[riplox]

I was having a discussion earlier about raiding and the need (not want, but need) for a good combat log that could be analyzed in depth. Is this really necessary in GW2? Also, the person flat out said that a 5-man dungeon cannot be challenging and if the highest end dungeons/raid/endgame was 5-man only that the game was going to suck because that means it's easymode. The person also said that although they played other MMOs before, WoW was still the best. Also, the person does not trust A-Net to follow through on their design goals or promises. I really had no idea how to respond, but as it's known, I kinda suck at arguing/debating stuff.

Mod edit: This thread has been split from this one.

Edited by riplox, 25 January 2011 - 07:41 AM.

[Zeful]

riplox said:

I was having a discussion earlier about raiding and the need (not want, but need) for a good combat log that could be analyzed in depth. Is this really necessary in GW2? Also, the person flat out said that a 5-man dungeon cannot be challenging and if the highest end dungeons/raid/endgame was 5-man only that the game was going to suck because that means it's easymode. The person also said that although they played other MMOs before, WoW was still the best. Also, the person does not trust A-Net to follow through on their design goals or promises. I really had no idea how to respond, but as it's known, I kinda suck at arguing/debating stuff.

Combat Log: Not known. It could be helpful in the sense that you can better optimize yourself for a certain role, but it's not necessary, as GW2 deliberately blurs the lines between roles, and the immediate negative would be the GW2 equivalent of the Gearscore issue.

Dungeoniring: From a certain point of view, yep, a 5-man dungeon will always be easier than a 40-man dungeon. Or more accurately, the challenge will not be reliant on getting the 40 men organized and learned about the fight. If a boss is designed as if he were in an SNK fighting game, then the fight becomes very hard for 1 character, more-so than any raid leader could be, because of the different design focus inherent in the two bosses. In short a 40-man raid boss is not comparable at all to a boss designed to challenge 5-men. In fact, I expect that if the endgame dungeons are designed to be very challenging, many former WoW players will complain about the bosses being too hard as the requirements for beating the boss are set more firmly on the player's abilities to play effectively rather than learning the boss's pattern (though that skill will still be required).

[Noxicon]

riplox said:

I was having a discussion earlier about raiding and the need (not want, but need) for a good combat log that could be analyzed in depth. Is this really necessary in GW2? Also, the person flat out said that a 5-man dungeon cannot be challenging and if the highest end dungeons/raid/endgame was 5-man only that the game was going to suck because that means it's easymode. The person also said that although they played other MMOs before, WoW was still the best. Also, the person does not trust A-Net to follow through on their design goals or promises. I really had no idea how to respond, but as it's known, I kinda suck at arguing/debating stuff.

I was part of the conversation and this feels a lot different than when the actual conversation was going. It makes those who had these views look like bullies/whiners, and that wasn't the case. It was a candid discussion about what could make GW2 a better game. But I'll break it down just to try and give the point of view of those on other side.

1.) The Need of a combat log. I've argued this before but combat logs determine activity, not just damage.

2.) The comment about 5 mans sucking was within the very discussion about Logs. The reason why it was made is simple. If every fight and every action by every player plus environmental factors can be interpretted visually, there isn't a lot going on and thus imply it's easy. Or, there could be a lot going going on, no one has a clue what it is, and there's a guy in the corner doing absolutely nothing.

3.) WoW is the best. By every standard, it's the best available game out now. GW2 can't be 'the best' because it doesn't exist. It doesn't mean GW2 couldn't ever be, simply that it can't until it's released.

4.) The guys presented a lot of evidence for proof of why they distrust Anet. I'd say my doubt is less than theirs, but I do have my doubts about the difficulty of the game. Anyone who has played GW for a long period of time knows how much easier the game became when Factions released.

[foozlesprite]

I've done both big raids and groups in several games. If done right, the difficulty level of a dungeon can be just as high as a raid. The only 'difficulty' of raiding that isn't present in groups is trying to get 20+ people together and not acting like idiots. For a skilled player, a group can be just as challenging as a raid but infinitely more fun due to not having to rely on other people. The bigger the pool of people you're playing with, the bigger chance that one of them is an idiot that will ruin things for you.

[raspberry jam]

Did you need a combat log in GW1? That's all I'm saying.

[ike]

Quote

I've done both big raids and groups in several games. If done right, the difficulty level of a dungeon can be just as high as a raid. The only 'difficulty' of raiding that isn't present in groups is trying to get 20+ people together and not acting like idiots. For a skilled player, a group can be just as challenging as a raid but infinitely more fun due to not having to rely on other people. The bigger the pool of people you're playing with, the bigger chance that one of them is an idiot that will ruin things for you.

