The Real Problem with Parsers

[Viridiana]

I wonder how long we can make these posts. >_>

Meanwhile, if we reread what I said, I specifically said "Medical issues restricting them". So yes, if a medical issue is restricting them, they cannot magically heal it just so they can git gud enough for you. Maybe try reading every word.

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 are they going to get esos if they keep getting kicked? I notice you ignored the "widening gap" issue too.

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 plenty of elitism and abuse centered around DPS charts. That's inarguable. If they are worried that it might spill into here, they don't need to prove it will.

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. >_>

This avoids my question. Please answer the question.

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 other games that DPS meters are a huge tool for elitists to be elitists. So, for the 99th time, they don't need to prove it would happen here, just that it could. If you want them to change their stance, you need to disprove that. You can't. That's really the end of it.

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.

Hyperbole is a terrible thing to use in arguments because over-exaggerating anything weakens your point, not supports.

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.

Fine. And if you feel that DF is so terrible that you waste your time in it, then it's your logical duty to exercise other options available to you.

Oooorrrrrrr...I can try to help increase the quality of the DF and make the overall experience better.

No it doesn't. A more fitting analogy would be if a bank gave a loan to a random person with no accountability and got stiffed on it, because that's what DF is, and then decided that they shouldn't give out loans to random people and decided instead to only give out loans to people who have identification and accountability.

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...

If you want to guarantee fast clears, then the logical way to do that is by playing with people you know will get you fast clears. Sorry if you labour under the misconception that it's your solemn duty to clean up the duty finder.

You don't think it's your duty to uphold and improve your environment?

Again inaccurate. My point is "If you can't handle random people, stop grouping with random people."

Sorry, "Random people suck, stop playing with random people." More accurate now?

I'd have hoped that when I say DPS, the fact that I'm talking about a player's personal DPS and not their ability to do mechanics would be clear. I guess not. A parser wouldn't have helped anyone clear Steps of Faith if nobody's doing cannons or DKs right.

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.

Anything that's happened before is irrelevant to how useful a parser would be now.

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.

I've cleared Bismarck in story mode with a DPS dead from the very start because they jumped off the side before the pull "just to see if they could". If three DPS could do it, then if a whole group is failing it, then you'll have to practically replace the entire group of DPS anyways, so a parser isn't going to solve much.

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.

Whether or not other things can/have been used for harassment is irrelevant and doesn't mean parsers should be added.

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 already have evidence that someone might abuse parsers - other games.

And I alerady have evidence that someone might abuse titles--this game.

If I meant "politely bring up somebody's DPS", I would say "politely bring up somebody's DPS".

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.

Really? Because I don't parse my husband's MCH but noticed he was doing significantly less damage than my Bard from the threat meter alone, so I looked up some MCH guides and gave some pointers and on some fights he's now giving my Bard a run for its gil. Didn't require specific numbers at all.

Great! You can get someone who already trusts you to take your word for something! Explain how that applies to random DF people again?

Just because it won't be abused by 100% of people doesn't negate that it may be abused by some people. And SE isn't banning it under the misconception that everybody ever would be an elitist jerk, I'm sure. Give them a little credit.

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.

Other games are your evidence. They don't need to have specific numbers because those are impossible to prove without having it happen first. They have more than enough reason to expect that there would be elitism spawning from parser use based on frequency it happens in other games.

Goody.

I'm in a really easy position to prove that elitism may result. Other games in which elitism centers around DPS charts.

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.

1 is irrelevant. 4 is irrelevant, because the number that there is now would be logically expected to change if people weren't forced to bite their tongues about parsers. 5 is also irrelevant because the amount of harassment reports for other reasons is irrelevant to how many reports they may start getting for parser reasons. 6 is also irrelevant to a degree because whether or not they could use parsers now, they'd still be subject to the same restrictions of talking about them.

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)

All of that information is irrelevant because they don't represent the hypothetical altered situation. If people know they can get reported for bringing up parser numbers, then clearly there's going to be less people bringing them up, and it logically follows that that would lead to less reports.

