DPS Meter Megathread

NiKr wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

I've sort of explained this before, I can find the post for you.

But the short answer is, it's just that hard, and the design of FF11, at least, is not 'react when the thing happens', it is 'react to the situation caused by the thing happening', which you have more time for.

My memory must be decaying due to my zoomerization (ADDzation?).

Noaani is EQ2 also simply about post factum reactive gameplay?

Cause I can totally understand that. I don't like it, but if that is how it is - I understand that.

Again, this is actually slightly oversimplification.

So backing up a step.

There's the information you need to see, to defend against, or heal directly after, an enemy attack, or to coordinate your synergy/Skillchain. This is not a thing you look at logs for.

There is information you need to know about basic DPS, DoT values, and fluctuations in those values. This information is in your logs, but it's hard to track it all consistently unless you're the player 'assigned to tracking it'.

Then there's the statistics, which are an integral part of Tab-Target and Hybrid MMOs with evasion and accuracy. In order to have a reasonable idea of the statistics, you must have all the log data. We're back to 'what happens when you fight Baltheus with short range weapons' if you remember that part.

Most people play these games by simplifying when they feel stuck. If simplification consistently leads to success, then the game is simple. We can agree on that much, right?

If you want a complex game, you need it to be true that simplification can't consistently lead to succeeding. And in this type of game you need the statistics, and the statistics are low on the 'list of things you can see'.

DoT is lower on the list than statistics, and falls lower and lower based on how complex the game is (remember that ping also determines how and when your client receives data about something, so when I 'change the damage my DoT is doing, the display on your screen/log isn't precisely attuned to what is happening on the server).

Trackers become 'necessary' when all of the following are true:
1) The game contains accuracy and evasion, and has enough activity that you might need the statistics
2) The complexity of decision making is heavily influenced by data from up to 7 or more seconds ago
3) There are a large number of mechanics, changing status, DoT, or players interacting at the same time

So Pred doesn't need a tracker really because it doesn't have #1, and BDO doesn't need it because it doesn't have #2, and L2 (apparently) doesn't need it as much because it doesn't have #3.

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

Again, I don't think I've ever said it was easy.

All I was asking is what were people doing during the encounter. SC can be broken down to attention to management of resources, food, production, units (macro and micro), scouting and the decision tree that includes all of those factors. Obviously executing all of that is beyond difficult, but at the very base of second-to-second actions it's simply shift of attention from a thing to a thing.

I was asking what were players shifting their attention to in EQ2 raids. If it was just "my positioning, what did the boss just do to me/others, what should others do in response and what should my response be to support them (all in the context of a preestablished tree of decisions, that's based on log parsing)" - all of that is easy as fuck to understand, but obviously hard as fuck to execute.

Now, either/both of you tell me - is that what you pay attention to or not.

Azherae wrote: »

Most people play these games by simplifying when they feel stuck. If simplification consistently leads to success, then the game is simple. We can agree on that much, right?

Yep.

Azherae wrote: »

If you want a complex game, you need it to be true that simplification can't consistently lead to succeeding. And in this type of game you need the statistics, and the statistics are low on the 'list of things you can see'.

DoT is lower on the list than statistics, and falls lower and lower based on how complex the game is (remember that ping also determines how and when your client receives data about something, so when I 'change the damage my DoT is doing, the display on your screen/log isn't precisely attuned to what is happening on the server).

So yeah, sounds like my explanation in the comment above is correct. Gameplay is about complex reactive raid-wide decision trees.

NiKr wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Most people play these games by simplifying when they feel stuck. If simplification consistently leads to success, then the game is simple. We can agree on that much, right?

Yep.

Azherae wrote: »

If you want a complex game, you need it to be true that simplification can't consistently lead to succeeding. And in this type of game you need the statistics, and the statistics are low on the 'list of things you can see'.

DoT is lower on the list than statistics, and falls lower and lower based on how complex the game is (remember that ping also determines how and when your client receives data about something, so when I 'change the damage my DoT is doing, the display on your screen/log isn't precisely attuned to what is happening on the server).

So yeah, sounds like my explanation in the comment above is correct. Gameplay is about complex reactive raid-wide decision trees.

Also, before we go in any weird directions, remember two things.

1) You're the one that mentioned that you can't imagine how people were playing the game with randomness on top of all that.
2) It's not that absolutely no one can do it, it's that it's genetic lottery if you can do it or not, and trackers are the solution to this that is employed to even the playing field and foster camraderie .

