New ToS gives hope for official DPS meters?

Don't you know ability names...? it'll show the ability name and you'll go "ah it's the prey marker". I seriously don't know what else you can ask of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gemina

And the question wasn't if it shows "this DPS took x amount of damage from y", the question is does it show he/she had a prey marker and couldn't do jack to avoid the damage, making it the healer's fault why their DPS went down? If you can't read a post accurately, how can you be confided in reading fflogs accurately?

---

Quick upload of the parse will show you that: the dps was targeted by prey, how much damage they took, what hits(if any) they took shortly before the death itself(as well as literally any damage they took through entire run), what buffs and debuffs were they under in case you're supposed to mitigate the prey or perhaps the dps ate a vuln stack earlier, the exact position of said dps as well as any healing they received, both values and skill names.

People like to look at parsing and fflogs as a dps-only thing, but it actually shows you literally anything you could possibly need to know for troubleshooting not just dps checks, but also healing, mitigation and yes, even mechanics. They absolutely tell the whole story.

Not to mention you accuse Axl of using it for "exploitative purposes" when he literally said:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxlStream

I like knowing the exact performance of my group to see who is the weak point and define how to address.

---

Which implies trying to help the under-performing person improve, instead of leaving them in ignorance that can hurt their progress with other groups in the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KaivaC

You act like people are parsing because they want to see you in particular. That's...not how it works outside of raids most of the time. if you don't raid, what is the issue? Nobody really cares outside of high-end raiding. Seriously, most people really do not care outside of it.

---

I speak for myself because that's the only person I'm truly qualified to speak for. Am I supposed to speak for people I don't know? No one elected me voice of the community just like no one elected those who run parsers the arbiters of who is worthy and who is not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Camiie

I speak for myself because that's the only person I'm truly qualified to speak for. Am I supposed to speak for people I don't know? No one elected me voice of the community just like no one elected those who run parsers the arbiters of who is worthy and who is not.

---

The thing is, this is not a single player game, so a parse is more beneficial when taken alongside parses of the other members in the party to put that parse in its proper context.

That said, this issue might be alleviated if the site where people upload parses only take extreme trials and savage raids uploads. At the very least, it would leave out people who don't do those kinds of content for which parses may not matter as much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Camiie

I speak for myself because that's the only person I'm truly qualified to speak for. Am I supposed to speak for people I don't know? No one elected me voice of the community just like no one elected those who run parsers the arbiters of who is worthy and who is not.

---

But they don't want to see if YOU are worthy. They want to see if THEY, THEMSELVES are worthy. Nobody cares about you in the content you said you do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxlStream

But they don't want to see if YOU are worthy. They want to see if THEY, THEMSELVES are worthy. Nobody cares about you in the content you said you do.

---

So that's why they parse in content where no one cares about parses. OK... makes perfect sense now...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxlStream

But they don't want to see if YOU are worthy. They want to see if THEY, THEMSELVES are worthy. Nobody cares about you in the content you said you do.

---

If we get in-game parsers for only ex, savage and ultimate players will ask for it in other levels of content if SE don't implement them in all group content. Players will not stop asking for them until they're everywhere.

If the game gets parsers everywhere many players will care about the parse results even if it's Copper Bell Mines normal. You might only care in content that is comparable to savage but in my time in WoW I met a great deal of people who cared in even the most easy low level drivel.

A few days ago I went into Labyrinth of the Ancients. As you likely know, it's a pretty easy lvl 50 alliance raid. I rarely see it go anything other than smooth and quick. When we all zoned in someone said in alliance chat "do this fast" and quite a few people's reaction was like "is this ever slow? what's your problem?". That person is highly likely to be the sort of player who will care about parse results in low level content because they're overly concerned about being slowed down even a little.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Satarn

Quick upload of the parse will show you that

---

The problem with this is doing it requires things called time, effort and knowledge. Most players just glance at the numbers to make a judgement either because they don't realise mere dps/hps numbers are often not enough to give an accurate picture, or they're too lazy to upload and start digging. On top of that in order to dig in parse results to find an answer you often need to know about far more than just your main class. Only players who are very knowledgeable about the game can be counted on to use parsers correctly and upload them if they need more in-depth information. You only need to look at the threads venting about bad DF experiences to get an idea as to how many people who play this game that wouldn't be qualified as knowledgeable. It's not an insignificant number.

On top of that parsers still don't tell you everything. They don't tell you where someone was standing. You can sometimes guess if lets say a person with an aoe marker killed another player. But all that tells you is someone stood in the wrong place. It doesn't tell you exactly who or where. Sometimes my static has had to resort to looking over a visual recording to find out what happened if the issue we had was potentially due to positioning.