I'm pretty optimistic.By the time players get to the first dungeon,I bet that GW2 will force them to learn how to play(with it's intersting gameplay style).

[Doki20]

Noxicon said:

....

1.) The Need of a combat log. I've argued this before but combat logs determine activity, not just damage.

...

3.) WoW is the best. By every standard, it's the best available game out now. GW2 can't be 'the best' because it doesn't exist. It doesn't mean GW2 couldn't ever be, simply that it can't until it's released.

4.) The guys presented a lot of evidence for proof of why they distrust Anet. I'd say my doubt is less than theirs, but I do have my doubts about the difficulty of the game. Anyone who has played GW for a long period of time knows how much easier the game became when Factions released.

1) I agree with this one.

3) I advise you to go and grind out a full fire-resistance gear as you will be flamed to death. Lordkrall said it already that the most populéar =/= the best.
I also think that they are lying about the number of subs they have, as if it's that good game, then about 70% of the players at least would have bought the new expansion and not about ~33% only.

4) Don't you mean Nightfall? As before heroes even factions wasn't easymode. (good old Vizunah Square where you automatically failed if you didn't have 2 MM as you got swarmed over)

ike:
You are way too optimistic. I have seen too much "standing in fire" case, while up to that point they should have learned it already to step out of it.

[Lemming]

ike said:

Last thing I wan't to say is addressed to all critics:
Please have faith in ArenaNet, and don't come to conclusions, without being informed.Believe me, they think about those things as much as we do.As said in the Retrospective Video, they are gamers, building a game for gamers.And besides, It IS their job.They HAVE to view ALL the combinations and possibilities.

I think it's because they're ArenaNet that there's so little faith in them. They've shown an impressive capacity for screwing up the amazing property that was GW1.

It doesn't mean that everyone is expected to hate on them, just that being unilaterally supportive of them and labeling every critic a "hater" is exactly the same as, well, being a hater.

raspberry jam said:

Did you need a combat log in GW1? That's all I'm saying.

I can't speak for PvE, but there were a lot of metrics that would have been extremely nice to have available.

A brief incomplete list of gameplay-performance related statistics relevant to PvP includes:

DPS
percentage of attacks blocked
deep wound frequency/lethality
Bull's Strike efficiency
average poison coverage
interrupt accuracy/frequency/targets
overhealing

None of it is essential, obviously, but it'd certainly be useful to have more ways of objectively analyzing the performance of players.

As for the discussion that riplox referenced, he may have misinterpreted a bit of it. (Not being a WoW fan tends to contribute to that.) A transcript is available here in case anyone's interested in seeing what was discussed.

[Frizz]

Combat logs aren't part of the game. The end.
They aren't ever ever needed in any game. They might be handy, sure. But I think if you're designing a game to one world full of dynamic events, engaging PvP and all that.
Why make a build in calculator for the freaks who want to calculate everything. To me that defeats the whole purpose of the game. It's not like I'm gonna flash out my calculator while playing some board game. Or during a pen and paper RPG to see what spell I should use to dish out the most damage. Let's play football in the field, but wait let my calculate my strength level so I know how hard to shoot to reach the other end of the field. >_< It doesn't contribute to the quality to the game, so it's not needed.

No, a calculator is definitely third party software, if it should even be allowed.

Plus, monitoring about taking someone along who isn't as good, and then kicking him -> griefing -> not something Anet wants. Grow some character, take them along and work together. Instead of crying over someone else's mistakes, work harder to succeed. If you can't see those mistakes, then you obviously need some eyes. It's usually obvious what is going wrong.

Edited by Frizz, 25 January 2011 - 01:30 PM.

[raspberry jam]

Lemming said:

A brief incomplete list of gameplay-performance related statistics relevant to PvP includes:

(etc.)

Um no. Because your team could win, say, an 8v8 annihilation match (think HA UW) in 5 minutes while having done a total of ~6000 damage across the entire team (think bspike with Frozen Soil). DPS means almost nothing (unless you have so much of it that you win by pressure alone). In fact not even for such a specific thing as to compare two different warriors playing in the exact same pressure build can you use DPS. One might have higher DPS while the other might have more spikes which actually translate into kills. Which one is better? No, you can only see different characteristics among the players, which, at best, in 9 cases out of 10 would mean nothing but erroneous conclusions, and at worst would degenerate into massive dick size contests.

