer.

That's the gap they're meant to show.

"This is your limit, you literally cannot comprehend how this thing is possible, as opposed to this person who has a higher IQ than you, who can comprehend it."

So either IQ tests are bullshit even at testing the SPECIFIC thing that we know they ACTUALLY test... or a high IQ person can do things that other people quite possibly NEED a tool to do. And if that is the case and the game is a challenge to that person, those who cannot will either follow that person's directives, or rely on a tool.

As for what one should do to change the way players are rewarded, that is a matter of something that I don't know how people react to, but Intrepid already may have and Aerlana has already discussed.

Outright make builds that are 80-90% as effective as a build that is harder to play and master for others. Then do the same for PvE encounters, then do whatever it takes to make players who use those builds or specialize in those encounters, feel meaningful.

But there does always need to be that '100% max build', that 'How is this even possible?' level of opponent, and that's partially why games tend to need either PvE or P2W.

Azherae wrote: »

So either IQ tests are bullshit even at testing the SPECIFIC thing that we know they ACTUALLY test... or a high IQ person can do things that other people quite possibly NEED a tool to do. And if that is the case and the game is a challenge to that person, those who cannot will either follow that person's directives, or rely on a tool.

But I'm not even talking pattern-based events. I'm literally talking "I, as a healer, was killed by a rogue and after that the whole party died because the healing stopped". And "a whole fucking party of people didn't run out of an aoe in time and that whole front of attack crumbled because of that".

I've seen those things happen in L2 countless times and I've been in such situations qutie a bit too. And pretty much everyone, including the main victims, knew what had happened and why it did.

And that is why I made the comparison of scripted pve where super detailed patterns could be designed and then figured out by players (with or without trackers), and the chaotic mass pvp stuff where you have the super obvious stuff that I mentioned and the super obscure situations that, even if you did recognize them as a valuable info point, you might never encounter again just because that exact situation might never come up in that exact way. When you have even 50x50 pvp (which will most likely be one front of attack/defense during sieges), the sheer amount of variables is just insane, mainly because people aren't robots so they can't replicate each and every fight 1-to-1.

So imo a tracker wouldn't really influence that part of the meritocracy equation. And if the other part doesn't even come up, then the losers wouldn't really care about it in the first place. Hell, they might not even know that it's happening, unless they try to party up with the winners. But quite often the winners don't want to work together with the weak, cause why even would they (well except if they're super kind and no longer need to farm that content).

Azherae wrote: »

As for what one should do to change the way players are rewarded, that is a matter of something that I don't know how people react to, but Intrepid already may have and Aerlana has already discussed.

Outright make builds that are 80-90% as effective as a build that is harder to play and master for others. Then do the same for PvE encounters, then do whatever it takes to make players who use those builds or specialize in those encounters, feel meaningful.

And here, I'd say, we're back to my expectation of content reveal I was mainly talking about the pve part, because that's a bigger part of the tracker discussion (at least imo), but gear/class design and balance are also definitely a part of the overall picture.

I'm used to a very straightforward balancing so I don't really have anything to add to this particular discussion except for "I agree with it and hope it works out".

Azherae wrote: »

But there does always need to be that '100% max build', that 'How is this even possible?' level of opponent, and that's partially why games tend to need either PvE or P2W.

And to me, this "build" comes through OE. That reasoning is mainly based on the combination of straightforward gear design combined with rps class design, but if Intrepid went for some skill-based methods of OE acquisition (especially if they're class-based), I think it could still be considered a good way to stand out from the crowd.

I'd personally be fine with a solo class-based instanced dungeon that rewards you with some OE items or maybe catalysts that ensure that OE doesn't fail. And when you see someone with a full set of OEd complex build - you know that bastard excels at his class and at the game itself.

Hm... I'm thinking about how to make this point without referencing fighting games, but I might not be able to.

Imagine you have a character/build that has an answer to EVERYTHING, but they therefore have so many moves and options that their gameplan is fluid, and you must be constantly thinking and perfectly reacting, but if you can do it, you're basically untouchable.

And then you have a character/build that has three main options and spends their time 'trying to get to the position to use them and defending until the opponent makes an error' and then does considerable damage with those simple options.

In order for the game to be balanced normally, the first character has to have the potential to theoretically always win . They are 'the best, on paper', because they could handle any situation. If you wanted to be the strongest POSSIBLE, you would need to play that build and play it perfectly.

Extend this to group composition. Extend this to raid composition. The user of that one feels rewarded because they do the right thing 90% of the time but have complete freedom. The user of the other feels rewarded because they do the 'right thing' 100% of the time. But if they ever meet a group/player/guild that can actually do the right thing 100% of the time with the first build type, defeat is basically guaranteed, by whatever definition of defeat you have.

Both sides complain equally. The 100% crowd complains that they are not 'really' the best and can't ever theoretically win against the 'normally 90%' crowd if the latter suddenly played perfectly. The 'normally 90% crowd' complains because they 'have to maintain at least 90% and work harder or they will lose to the simpler tactic'.

The design concept has to reach that razor-thin point where the requirement for beating the absolute hardest content is '101%' of the simple build, and '91%' of the complex one. One wins by luck (usually taking a risk and getting away with it, which gives them their thrill), and the other wins by 'skill' (but really just luck of how focused they are when doing it).

As for the other point, I'll just remind again that I only think in terms of Chaotic PvE being hard. You say 'mainly because people aren't robots', but that's really not the point.