Edit: turns out uploading logs can tell you about positioning :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JackHatchet

I know this is a controversial topic, but since the new ToS rules means that the GMs can be super-duper strict on toxic behavior--does that mean we could get offical DPS meters?

---

As long as you can't solve the addon on console question, there won't be any addons.

Also, who cares whether ACT is official or not. Everyone I know uses it and will keep using it. FF-logs is far too valuable as a diagnostic tool in order to worry about DEV consent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Penthea

They don't tell you where someone was standing.

---

Actually, they do.
It is called "replay" and found in FF-Logs.

We used it do diagnose a wipe once, because no one knew what exactly happened. Turned out, one player stared running a split second early (server side) but we didn't see it ingame due to position delay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Granyala

Actually, they do.
It is called "replay" and found in FF-Logs.

We used it do diagnose a wipe once, because no one knew what exactly happened. Turned out, one player stared running a split second early (server side) but we didn't see it ingame due to position delay.

---

Well, TIL!

Still this doesn't solve the issue of people being too lazy to look for this info. Most people just want to glance at numbers and make a quick call.

You can find your answer in the pro parser community that is representer in this thread.. Calling everyone against parser whiners, snowflakes, lazy, carry dependant, inadequite, scared, delusional, basically personally insulting.

Pretty toxic to me. Not that the other side dont have their own insults, but the point stands.

Besides, we dont need parser. They would add nothing to the game as a whole and would mostly serve to restrict, which is not what SE or players wants.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Penthea

Still this doesn't solve the issue of people being too lazy to look for this info. Most people just want to glance at numbers and make a quick call.

---

Hmm so... do we ban chainsaws because many people are incapable of operating them safely?
Do we stop using hydrofluoric acid because most people can't handle the substance?

Parsers are a tool. Yep, as you said: most people do not have the knowledge to use more than the E-Peen numbers.
That's not the fault of the tool though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Endeleon

It's the koike incident

---

I just looked this up and it's another very clear example of how parsers don't make players into dicks, players who are dicks use parsers as just one more tool to be dicks. The players in that incident did a bunch of horrible things, only one of which had anything remotely to do with parsers. Those asshole players would have still done all those other horrible things if parsers didn't exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Granyala

Hmm so... do we ban chainsaws because many people are incapable of operating them safely?
Do we stop using hydrofluoric acid because most people can't handle the substance?

---

This is an awful example because there is regulation on the purchase of these things.

In most countries you can't buy a chainsaw unless you're an adult. The quantity of how much hydrofluoric acid you can buy is regulated, and I would assume that similar to chainsaws the substances containing it can only be legally sold to people above a certain age. You can only legally buy it in large quantities if you have a licence for industrial use, or if you go to a lot of trouble of sourcing it from multiple areas to fly under the radar of the law.

The use of the above is regulated at the time of purchase. This would not be the case with parsers. At most SE could put in an entry in the ToS regarding their use, but the game doesn't look at how old you are, if you're qualified to use it, etc. SE won't act until there are reports of abuse which is after after the damage is done, and some people would consider this to be too late.

You would have been better off using cans of deodorant as an example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Granyala

Parsers are a tool. Yep, as you said: most people do not have the knowledge to use more than the E-Peen numbers.
That's not the fault of the tool though.

---

I completely agree. I did say in a previous post a few pages back that the problem isn't parsers. It's people. People are why we can't have nice or useful things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beckett

I just looked this up and it's another very clear example of how parsers don't make players into dicks, players who are dicks use parsers as just one more tool to be dicks. The players in that incident did a bunch of horrible things, only one of which had anything remotely to do with parsers. Those asshole players would have still done all those other horrible things if parsers didn't exist.

---

While this is true you can't deny that parsers enabled these people to be horrible in a specific manner. If they didn't have access to parsers they couldn't have shamed that person for their numbers. They may not have spun the boss around to make her numbers worse if they didn't have any numbers they could see.

Behaviour that disrupts the game balanceSquare Enix strictly prohibits the use of third-party programs or tools – including programs and tools that permit automated or “absentee” play – in Final Fantasy XIV. Accordingly, the following activities are prohibited:


- Modifying, analysing, integrating, and/or reverse engineering game software or data.


This, parsers should not be allowed anymore. No grey zone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vejj

Behaviour that disrupts the game balanceSquare Enix strictly prohibits the use of third-party programs or tools – including programs and tools that permit automated or “absentee” play – in Final Fantasy XIV. Accordingly, the following activities are prohibited:


- Modifying, analysing, integrating, and/or reverse engineering game software or data.


This, parsers should not be allowed anymore. No grey zone.