I used to play UT99. Mostly CTF. I noticed something interesting about one of the people I used to play with - he'd constantly die at least twice for every kill he scored, would never run the flag or even try to do so, seemed to not actually contribute, etc., but when he was in the team, our actual win ratio went up. I don't know how he did it or even if it was due to him, but he simply being in the match seemed to have a profound effect which did not seem to show up in any statistics. Several years later I ran into the guy again, this time in BR in UT2K4, and this time, he was in the opposing team. And... again I don't know if he did it or even if he knew what he was doing, but he seemed to have this uncanny ability of always being in the way. He'd appear and you'd have to deal with him, and you did (he still wasn't any better at killing stuff), but he did slow you down enough to have an effect. Maybe. But how would you ever measure that in a statistic?

And of course, that goes even more for a vastly more complex game like GW1 (or, hopefully, GW2). Sure, you mentioned a few other statistics, but really. In a combat log, people would look way too much at DPS, just like they look way too much at K/D ratio in most FPSes.

[Frizz]

That sounds like me Raspberry. At least I always tried to be in the way, then dodge like crazy and keep people busy. :p Although I usually run a clean 1-1 K/D =P

That's what I mean with a calculator standardize combat. It's just raw numbers, which don't say everything. And that's the problem.
Plus it takes away alot of spirit from the game. It's just mind numbing mathematics. even though, everyone can do that in my opinion it's rather lamish and I suppose not everyone is fond of math too much.

[leehenshaw]

Krazzar said:

I don't really see anything that has been added just because it's "popular", and every thing so far has a different purpose and implementation than other games. Everything that has been added has gone through multiple iterations to find the best solution, not just a solution.

Yea, the best solution to appeal new players. I never said they were rushing it for just a solution. Read it more carefully next time.

[raspberry jam]

Frizz said:

That's what I mean with a calculator standardize combat. It's just raw numbers, which don't say everything. And that's the problem.
Plus it takes away alot of spirit from the game. It's just mind numbing mathematics. even though, everyone can do that in my opinion it's rather lamish and I suppose not everyone is fond of math too much.

Well, mathematics, numbers, statistics, that's really good for many things. The problem is usually not that even if you measure the right thing, as soon as people have the stats, they tend to forget that "the map is not the terrain". They look at the stats and forget what's behind the numbers.

[Frizz]

That too. I rather find it a lesser form of play, because you calculated everything and everyone needs to do this and that and this and that time for the most damage, etc.

With GW2 I see this won't work as well, simply because there's dodging and mostly non-maintainable effects as tanking healing and such. Elite skills that can be used at some times, but how do you determine something like that in the whole damage aspect.

Also everyone mostly doing everything, like self healing, protecting. Then all the stats, should they be spread?
To me it seems that GW2 has even less use for such calculators as most skills totally depends on HOW you use them rather than how much you use them. OR how much damage you did with them.

[Volkon]

How soon would it be that we'd hear complaints that someone's dps would be higher if the noob healers would do their jobs or the noob tanks would hold aggro...

No, no... I fear the side-effects something like that would bring. Any numbers measuring dps, damage in/out, healing, etc. should be purged from existence.

[Trey]

Ah, the same old argument that combat logs/statistic aren't viable because some people will forget that the game doesn't just boil down to logistics.

First of all, it does. All strategy humans inherently come up with is just them recognizing patterns in the system and manipulating the variables within to maximize their chance to succeed. There was an entire discussion on this topic that I got really immersed in a while back, so I'm not keen on turning this into a full blown melee, but combat logs and statistics are useful. Using them apart from all other factors will limit players, yes, but then that's their own fault for being so short sighted. The most successful players in any multiplayer game that allows statistics don't run strategies based solely on the statistics. They allow those number to enhance their knowledge of the game.

It doesn't have to be super in-depth with statistics like Halo: Reach is, but some categories that are very instrumental to victory could be revealed.

[Krazzar]

leehenshaw said:

Yea, the best solution to appeal new players. I never said they were rushing it for just a solution. Read it more carefully next time.

You're funny.

Volkon said:

How soon would it be that we'd hear complaints that someone's dps would be higher if the noob healers would do their jobs or the noob tanks would hold aggro...

No, no... I fear the side-effects something like that would bring. Any numbers measuring dps, damage in/out, healing, etc. should be purged from existence.