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?

[Aiselia]

I wonder how long we can make these posts.

Depends if there's a hard cap even on edited posts.

You then asserted that medical people can't improve.

I said that people with medical issues restricting them can't get over their medical issues. It's not my problem if you ignore the "restrictions" part. But I guess according to you, if someone can't walk because they're medically paralyzed, they're just not trying hard enough.

How about they exercise their options and use PF?

They could. They have that option. Just like you.

As for the widening gap, the gap basically resets each time there's a new currency that comes out.

So when the next currency comes out, my alternate classes that I'm not gearing any higher than upgraded Law will be on an equal footing as somebody who's been Savage raiding this whole time immediately and who will presumably continue to raid?

If they're worried about elitism and abuse, they should avoid adding raids.

I'm just going to start ignoring every time you say, "Well, X can be a source of abuse so they shouldn't be doing it either." It's still not a valid argument for your case, so I'll stop wasting time on it.

You asserted that their current stance is that they don't want you talking about DPS at all.

Are you really stooping to semantic arguments? Was it not clear enough that I meant specific numbers? Do I need to literally spell out absolutely everything I say for you?

If it's unclear that I'm using hyperbole, sure.

No, hyperbole isn't an effective arguing tool in any case. Would you take me seriously if I said that parsers would turn everyone into drooling elitist lunatics because it's clear I'm using hyperbole?

I can try to help increase the quality of the DF

And again, the people that may try to help aren't the ones they're worried about. It's the ones that won't try to help and will just make someone feel bad.

And of course, you're assuming that PF provides something analogous to accountability.

It does if you're the one creating the party.

You don't think it's your duty to uphold and improve your environment?

Nope, not really. Not when others don't think it's my duty to give them assistance.

"Random people suck, stop playing with random people."

Nope. "If random people sucking is so much of a problem, stop playing with random people."

Bull****.

Not at all. The state the game was in then will be unaffected by whether or not you have a parser now.

Ravana story swords.

Are not hard to deal with. I solo kill most of the blue butterflies. One bad DPS won't stop me from doing that.

Extreme modes which are routinely pugged.

Maybe people shouldn't try to do the hardest content with random people.

The problem is that you're taking a fairly innocuous term and twisting it to be something negative

I've never heard the phrase "calling someone out" as not being negative. Regardless, if you understood that I meant they'd be doing it negatively, it clearly doesn't matter what phrase I was using because you understood that I meant doing it negatively. Now you can move past semantics.

To add to this, I checked some dictionaries, unsurprisingly normal dictionaries didn't have the phrase in any way that applied to this, but urban dictionary doesn't seem to paint a very innocuous picture. Most them quite literally have to do with challenging somebody for some sort of fight or insulting them. In fact, the top accepted definition says "to put someone on blast", which then goes on to "to shame them badily (sic) in front of a group of three or more people". Which is oddly specific and I'm not sure why two isn't a blast.

Explain how that applies to random DF people again?

You said you weren't going to get far without numbers. You don't need numbers when you can tell that someone's doing lower DPS. Someone who isn't going to listen to you period isn't going to care whether you have numbers or not.

which is clearly not the standard they're holding other features to.

Or maybe they're considering scale and that the scale of people harassing over titles is less than those that would harass over DPS. But no, considering the reasonable extent of potential harassment for new features couldn't have possibly crossed their mind, hm?

I'm saying that I don't believe that there will be enough abuse to outweigh the advantages of having them.

Okay. And that's you. They disagree. It's your job to prove them wrong, not shout that they're wrong.

I have claimed that the clamouring of SE about elitism is fear mongering based on insufficient data

Which you can't prove.

elitism is already present in the game

Which further proves SE's point.

I clearly explained the relevence of each of those.

No, you explained why you think they're relevant. They're not.

2/4 gives you the percent of people who harass with parsers as it stands.

Which would almost assuredly change if they changed their policy.

3/1 gives you the approximate rate of players who would parse if they were allowed to.