---

3rd party parsers have never been allowed. That's not what this thread is about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Penthea

The problem with this is doing it requires things called time, effort and knowledge. Most players just glance at the numbers to make a judgement either because they don't realise mere dps/hps numbers are often not enough to give an accurate picture, or they're too lazy to upload and start digging. On top of that in order to dig in parse results to find an answer you often need to know about far more than just your main class. Only players who are very knowledgeable about the game can be counted on to use parsers correctly and upload them if they need more in-depth information. You only need to look at the threads venting about bad DF experiences to get an idea as to how many people who play this game that wouldn't be qualified as knowledgeable. It's not an insignificant number.

On top of that parsers still don't tell you everything. They don't tell you where someone was standing. You can sometimes guess if lets say a person with an aoe marker killed another player. But all that tells you is someone stood in the wrong place. It doesn't tell you exactly who or where. Sometimes my static has had to resort to looking over a visual recording to find out what happened if the issue we had was potentially due to positioning.

Edit: turns out uploading logs can tell you about positioning :)

---

Lack of knowledge and laziness makes people act shitty without parsers. There's situations when people will give you crap because they think you're doing something wrong based on their lack of knowledge, while checking ACT would immiedietly prove them wrong - but you can't talk about it so have fun with them talking shit.

That is irrelevant however, as I wasn't advocating for in-game parser in my post. Yoshi P shares your opinion on this and that will not change, so trying to argue for it is utterly pointless. There's also no way they'd spend resources to make something that actually gives all information ACT with Logs provide, so again, why bother.

I am simply annoyed with people who have no idea how the resource works and still talk crap about anybody who uses it, as well as general misinformation that it's "just an elitist dps leader-boards that provides no context". I mean you've even claimed the logs don't show positioning, in a reply to the very post in which I've already said they do. You've corrected yourself once called out, but still.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Satarn

Lack of knowledge and laziness makes people act shitty without parsers. There's situations when people will give you crap because they think you're doing something wrong based on their lack of knowledge, while checking ACT would immiedietly prove them wrong - but you can't talk about it so have fun with them talking shit.

---

There is something to be said about giving people less tools to be horrible to one another. WoW's community was quite a lot like FFXIV's before parsers were commonly used; most people only cared if things died and if they got loot. The atmosphere in WoW changed for the worse after everyone and their mother got a parser. I fail to see how it would be any different in FFXIV.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Satarn

I am simply annoyed with people who have no idea how the resource works and still talk crap about anybody who uses it as well as general misinformation that it's "just an elitist dps leader-boards that provides no context". I mean you've even claimed the logs don't show positioning, in a reply to the very post in which I've already said they do. You've corrected yourself once called out, but still.

---

The reason why I am not super familiar with FFlogs is frankly I don't feel qualified to look through it in the depth that my team sometimes requires. I know a lot about healer classes and that's kind of it. There are players in my static who have played significantly more classes at a higher level than I have and they're far better at theorycrafting as well, so I trust them to look for the information. Furthermore, I don't know what it is about ACT, but if anyone in my house uses it everyone gets horrendous lag so I have no access to a parser, which means I can't upload logs.

I will be asking why they don't look at FFlogs for positioning, though in our defence we have had confusion about positioning only around three times in more than a year. So the option to -see- where everyone is standing from a log is something we rarely needed. I can't even remember the last time we needed that information. I can only recall that we did at some points.

But I don't think me being unaware that you could look at positioning in FFLogs automatically makes every argument I have made against introducing parsers irrelevant. It is true most people don't have the knowledge to use them properly, it is true many are too lazy to upload logs to get a clearer picture, and it is true that while it can be a useful and helpful tool it can also be used for the exact opposite with ease.

A parsing thread? What is this, January 2018?

The debate's kind of been run dry several times over. To this day I haven't seen more than anecdotal evidence supporting the claim that parsers make a community more toxic. So far the only good point I've seen posted has been "There's something to be said about not giving people more tools to be toxic to each other," but that gets turned around to the point I can easily say the chatbox should be removed from the game with the exact same logic. I would even wager that chatboxes are a much stronger tool for toxicity than parsers ever have been or will be.

Saw a claim that FFLogs is just contextless e-peen flexing also. Some people do use it as that. My group uses it to gauge a lot of things; where healing and mitigation would be optimal based on outgoing boss damage and the best times to line up dps burst windows to name a few key team coordinations that FFLogs worked great as a tool to allow us to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dualgunner

The debate's kind of been run dry several times over. To this day I haven't seen more than anecdotal evidence supporting the claim that parsers make a community more toxic.