I agree and don't feel like combat logs would be effective. In other games every moment has actions that can be quantified, while that isn't necessarily true for GW2, and in those games (such as WoW), for the most part, movement and terrain doesn't mean much. When you add in aspects that cannot be quantified (also known as player style) logs don't mean much. Did you fail because you didn't do enough damage early on or because you didn't have effective movement? The log would say damage 100% of the time because it can't quantify movement.

Edited by Krazzar, 25 January 2011 - 05:04 PM.

[raspberry jam]

Trey said:

It doesn't have to be super in-depth with statistics like Halo: Reach is, but some categories that are very instrumental to victory could be revealed.

And which would these be? I can think of some (both in the general sense and in the semi-unrelated example of GW1), most of which are completely unviable to actually calculate, but which can be seen by plain observation clear enough. I also know that if any of them would actually to be presented as statistics, it would be detrimental to the consideration of any other factors, and therefore to the entire game.

[Noxicon]

Lordkrall said:

Define the word best :) I believe you are confusing it with most popular, most popular != best.

I for one would say that for example DDO is much better then "the game that must not be named". TGTMNBN is getting old, and there are loads of better games out there. Both on the MMO-market and the SP-market

You're right. The game that sold 4.7 MILLION copies in it's first month is clearly not the best. In fact, everyone who plays it is an idiot. Nevermind that it took GW 5 years to sell 6 million total (not of one campaign, that's everythingl, and according to wiki, GW is the second highest selling ORPG of all time.

How can those numbers be disputed? I'm not talking about 'preference', I'm talking about clear standards that exist to identify what is 'best'. Saying 'Well it's not the best, but the highest selling' is severely splitting hairs, and comes off as fanboish to be honest.

And for the record, I sold my WoW account to focus on GW, GW2, and building a guild to be ready at launch. So before we get the whole 'WELL GO PLAY WOW NOOB' comments, I'd like to nip that in the bud. I no longer play WoW. I'm just not naive enough to disregard a game that's success is unrivaled in the RPG genre.

My only question for RJ regarding combat logs is when did Anet decide to launch GW2 as an expansion rather than an entirely new game? They didn't. So to pretend we somehow just 'know' it's not needed because it wasn't needed in GW1 is just ignorant honestly. We have no clue what end-game will be like. What we do know is Progression and Power Creep are both present. Whether or not anyone likes it, math will be a part of GW2. To the level of other games? No, probably not, but it WILL be there. Weapon Sets, Armor, Crests, Attributes, Traits will all effect your character's capability. And because they're not all the same or standardized, there will be some more useful than others, thus better, thus leading to a higher success rate for your character, thus becoming the meta. It just becomes easier to balance them because there's less to do, but to pretend we're somehow going to exist in a world where everything is equal amongst every class...I just can't understand how anyone would begin to make that argument.

I'm not going to rehash a combat log argument because it's pointless. Some fears are justified, but the positives outweigh those IMO, and it's not to stroke my epeen.

[Volkon]

Yes, we know WoW has a lot of subscribers. It's the most populated. It's the most addictive. I spent far too long "working" at WoW to stay raid ready... long after I actually stopped enjoying it. However, discussions about WoW vs the world belong in the Gamers Lair and should be taken there.

[raspberry jam]

Noxicon said:

My only question for RJ regarding combat logs is when did Anet decide to launch GW2 as an expansion rather than an entirely new game? They didn't. So to pretend we somehow just 'know' it's not needed because it wasn't needed in GW1 is just ignorant honestly. We have no clue what end-game will be like. What we do know is Progression and Power Creep are both present. Whether or not anyone likes it, math will be a part of GW2. To the level of other games? No, probably not, but it WILL be there. Weapon Sets, Armor, Crests, Attributes, Traits will all effect your character's capability. And because they're not all the same or standardized, there will be some more useful than others, thus better, thus leading to a higher success rate for your character, thus becoming the meta. It just becomes easier to balance them because there's less to do, but to pretend we're somehow going to exist in a world where everything is equal amongst every class...I just can't understand how anyone would begin to make that argument.

Your lack of understanding towards such an argument is shared by many, and that, in turn, is probably one of many reasons as to why such an argument was never made (at least not by myself or any other sane person).

The argument that was made was instead that, just like GW1 was, GW2 will have too many, and too complex, teamwork-oriented (and other) interactions between player-controlled characters for it to be possible to find any clear, conclusive reasoning as to how the statistics that are computationally possible to elicit from the game translates into actual victory, and therefore, that there in the absence of such reasoning would instead be chosen for statistics cathegories arbitrary but to a naïve observer likely-sounding measurements such as DPS etc.