This is the 'danger' of not including them if you want a complex game.

In Pred, my group uses replays. I can see everything, they watch replays and ask me to confirm what I saw vs the replay, or 'they get upset', then 'I remember what actually happened' (sometimes I go check the replay myself to be absolutely sure but I'm about 90% of the time correct), and then I tell them which part of the replay to watch.

Without the replays, what happens is different. One might even call it 'more toxic'. (this has nothing to do with Trackers, because Intrepid says we're getting a combat log, and if we have a full combat log, we have 'a Tracker' relative to this part).

So my team doesn't need to be able to adapt to everything mid-match, when they can't, we just lose (or win because either the enemy team can't either, or I can manipulate their behaviour because I'm Jungler).

Azherae wrote: »

1) You're the one that mentioned that you can't imagine how people were playing the game with randomness on top of all that.

You saw my AC6 gameplay and heard how I approach the difficulty in games like that. My default approach is "why would you get hit when you can avoid getting hit, and if you can't avoid - git good". This is why I couldn't even comprehend what Noaani was saying.

But your comment there made me finally realize that yall are completely fine with being hit (apparently because the game's complexity doesn't physically allow to avoid things). Which is why I switched so fast.

Do you have any friends who're super good at SC(2)? Cause we're a bit in too deep in our own bubble, so it's be interesting in hearing from that person whether my generalization of player actions during a match is anywhere near correct. I've pretty much never played either SC, but I followed the pro scene in early 10s, which is where I base my generalization on.

Azherae wrote: »

2) It's not that absolutely no one can do it, it's that it's genetic lottery if you can do it or not, and trackers are the solution to this that is employed to even the playing field and foster camraderie .

Again though, trackers help with the tree, right? They have no mechanical influence on the player's actions during the encounter itself. So, realistically, only those genetic lottery winners can clear the pve Noaani and you are talking about. Because clearing that lvl of difficulty still requires the player to hold a ton of info in their head, even if their job is simply watching where they stand and remember the tree when they cast abilities.

And as I said before, I'm all for deep and extensive logs. And I've come to terms with inevitability of trackers a long time ago.

NiKr wrote: »

Again though, trackers help with the tree, right? The have no mechanical influence on the player's actions during the encounter itself. So, realistically, only those genetic lottery winners can clear the pve Noaani and you are talking about. Because clearing that lvl of difficulty still requires the player to hold a ton of info in their head, even if their job is simply watching where they stand and remember the tree when they cast abilities.

And as I said before, I'm all for deep and extensive logs. And I've come to terms with inevitability of trackers a long time ago.

Not exactly, this is the structure that leads to what PvE Raiders consider to be a large part of the content.

On Pull #1 you don't have enough data to strategize (this is true in all games that go beyond 'dodge when attacked, you'll notice it in a specific part of AC6 later). Everyone must watch everything, because you don't know what's important vs not. The enemy can 'feint' with less important things to overload you, or sometimes a specific random sequence is something your party/raid in particular just shrugs off.

On Pulls #2-5 you are gathering data, if you don't win, it's probably because people don't yet know which thing exactly they're supposed to be focused on, out of the massive amount of stuff happening. PvP is similar, for you, I hope (I only play games where it is similar for me).

On Pulls #6-15 you're tweaking builds, learning reactions, and in a complex game, you're still doing what you were doing on pulls #2-5, because there are still things about the boss, random combinations and situations, that didn't come up before that. You might get lucky during this time, and 'your preparations from #2-5 were enough'. This is 'just about average PvE' to the players generally who care about this. PvP players who face weaker opponents who are easy to manipulate or don't adapt, have the equivalent. Think 'strong guild who hasn't learned tactics and is carried by gear'.

If you didn't get lucky, or the boss is really complex or has different 'phases' (this isn't a good example, it's moreso a condition where they do something differently for a short period in response to something else), then Pulls #16-25 are more of the same. People are really working out 'what they need to pay attention to', and the logs/tracker is there to give you the statistics to make those decisions (again, ENTIRELY because it's a Tab-Target or Hybrid MMORPG, Action ones still have the statistics based on your own personal skill, but your build doesn't matter as much unless it's Predecessor tier of complexity in builds, which none are).

