Red Mage could be Dev's Answer to Breaking Parsers.

So all these RDM and SAM threads got me thinking...


If they really want to encourage players to stop running parser programs in the background they could attempt to diminish it's value using Red Mage.

How?

If RDM was a melee DPS but ALSO a buffer class that was able to cast varying spells on the group that increased damage / enfeebled the enemy, and I mean like 50% of that job would be casting buffs etc... then it could totally change the outcome of parsers. Obviously the creation of a 4th class as solely a Support Class would greatly effect this, but they seem reluctant to implement it.

Obviously certain jobs would still be on top, but if they encouraged it, stats would be pretty varied via spells and parsers would not be able to properly reflect how people played or geared.


It's a longshot, I'm aware, but it would be a first step in the right direction (if that direction is to remove 3rd party parsing software from use that is).

I dunno, I'm aware of the benefit of parsing, but I also find people too reliant on it, and more often than not for the wrong reasons... I'd like to see people less obsessed with numbers, and more into the game itself, so I'm very for encouraging people to use these less.

I don't think this would work/be accepted. AST came under a ton of fire for being a mediocre healer and an even worse buffer. Instead of buffing......buffs, they decided to increase their healing. I don't really think a true support class could ever work in this game. It's just not designed for it.

People are not obsessed with numbers. The game itself is designed around enrages and dps checks. Persers are not the villain, they're just a tool used to measure the performance of the players in certain fights. People are a-holes for any reason, parsers results are just one reason among way too many. I wish parsers were allowed already.

I like the idea of RDM being a melee buff class, but I have a question for you: Why do you want parsers broken? You see, parsers are a valuable tool that can show you your personal dps, or your party's dps. Can that tool be misused? Yes, it can. I, however, believe that our definitions of misuse are a bit different - here's mine: Using the output of a parser to put down seemingly-bad DPS in a demeaning way ("Your DPS sux, L2P, Noob" or worse). Note that that does not include stuff like "Bad DPS will be kicked" in PFs - that's not abuse, and sometimes you don't even need a parser to know who's bad. Do people who abuse parsers exist? Certainly, but they're actually very rare in-game. Even people with parsers generally don't say anything unless the party is wiping on DPS checks, and I don't think this would change much even if an official in-fight parser were to be implemented.

TL;DR: I don't think parsers need to be broken. They're a valuable tool which can be abused, but they usually aren't, and I don't think it's because such tools are technically illegal either.

--Erim Nelhah

The only people who afraid of parsers are the people who don't do well on them...

Well if it does do lower dps than other classes, then we'll calculate that in.
We do the same thing with BRDs/MCHs so why not RDMs?

Further to what's already been said, I think there's a much greater misunderstanding of what a parser actually does.

I think the biggest misconception is that a parser is a damage meter, and exclusively that. A parser has an extremely varied range of uses, and by definition simply breaks the encounter data down into individual and sortable components.

Adding something like a buff/Debuff class would actually increase the potential of parsers to accurately dissect what component of the damage was buffed and to what degree the buffs were contributing to the damage.

As an added note, I'm not sure where the idea that anyone would want parsers to be broken is coming from (other than the select few obviously butt hurt contributors on the forums).

Yea, let's make a class purely to "break parsers"
That will never work, there are always ways around it.

I dont see RDM/Buffs breaking parsers at all, and I'm on the fence as to wether thats good or bad.
If its known that a particular buff adds 30% damage, (not that we're likely to see that kind of buff) then you just take that into consideration. Its like if a WHM joins a full party and I'm on SCH, I know that my own healing potency will be higher because of the MND bonus. Same for SMN if a BLM joins.
If someone was to parse then from what I read of reddit, the most accurate tally is when against the dummy in housing and camp areas without party. Using a parse in places like AS1 seemed to just be to check that collectively there was enough DPS, and to hand out advice. The only times I've seen players talking down BRD/MCH were ex-bards, since the majority of the community accept that BRD/MCH contribute in other important ways that have an effect on the party's DPS or HPS, and I believe it would be the same for RDM if it was a support-style.