It's not even a run-on sentence. :cool:

[Lemming]

raspberry jam said:

Um no. Because your team could win, say, an 8v8 annihilation match (think HA UW) in 5 minutes while having done a total of ~6000 damage across the entire team (think bspike with Frozen Soil). DPS means almost nothing (unless you have so much of it that you win by pressure alone). In fact not even for such a specific thing as to compare two different warriors playing in the exact same pressure build can you use DPS. One might have higher DPS while the other might have more spikes which actually translate into kills. Which one is better? No, you can only see different characteristics among the players, which, at best, in 9 cases out of 10 would mean nothing but erroneous conclusions, and at worst would degenerate into massive dick size contests.

And of course, that goes even more for a vastly more complex game like GW1 (or, hopefully, GW2). Sure, you mentioned a few other statistics, but really. In a combat log, people would look way too much at DPS, just like they look way too much at K/D ratio in most FPSes.

Perhaps you're right in pointing out that a DPS chart would lead to more trouble than it's worth. Everything else is worthwhile, though. Personally, I'd like a more objective way of comparing warrior performance than hearsay ("he does no damage," "he always shocks on spikes because he can't hit a bulls," etc.), although I suppose that other advanced metrics can be used to substitute for that. (Deep wound lethality was intended to cover the divide between DPS and spike kills that you mentioned, btw - percentage of deep wounds that lead to fatal levels of damage.)

Even against blood spike, I can think of useful metrics to measure - nonarmor ignoring damage taken out of shield set? Interrupt accuracy from your ranger?

It's one thing to say that your game is too shallow to require deeper analysis, but that wasn't the case in GW1 and I sure hope it won't be the case in GW2. In fact, the fact that GW2 is apparently going to rely on skill shots for even the most basic of skills just makes it more important - people may not even notice in a large fight that they're missing 1/3 of their normal attacks.

tldr: The fact that a lot of people would be too ignorant to interpret the data meaningfully does not mean that it should not be made available.

Oh, and as an aside, I'd argue that there are enough "complex, teamwork-oriented interactions" between players of team sports that statistics would be meaningless there according to your arguments - but everyone knows how useful Sabermetrics and APBRmetrics have been found to be. It's never a good idea to judge a player by his DPS or his ERA or RPG, but it's a lot more insightful to compare a player's "screwups per minute" or his WARP or his PER.

Edited by Lemming, 25 January 2011 - 06:54 PM.

[Krazzar]

The energy bar is a utility. It shows you exactly how efficient you were in the engagement. It also shows how defensive or offensive you were. So if you just want utilities that show how efficient you are playing the energy bar should be the perfect tool.

[Trey]

raspberry jam said:

And which would these be? I can think of some (both in the general sense and in the semi-unrelated example of GW1), most of which are completely unviable to actually calculate, but which can be seen by plain observation clear enough. I also know that if any of them would actually to be presented as statistics, it would be detrimental to the consideration of any other factors, and therefore to the entire game.

KA/D ratio, percentage of skills used, average amount of energy used per player, heatmaps (if the battlemaps used are detailed enough). All of them are useful. Hell, a replay feature would be very useful as well. I still would prefer a combat log that broke down all the behind the scenes math the engine uses. These thing are not required, but then you can make the argument that some other things aren't required. It's up to Anet.

[Volkon]

The moment you add any kind of meter for anything you'll invite people to start comparing meters and claiming theirs is bigger than yours. People will shift away from playing a balanced style, as intended, towards styles that tend to favor meters just to feed the illusion that theirs is bigger and better.

Meters would push GW2 away from what GW2 is trying to accomplish.

[raspberry jam]

Lemming said:

Perhaps you're right in pointing out that a DPS chart would lead to more trouble than it's worth. Everything else is worthwhile, though. Personally, I'd like a more objective way of comparing warrior performance than hearsay ("he does no damage," "he always shocks on spikes because he can't hit a bulls," etc.), although I suppose that other advanced metrics can be used to substitute for that. (Deep wound lethality was intended to cover the divide between DPS and spike kills that you mentioned, btw - percentage of deep wounds that lead to fatal levels of damage.)

Even against blood spike, I can think of useful metrics to measure - nonarmor ignoring damage taken out of shield set? Interrupt accuracy from your ranger?

It's one thing to say that your game is too shallow to require deeper analysis, but that wasn't the case in GW1 and I sure hope it won't be the case in GW2. In fact, the fact that GW2 is apparently going to rely on skill shots for even the most basic of skills just makes it more important - people may not even notice in a large fight that they're missing 1/3 of their normal attacks.

tldr: The fact that a lot of people would be too ignorant to interpret the data meaningfully does not mean that it should not be made available.

