I wonder how long we can make these posts. >_>
You're still saying saying that medical people are incapable of getting better. You asked me if everyone could improve. I said yes. You then asserted that medical people can't improve. Which is patently false.
How about they exercise their options and use PF? I mean, if they don't want to deal with random people kicking them, they should remove the random people from their experience. >_>
As for the widening gap, the gap basically resets each time there's a new currency that comes out.
It's a fact that in other games there has been elitism and abuse centered around completion of raids. That's inarguable. If they're worried about elitism and abuse, they should avoid adding raids.
Because 1.0 worked out so well. >_>
It answers the question. You asserted that their current stance is that they don't want you talking about DPS at all. That's demonstrably not their current stance, as you can easily talk about DPS as long as you don't talk about numbers. Their stance is that they don't want you mentioning numbers. Allowing parsers by default means that you're allowing people to mention numbers. Bam, problem solved.
Except it's already established in this game that titles awarded for raiding are a tool for elitists to be elitists. If they don't want people being elitists, they should remove titles from the game.
If it's unclear that I'm using hyperbole, sure. The context makes it blatantly clear that I'm employing hyperbole. Your ignoring it reflects either willful ignorance or a lack of reading comprehension.
Oooorrrrrrr...I can try to help increase the quality of the DF and make the overall experience better.
No, because DF usually works pretty well. It only occassionally fails miserably. And of course, you're assuming that PF provides something analogous to accountability. Aside from one occassion, I can't think of any times that I've partied with the same person twice. I literally can't name any of the people I've partied in PF with outside my LS/FC. And if you mean to restrict it all the way down to only partying with the in group, the bank basically isn't loaning any money...
You don't think it's your duty to uphold and improve your environment?
Sorry, "Random people suck, stop playing with random people." More accurate now?
I can't actually recall if ACT picks up SoF cannons. Regardless, mechanics are a part of DPS. Being unable to do mechanics leads to being unable to do DPS. Of course, before even making it to SoF, you have the DPS checks in Chrysalis.
Bull****. There's a clear trend of SE requiring a certain amount of DPS to clear content (not even talking about endgame content) only for the player base to prove their incompetence again and again, followed by prolonged whining until SE nerfs the content. The most recent time was less than 4 months ago. That's basically one major patch cycle.
Good job picking one subpoint out of numerous examples. A1N enrage. Ravana story swords. Extreme modes which are routinely pugged. Hows about you respond to those.
It's actually extremely relevent, as it establishes whether harassment by itself is a determining factor for whether a feature is implemented. Features used to harass people are constantly being brought into the game, so clearly the justification is bunk.
And I alerady have evidence that someone might abuse titles--this game.
The problem is that you're taking a fairly innocuous term and twisting it to be something negative, thereby trying to shape the perceptions of those watching.
Great! You can get someone who already trusts you to take your word for something! Explain how that applies to random DF people again?
I'm giving them credit that they aren't saying everyone would do it. But they're saying that anyone doing it is grounds to not allow it, which is clearly not the standard they're holding other features to. That's the crux of the problem. Is a subgroup of users causing a problem reason enough to scrap the whole program? If it is, we shouldn't have a lot of the features we do have. You keep ignoring or misunderstanding this.
Goody.
Man, you keep really missing the point. I'm saying that I don't believe that there will be enough abuse to outweigh the advantages of having them. At no point have I ever claimed that there will be no elitism. I have claimed that the clamouring of SE about elitism is fear mongering based on insufficient data and that elitism is already present in the game from features SE continues to endorse. If preventing elitism is truly their goal, they're failing spectacularly and don't seem to care--except for parsers. This tells me that they're using elitism as a demonstrably weak justification that should be done away with. They should either endorse parsers to be consistent or produce a better justification.
I clearly explained the relevence of each of those. 2/4 gives you the percent of people who harass with parsers as it stands. 3/1 gives you the approximate rate of players who would parse if they were allowed to. (3/1)*(1+6) gives you the approximate number of total players who would parse if allowed (assuming PS3/PS4 players would parse at about the same rate as PC players). 4 adjusted for 8 gives you the approximate number of parser-harassments currently happening with the current policy. 4 adjusted for both 7 and 8 would give you the number of harassments happening under the proposed policy. How much larger is the second value? Because they're saying it's big enough to justify not having an extremely valuable tool, and I'm in no position to verify or refute it.
(Okay, so 5 was probably useless for this)
What do you think 7 and 8 were for? I mean, 7 directly addresses changes caused by a change in policy. Did you not even read it?