Pulls #25 and on are tweaking builds, making sure to do all mechanics perfectly, synchronizing in weird situations where, for example, the enemy needs to be CCed, but it's not absolutely clear whose job it is in any precise moment, so sometimes two people CC at once, both go on cooldown, now no more CC, things go bad...

Somewhere in there, depending on the type of game and the mechanical complexity, you probably win. And that was the fun.

"Oh damn we both stunned it, can we still win?"
or
"No don't stand behind me now DAMMIT, someone rez... too late... fine..."

Stuff like that.

The part relevant to this discussion is, the 'Savant' or the 'Tracker' is what gets you 'through' Pulls #6-15. Together, players discuss how to tweak their builds, approaches, teamwork, positioning, and so on, to respond to the many random situations the boss presents. The number of pulls is related to 'how much information you need to gather, to know which parts of the information you can ignore'. Games with 'weak' PvE that doesn't provide the sequence above, and games with weak PvP opponents, are the same. If you can, in one encounter, grasp everything the boss can do, and spend time watching the statistics, follow the scripted mechanics if any, and know what to ignore, then it dies somewhere in Pull #2-5 stage.

This is why there are no true top-end guides, too. Because 'which things you tweak' depend on what the strengths and weaknesses of your group are. Eventually there will usually be a guide of 'here's the simplest combination of classes to take to this boss to negate the maximum number of things so that you don't have to track it all'.

It's the equivalent of finding out the OP meta-build for PvP. Except that in FFXI at least, that 'simplest combination', which is 'the best combination' to the masses, can still get royally fucked over by one of the rarer random ability combinations. The odds are just less, and the sort of person who 'just wants to clear' (whether because they don't enjoy the complexity, or it's just a guild that has something 'on farm') will just shrug it off and go again.

Because 'someone said this is the best, there are videos of people beating it like this, so I know it's possible so I'll just do it too'.

That's why AC6 has build guides like that.

Azherae wrote: »

Stuff like that.

Now I need Noaani to weigh in on this comment, because what you described would be a roughly mid-high lvl of pve encounters as how I imagine good ones to be.

But going off of Noaani's explanations about EQ2, this would be smth like a low tier boss.

This is why I had bigger troubles comprehending his explanations of his points, rather than yours. I could watch those ff11 raid videos and superimpose them onto the things you've explained about the game and I'd have a super rough picture of how I'd "look like" if I was playing it.

But I've watched a few EQ2 raids, and they don't match Noaani's explanations. Now, Noaani has stated before that the most difficult bosses weren't even recorded really, so maybe I've only seen the lvl of stuff that you just described, but then this doesn't help me comprehend the difference between the 25th+ pulls from your example and the "hundreds and hundreds of pulls" from Noaani's usual ones.

If it's simply about the "stat values of bosses (both basic and ability ones) are at such a high limit that you need a near-perfect raid build to succeed, and even then you probably got lucky" - I can understand that. But iirc Noaani has also said that different guilds managed to kill bosses with different builds. So is it ultimately just luck (based on super high skill of course) or are those bosses not, in fact, at the max limit of what's even probably to kill.

Extrapolating my AC6 experience to a raid one is somewhat easy, even if I add the lens of higher lvls of complexity. But that's still just under the difficulty from your example. Noaani's somewhere above the skies with his numbers.

NiKr wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Stuff like that.

Now I need Noaani to weigh in on this comment, because what you described would be a roughly mid-high lvl of pve encounters as how I imagine good ones to be.

But going off of Noaani's explanations about EQ2, this would be smth like a low tier boss.

This is why I had bigger troubles comprehending his explanations of his points, rather than yours. I could watch those ff11 raid videos and superimpose them onto the things you've explained about the game and I'd have a super rough picture of how I'd "look like" if I was playing it.

But I've watched a few EQ2 raids, and they don't match Noaani's explanations. Now, Noaani has stated before that the most difficult bosses weren't even recorded really, so maybe I've only seen the lvl of stuff that you just described, but then this doesn't help me comprehend the difference between the 25th+ pulls from your example and the "hundreds and hundreds of pulls" from Noaani's usual ones.

If it's simply about the "stat values of bosses (both basic and ability ones) are at such a high limit that you need a near-perfect raid build to succeed, and even then you probably got lucky" - I can understand that. But iirc Noaani has also said that different guilds managed to kill bosses with different builds. So is it ultimately just luck (based on super high skill of course) or are those bosses not, in fact, at the max limit of what's even probably to kill.