Oh, and as an aside, I'd argue that there are enough "complex, teamwork-oriented interactions" between players of team sports that statistics would be meaningless there according to your arguments - but everyone knows how useful Sabermetrics and APBRmetrics have been found to be. It's never a good idea to judge a player by his DPS or his ERA or RPG, but it's a lot more insightful to compare a player's "screwups per minute" or his WARP or his PER.

I'm not saying that you're wrong, but look at your examples - Sabermetrics is more reliable because baseball is a game with far more explicit structure. It has teamwork-oriented interactions yes, but it still requires you to do very specific things in order to move forward in the match, whereas basketball sets a number of limits that you can move freely inside as you please. I'd say that GW (1 and 2) are more like basketball in that fashion, but even more so, since the ways by which you can affect the outcome are not only more numerous but also even less explicit.

As an example, what you mentioned: Bull's Strike is an extremely prevalent skill and practically glued to the bar of every decent PvP warrior. But we know that now. Remember when GW1 was young and you could see Mending wammos dominating Tombs? Not only that, but they had the reputation of being "hard to kill". We have no idea what skills, what behaviours will become meta. Perhaps once that is clear we can start looking at what stats should be shown.

I do agree that weak points in a player's behaviour (such as overhealing) could be identified even now, but even then we'd need to be careful.

Trey said:

KA/D ratio, percentage of skills used, average amount of energy used per player, heatmaps (if the battlemaps used are detailed enough). All of them are useful. Hell, a replay feature would be very useful as well. I still would prefer a combat log that broke down all the behind the scenes math the engine uses. These thing are not required, but then you can make the argument that some other things aren't required. It's up to Anet.

• K/D ratio: does not make sense, apart from comparing people who have the exact same role in the exact same plan, when playing the same opponents. Seriously (GW1 example again), if you watch a GvG match and you see a guy get downed a lot, it doesn't mean anything except that the other team focused on him. Hell, it could even mean that he's good (why else would they focus on him).
  
• Percentage of skills used: Possibly. Explain. If you mean "during this tournament, skill X was used 134983 times" then yes, that could be interesting, though most of that data will be self apparent.
  
• Avg. energy used: Again no, it's more interesting to see what the player used the energy for, in which situation he was, and what it resulted in.
  
• Heatmaps: Could be useful depending on game mode.

[Trey]

Volkon said:

The moment you add any kind of meter for anything you'll invite people to start comparing meters and claiming theirs is bigger than yours. People will shift away from playing a balanced style, as intended, towards styles that tend to favor meters just to feed the illusion that theirs is bigger and better.

Meters would push GW2 away from what GW2 is trying to accomplish.

People will do that regardless. That's more a commentary on the people than the mechanics of the game.

[Krazzar]

I think Anet wants to get away from the out-of-combat combat thinking. Sitting and thinking about what will work will not be as easy or effective in GW2, there are just too many variables. Diagnostic tools that other games use are not indicative of what works, only experience in combat will show what is effective, and on top of that there is more style allowed in GW2. Statistically one method and build may be "superior", but if it's not your style, what you like to do, or even impossible (assuming 100% success rate, for example) you shouldn't use it. That's the point of difference and the shift away from optimal mentality.

[Volkon]

Trey said:

People will do that regardless. That's more a commentary on the people than the mechanics of the game.

So without meters, where people can play and succeed and it doesn't matter what the numbers are, it's easy to see that we'll all be better off.

Keep in mind something else that would distort meters... buddy system. People having their effective levels raised or lowered in zones will have their raw numbers changed as well. This opens the door to whole levels of expressed stupidity that Tyria is much better off without.

[Lemming]

raspberry jam said:

We have no idea what skills, what behaviours will become meta. Perhaps once that is clear we can start looking at what stats should be shown.

Fair enough. The request isn't so much for a meter, however, as much as it is for a proper combat log that one can then write addons to parse. After all, WoW's analysis is all based off of the fact that WoW came with a robust combat log.

Volkon said:

Keep in mind something else that would distort meters... buddy system. People having their effective levels raised or lowered in zones will have their raw numbers changed as well. This opens the door to whole levels of expressed stupidity that Tyria is much better off without.

Raw numbers don't necesary have much correlation with efficient performance. Try to get past the "OMG DPS METER" aspect that you're hung up on.

Edited by Lemming, 25 January 2011 - 07:35 PM.