One only ever needs to learn to counter OPTIMAL opposing strategies. If the '100% group' is actually fighting at less than 100%, then the 'normally 90%' don't need to keep up perfection. And vice versa. If the normally 90% group are making mistakes, the 100% rotation group can take a risk and still win.

Idk if you don't encounter it, but top level gamers are VERY close to 'robots'. There have been I believe MULTIPLE situations at this point where a player was banned for botting in a game and then had to prove that they could physically do the thing.

But in the end I guess this is not really a thing that can be explained because of the exact thing I'm talking about. You say 'the amount of variables is insane', but to me it just... isn't. I just dump all the variables for all the options that 'could be defeated without specific responses'.

This isn't to say that there isn't a level where the number of variables becomes too much for me. The only point I'm making is that before it gets to that point, other people start 'cheating' (or complaining that the game is too hard and impossible and just stop).

In some recent thread, Mag7 was trolling JustVine about Malenia from Elden Ring, I think... I watched her fight Malenia, about twice, and then said "Aim at her left shoulder instead".

And that was it. Two tries later she won.

I don't play Elden Ring.

Azherae wrote: »

Imagine you have a character/build that has an answer to EVERYTHING, but they therefore have so many moves and options that their gameplan is fluid, and you must be constantly thinking and perfectly reacting, but if you can do it, you're basically untouchable.

And then you have a character/build that has three main options and spends their time 'trying to get to the position to use them and defending until the opponent makes an error' and then does considerable damage with those simple options.

In order for the game to be balanced normally, the first character has to have the potential to theoretically always win . They are 'the best, on paper', because they could handle any situation. If you wanted to be the strongest POSSIBLE, you would need to play that build and play it perfectly.

Extend this to group composition. Extend this to raid composition. The user of that one feels rewarded because they do the right thing 90% of the time but have complete freedom. The user of the other feels rewarded because they do the 'right thing' 100% of the time. But if they ever meet a group/player/guild that can actually do the right thing 100% of the time with the first build type, defeat is basically guaranteed, by whatever definition of defeat you have.

Both sides complain equally. The 100% crowd complains that they are not 'really' the best and can't ever theoretically win against the 'normally 90%' crowd if the latter suddenly played perfectly. The 'normally 90% crowd' complains because they 'have to maintain at least 90% and work harder or they will lose to the simpler tactic'.

The design concept has to reach that razor-thin point where the requirement for beating the absolute hardest content is '101%' of the simple build, and '91%' of the complex one. One wins by luck (usually taking a risk and getting away with it, which gives them their thrill), and the other wins by 'skill' (but really just luck of how focused they are when doing it).

I'd say that my preferred class of SoulHound in L2 was the closest to this. The only thing it was missing was some form of ultimate defense ability (it got it in a later update at the cost of some nerfs), but it compensated the physical part of the received dmg by having a strong evasion buff. It also had a fairly op paralyze ability, but even outside of that "one fits all" tool it had a ton of variety for most situations in the game. It was my favorite class so if Intrepid manage to design their classes (at all amounts of people) that way - I'll be super happy.

Azherae wrote: »

As for the other point, I'll just remind again that I only think in terms of Chaotic PvE being hard. You say 'mainly because people aren't robots', but that's really not the point.

One only ever needs to learn to counter OPTIMAL opposing strategies. If the '100% group' is actually fighting at less than 100%, then the 'normally 90%' don't need to keep up perfection. And vice versa. If the normally 90% group are making mistakes, the 100% rotation group can take a risk and still win.

Idk if you don't encounter it, but top level gamers are VERY close to 'robots'. There have been I believe MULTIPLE situations at this point where a player was banned for botting in a game and then had to prove that they could physically do the thing.

I'm sure that singular people can achieve robot-like execution of gameplay, but I was talking about mass pvp as the main source of high amounts of variables. Even if we assume that a supposed group of 40 people (if we're just talking a raid vs raid encounter before a boss) can play the game in an insanely precise way w/o ever making a single mistake and always acting in exactly the same way (all rotations, all movements, all skills - all the same) - they still wouldn't be able to control the enemy side's actions, so there might be situations where even the "100%" crowd does smth that works well against the current "optimal" build of the "90%" people.

And if you're suggesting a balance design that allows those 90%ers to literally always win, as long as they perform well, then the razor-thin design should apply to the mass-pvp too, and in such a way that the always-losers don't feel so utterly defeated that they just give up. And I'm personally not sure if such a design is even possible. Especially if you consider a group of people that can potentially perfectly execute any gameplay action at all times.

I've narrowly lost encounters against better geared and better skilled players when I was a guild leader and even then quite a few guildmates became defeatists almost immediately because they thought it'd be impossible to win again. And that was in L2 where that kind of interaction was way more mundane. I'm not sure how the current crowd of gamers would take multiple successive losses against the same enemy.

And that doubt is probably the main reason why I'd be against having a "truly optimal" raid-sized build in Ashes. You could have 5 killer parties, but, in theory, they should be able to be beaten by a combination of 5 other parties that have classes that might, at the very least, semi-counter them. This way each former party could be seen as the peak performers and could be able to outplay any "100%er" party, but it might not be as easy to do in a raid vs raid situation. Though my designing abilities are not strong enough to come up with a way to properly implement that w/o it feeling cheap for the "90%ers".