---

By the same vein a person could say they haven't seen more than anecdotal evidence that the presence of parsers wouldn't fuel toxicity.

This is one of the reasons why this debate is endless. Everyone's argument is anecdotal. And those that aren't are dismissed as an irregularity by those who oppose the argument. We're doomed to go in circles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Penthea

By the same vein a person could say they haven't seen more than anecdotal evidence that the presence of parsers wouldn't fuel toxicity.

This is one of the reasons why this debate is endless. Everyone's argument is anecdotal. And those that aren't are dismissed as an irregularity by those who oppose the argument. This debate is never ending.

---

That's when we get into burden of proof. I want a parser; the answer is no, because they make communities toxic.

The burden of proof then lies on the answerer in this situation to prove that parsers make communities more toxic. Or in other terms, I can't prove a negative (Parsers don't fuel toxicity) but you must prove the positive (parsers do).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dualgunner

That's when we get into burden of proof. I want a parser; the answer is no, because they make communities toxic.

The burden of proof then lies on the answerer in this situation to prove that parsers make communities more toxic.

---

No the burden of proof is on both sides. A person would also have to present proof as to why the opposition's concerns are nothing to worry about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Penthea

No the burden of proof is on both sides. A person would also have to present proof as to why the opposition's concerns are nothing to worry about.

---

For the specific claim "Parsers make a community more toxic," the burden of proof is on the people making that claim, not on the people who just want ingame parsers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dualgunner

For the specific claim "Parsers make a community more toxic," the burden of proof is on the people making that claim, not on the people who just want ingame parsers.

---

Have you never presented an idea to someone before? You have never shown someone something, and they ask "but what about X?" and you were expected to give an answer?

This is how introducing anything new works. Both sides present their arguments for what they think should be done and give answers, with proof if possible, to any questions. The burden of proof is absolutely not only on the person being presented with something new. What xD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Penthea

Have you never presented an idea to someone before? You have never shown someone something, and they ask "but what about X?" and you were expected to give an answer?

This is how introducing anything new works. Both sides present their arguments for what they think should be done and give answers, with proof if possible, to any questions. The burden of proof is absolutely not only on the person being presented with something new. What xD

---

You naturally have to prove X is an actual concern before it can be addressed.

"I want parsers."
"But what about the toxicity?"

The burden of proof--that being that parsers cause toxicity--still rests on party B, because party B is still making the claim that parsers cause toxicity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Penthea

The reason why I am not super familiar with FFlogs is frankly I don't feel qualified to look through it in the depth that my team sometimes requires.
(...) But I don't think me being unaware that you could look at positioning in FFLogs automatically makes every argument I have made against introducing parsers irrelevant.

---

I never said it makes all your arguments irrelevant. I merely used the example to illustrate how, just as you couldn't even be bothered to fully read my post before responding, many people can't be bothered to learn what data parsing really provides, before they completely condemn it and people involved.

You also admit to not being very familiar with features of fflogs and yet you thought it fitting to make a statement, about what information it does and does not provide, which you worded as if it was a fact.

Honestly I don't even have a beef with you or your opinion. Just with misinformation which is so often spread in such threads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dualgunner

You naturally have to prove X is an actual concern before it can be addressed.

"I want parsers."
"But what about the toxicity?"

The burden of proof--that being that parsers cause toxicity--still rests on party B.

---

And similarly you can have:

A: I want parsers. They're very useful tools.

B: Yes they are but what about the toxicity they can cause? This is why we don't have them.

A: <would then begin to explain why this isn't an issue to worry about>

The fact that you think people who are pro-parser don't need to explain themselves makes it look like you don't want to because it would mean having to present more than just "I want this" :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Penthea

And similarly you can have:

A: I want parsers. They're very useful tools.

B: Yes they are but what about the toxicity they can cause? This is why we don't have them.

A: <would then begin to explain why this isn't an issue to worry about>

The fact that you think people who are pro-parser don't need to explain themselves makes it look like you don't want to because it would mean having to present more than just "I want this" :rolleyes:

---

Why would Party A go on to explain why toxicity isn't an issue to worry about? Party B has not proven that parsers are the cause for toxicity. In your example, actually, Party B even inserted a non-sequitor argument in order to insert a claim that they cause toxicity, instead of answering Party A's claim that parsers are very useful tools.

The burden of proof that parsers are useful tools rests with Party A. The burden of proof that they cause toxicity still rests with Party B.

Also it's dirty tactics to assign motives to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dualgunner

Why would Party A go on to explain why toxicity isn't an issue to worry about? Party B has not proven that parsers are the cause for toxicity.