Extrapolating my AC6 experience to a raid one is somewhat easy, even if I add the lens of higher lvls of complexity. But that's still just under the difficulty from your example. Noaani's somewhere above the skies with his numbers.

If it helps, I was actually describing mid-level content as well.

But as for the different guilds with different builds concept, remember one specific thing I said.

"My guild shrugs off different things than your guild does."

This is a thing I expect in Ashes, or rather, I deeply hope for. You can parallel to AC6 once again. "My build shrugs off different things than yours does." My challenge to you actually, based on that, would be that when you return to AC6, you should consider this a bit. Maybe even 'try not to change your build too much unless you're hard stuck'.

Baltheus is easiER (not easy) with your build, than with mine. Two later bosses, I just cut through trivially, and I know that your build will have much more issues with. That's the complexity.

For harder bosses, add more mechanics that aren't related to your class which you must also learn (and therefore get disrupted from all your muscle memory and related skills), or take the FFXI approach and 'combine abilities that, if put on players, would be explicitly unbalanced'. 'You can't counter both of these things at once without massive effort and perfect execution'. Then increase those and the randomness. As I understand it, EQ2 is harder than FFXI because it has a lot more of the 'this boss mechanic is specific and goes against your standard ability and muscle memory'.

Briareus, as an example, only has one such thing (the Zombie status making it impossible to heal) and otherwise relies on the idea that a Samurai Gigas with magic damage is meaningfully 'less balanced' to have to fight. Toublek has more of the 'standard' approach that I understand, with the Geysers and the Rat Transformation and whatnot.

The problem with explaining high level content is that it's not 'describable'. If 24 people need to talk about a single encounter for 20+ hours and their conclusions are specific to them the only way I could give you an example would be to give you logs from our discussions.

If you want a 2 hour log, though, lmk (it covers a single teamfight situation in Pred)

Azherae wrote: »

Maybe even 'try not to change your build too much unless you're hard stuck'.

Yep, that's the current plan. I hope I'll be done with new genshin region tomorrow, so AC6 is probs friday onwards.

Azherae wrote: »

If you want a 2 hour log, though, lmk (it covers a single teamfight situation in Pred)

For now no, but if this convo comes up again in the future (hope it doesn't at least until A2) - then I'll probably try to learn more/better once again.

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

Right, and I totally understand that. Different games should appeal to different levels of complexity and styles of content. The problem with Steven's initial approaches to both of these things is only that the goals of Ashes are unclear.

Btw NiKr, this is why FFXI is designed the way it is, Dygz would be happy there, because there are mechanics meant to help a LOT with being able to take things on at different paces, as described, without tearing apart all the underlying structures.

But relative to this specific tangent of this eternal thread, there's a difference between 'complexity' and 'data overload'. A game can have a high amount of 'incoming data', and the difference would not 'force you to use a tracker'. It would cause you to take 10x as long as someone like me, or someone with a Tracker, but it would not become impossible by any means.

And the fun part of MMOs (in terms of overcoming challenges) would be LARGER for you than for me. You would 'discuss with your teammates how to beat the challenge and what you observed when you didn't beat it', same as me, I just would do it faster.

The problematic people are 'the people trying to keep up with me, who then decide that using a Tracker is the best option'.

Making the game less complex OVERALL (not the data heavy type) would just decrease synergies and fun, making individual players irrelevant and replaceable. This is a huge danger, in my opinion. When challenges are too easy (because of low data density), many people don't have a reason to care who they group with, because there's no real adaptation to do.

In my experience, this leads to toxicity. It's worse when it's not actually too easy but a lot of people think it is because it's easy for someone else. It really sucks to be a player like yourself in games like that.

People who have 'static groups' or longstanding comrades who already know their quirks, don't have this problem, they just tear through the content either way and just ignore other players. Because it's literally better for them, with their limited time, to entirely skip a boss battle if one person is missing, than to try to get through it with a different person, sometimes even within their own guild. It's really sad.

At least with data-complex stuff, people can enjoy just chatting about the data and how it relates to their groups. As it degrades, you get the other situation where people go 'well every Warrior should do the same thing in this fight, so I don't need to talk to you, go watch the YouTube guide on what you're supposed to do, then show up and try not to screw it up'.

We have not received permission from Mag7spy to share the quoted post.

Idk what you're talking about I have the Perfect Observation and Godly Appraisal skills irl.

Get on my level I guess?