How would this break parsers exactly? Unless you think they are used to only measure individual performances versus each other (they aren't).

If a group decides that Buffer/Support+3 DPS+2 Tanks+2 Heals is more optimal (usually means more group dps) than 4 DPS+2 Tanks+2 Heals, they will take the former. Guess how groups figure this stuff out...with parsers. (Hint: They measure group totals as well)

There is a reason BRD/MCH are taken into Savage despite being lower on the DPS totals (usually). There is a reason NIN is taken despite (usually) being the "weakest" melee DPS.

RDM breaks parsers and does mediocre personal DPS to make up for the buffs?

RDM not welcome in raids.

How would this be any different than bard?

Bards don't break parsers because everyone just expects them to be at the bottom. This idea would be no different.

A true support would make parsers MORE prominent. I'm to lazy to go get one, but I've had times I wished I had one on ast. I don't normally care who's 'winning', but as ast it'd help me do my job. While there may be other factors to consider(Some classes are better with certain cards), knowing who the better dps is is a big factor in deciding who to buff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Assirra

Yea, let's make a class purely to "break parsers"
That will never work, there are always ways around it.

---

I don't think OP meant a class that will disable parsers, but rather a class that is built around contributing to the party's throughput without doing substantial numbers themselves.

On an aside, I do wish they'd balanced the game around the idea of having five party members ... one tank, one healer, two dps, and one support class. It'd also require a bit of touching up to introduce a new support class or two (red mage, blue mage anyone?), and perhaps adjust one or two existing classes to be focused on support.

I'd be down for a buffer class if they changed Bard to be a buffer and added ranger or some actually ranged archer type role. Bard is too caster like now.

Honestly this is what I hope RDM is and what I've been hoping they become. Not the parser thing, that's just a classical case of people blaming the tool and not the dick behind it, but the budder/debuffer. In many of the classical games they have held a similar role to this as well as the jack of all trades motif they are known for. I see it as a melee dps with debuffs attached to magic damage weapon skills, limited spell casting ability, and aoe buffs or casted buffs. Think the Chanter from Aion, which was my favorite class after the Templar. Although I'd be pretty sad if they didn't at least get double cast although depending on the game that's been either BLM or RDM so either one would work.

Why would they want to break parsers. BTW if they wanted to break parsers they would limit the damage done info they supply us in game.

When you add a predominantly support class, that class becomes mandatory and the demand outstrips supply.

They won't add a support class slot to df, there'll be a bigger shortage of those than tanks.

My raids in EQ2 for a while during Kunark actually dual boxed a bunch of bards and enchanters because we couldn't recruit enough for what we needed.

So... no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nadirah

When you add a predominantly support class, that class becomes mandatory and the demand outstrips supply.

---

It's the reason MMO design split support abilities amongst the other archetypes due to pure support being even less popular than tanks. Even FFXI was the same where LS members where forced to go support or parties where constantly looking for them more than any other.

Players complain abou DF ques taking 30 mins or even more. If they added a support slot that que time would increase massively.

Even in Rift which had Support slot for their DF style dungeon finder those who qued for support switched to a DPS build when they entered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sapphic

It's the reason MMO design split support abilities amongst the other archetypes due to pure support being even less popular than tanks. Even FFXI was the same where LS members where forced to go support or parties where constantly looking for them more than any other.

Players complain abou DF ques taking 30 mins or even more. If they added a support slot that que time would increase massively.

Even in Rift which had Support slot for their DF style dungeon finder those who qued for support switched to a DPS build when they entered.

---

in EQ2, there were no such things as builds when I played. Your class dictated your role exclusively. Haven't played it in 3 years though so I don't know if it's changed.

I had niche things I could do as a dirge, like first boss in spire of rage I think it was? Slap on a shield, hate song on myself and offtank the split... but that's about it. I could have gone as illusionist and just kept him mezzed the entire time.