---

Given their resources I'm pretty sure SE could present an incredible amount of proof of parser toxicity. And on the flip side an incredible amount of proof of parser positivity. SE made a call and that was to not have parsers. You would have to convince them to change their mind. And saying "I want parsers, prove to me they're toxic" will not change their mind, lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Penthea

Given their resources I'm pretty sure SE could present an incredible amount of proof of parser toxicity. And on the flip side an incredible amount of proof of parser positivity. SE made a call and that was to not have parsers. You would have to convince them to change their mind. And saying "I want parsers, prove to me they're toxic" will not change their mind, lol.

---

Burden of proof is what it is, regardless of how you diminish it, handwave it, and assign motivations to people supporting it. Sure, Square might not change their position on this, but that makes your posts equally as vapid, no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dualgunner

Burden of proof is what it is, regardless of how you diminish it, handwave it, and assign motivations to people supporting it. Sure, Square might not change their position on this, but that makes your posts equally as vapid, no?

---

I'm diminishing the burden of proof? Lol, you're the one saying only one side has to present proof. I'm saying both should.

Something something pot kettle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Penthea

I'm diminishing the burden of proof? Lol, you're the one saying only one side has to present proof. I'm saying both should.

Something something pot kettle.

---

You diminished it to

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Penthea

"I want parsers, prove to me they're toxic"

---

If you provided actual evidence that parsers caused communities to become toxic, then I could argue that evidence. Until then, I have nothing to argue against because you've only made the claim that they cause toxicity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dualgunner

If you provided actual evidence that parsers caused communities to become toxic, then I could argue that evidence. Until then, I have nothing to argue against because you've only made the claim that they cause toxicity.

---

You want something to be brought into the game, and you think that somehow makes you justified to not explain why it should be brought in and why it wouldn't cause issues, simply because SE don't like your idea for some reasons.

You have to be trolling, lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Penthea

You want something to be brought into the game, and you think that somehow makes you justified to not explain why it should be brought in and why it wouldn't cause issues, simply because SE don't like your idea for some reasons.

You have to be trolling, lol.

---

Why I think it should be in the game is because it's a good tool to have. In your example from earlier, Party A claimed it was a good tool, and nothing more; if you were saying that they need to back up the claim that it's a good tool, you would have a point (and in fact, in this thread the claim that it is a good tool has been backed up.) You are the one who has to back up the claims that it would cause issues. You are the one who has to back up that it is specifically parsers that cause toxicity, and not toxic people. Otherwise we end up with functionally the same conversation as:

A. "God exists."
B. "Prove he exists."
A. "You can't prove he doesn't."

That's twice now that you've tried assigning motivations to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dualgunner

Snip

---

I'm glad you have had your fun but I'm done debating with someone who thinks only one side has to prove their point. This has made the thread seriously go off-topic anyway. It's supposed to be about whether ToS changes can result in a different stance on parsers by SE. Not who needs to prove what. Have a nice day :)

From the sounds of it there won't be an official parser. He is aware people do use unofficial ones and from what he was saying in the interview is if people ask if it's ok to use them the official answer is "no it's not allowed", however if you do use them use at your discretion and don't be jerks about it, and anything that cheats or plays for you is definitely not tolerated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Penthea

I'm glad you have had your fun but I'm done debating with someone who thinks only one side has to prove their point. This has made the thread seriously go off-topic anyway. It's supposed to be about whether ToS changes can result in a different stance on parsers by SE. Not who needs to prove what. Have a nice day :)

---

End with a strawman, get up on a moral high-horse and ride away while once again insinuating that I do not truly hold the position that I do and must be trolling. Classy.

My biggest question is, if parsing is only for the benefit of those parsing then why are the results posted online for public viewing?

So serious question, do people only think parsers are toxic,because you can see other players damage? Is that the main reason?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Camiie

My biggest question is, if parsing is only for the benefit of those parsing then why are the results posted online for public viewing?

---

Very good question, Camiie!

Any takers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Camiie

My biggest question is, if parsing is only for the benefit of those parsing then why are the results posted online for public viewing?

---

E-peen is definitely a factor here, although it's not the only one. The other major factor is the collection of data regarding damage numbers gives players a measuring stick to gauge their improvement and efficiency.

They can access the records of other people on the same job and compare situations and performances. Self improvement questions that focus on comparison, like "What buffs were up for the player?" "What actions did they do differently?" or "Was their order of actions different?"

These lead to "Why did the person at 90th percentile do things this way?" and "Can I replicate this same result in my own static?" This isn't limited to raw damage either. This can and is used for healing usage and mitigation cooldowns as well. Did this team get away with eating the tankbuster with only shelltron and rampart? What healing was used after? Et cetera.