Which doesn't prove anything about how many of those would be elitists.

4 adjusted for 8 gives you the approximate number of parser-harassments currently happening with the current policy.

Which would almost assuredly change if they changed their policy.

4 adjusted for both 7 and 8 would give you the number of harassments happening under the proposed policy.

Since 7 and 8 are hypotheticals in themselves, would you accept if they said that 75% of people would change into jerks? These hypotheticals can't be used to adjust because they're complete unknowns. Nobody will admit that they'll turn into a jerk if the policy changes, and obviously nobody can know 8 except a hivemind of the players that don't report them. Maybe 1,000 harassments go unreported daily. Maybe 100 do. Maybe 0 do. Maybe 10,000 do. You're expecting them to prove a hypothetical by weighting an estimate with another hypothetical.

Besides which, how do you know they haven't considered that and decided that their hypothetical figure for #7 is just simply higher than the one you think? Again, you're not privy to their reasoning, so you can't say they're wrong. And they don't owe you their reasoning, because they make the decisions and not you.

I'm in no position to verify or refute it.

Exactly. So saying their reasoning is bunk is really just you wanting it to be, not actually based on any facts.

What do you think 7 and 8 were for?

Subjective hypotheticals. If they suggest that 75% of people may turn into elitist jerks, would you accept that? Or would you still say that they're unreasonable? If they said 50%, how about then? Won't you really just say they're unreasonable, period, until they agree with you?

[Viridiana]

I said that people with medical issues restricting them can't get over their medical issues. It's not my problem if you ignore the "restrictions" part. But I guess according to you, if someone can't walk because they're medically paralyzed, they're just not trying hard enough.

Nope, you asked if they could improve and then denied that they could improve even though they can, even if they're doing the best they can with the currently available gear, because their gear can at some point improve.

So when the next currency comes out, my alternate classes that I'm not gearing any higher than upgraded Law will be on an equal footing as somebody who's been Savage raiding this whole time immediately and who will presumably continue to raid?

If you grind out some uncapped Eso, you'll be at i200 compared to a full time raider's i210, give or take. That's pretty nearly equal footing. And since even un-upgraded Law is enough to grind Fractal (which would have Eso at this point if they hold to the pattern), it shouldn't be hard to grind up some Eso. Oh, and at the same time you'll be getting the new currency, which (if the pattern holds) will be stronger than i210 and can help alleviate the small remaining gap.

I'm just going to start ignoring every time you say, "Well, X can be a source of abuse so they shouldn't be doing it either." It's still not a valid argument for your case, so I'll stop wasting time on it.

Either the mere potential for abuse is sufficient grounds to not implement something, or it isn't. I'm only asking for consistency. Now, if they want to quantify that potential, that would be another matter. But they seem unwilling to do so.

Are you really stooping to semantic arguments? Was it not clear enough that I meant specific numbers? Do I need to literally spell out absolutely everything I say for you?

Arguing against hyporbole is arguing semantics. You realize this, right? Because...

No, hyperbole isn't an effective arguing tool in any case. Would you take me seriously if I said that parsers would turn everyone into drooling elitist lunatics because it's clear I'm using hyperbole?

I would take it in context and try to determine if you're being literal. Assuming the context makes it reasonably clear, I'd probably respond to what you most likely meant. Possibly with a sarcastic reference to the hyperbole itself, because sarcasm is fun.

And again, the people that may try to help aren't the ones they're worried about. It's the ones that won't try to help and will just make someone feel bad.

And everyone else is suffering for the minority. Yay.

It does if you're the one creating the party.

I guess if I start keeping a journal or something. Because in the average PF party people seem to perform about as well as the average DF party. So accountability would have to come from a tracker of some sort to remember the bad people from prior PFs. But that seems like an aweful lot of work for not a lot of payout, because PF is still random.

Nope, not really. Not when others don't think it's my duty to give them assistance.

I have to assume you mistyped this and mean "Not when others think it's my duty to give them assistance." Or something? Because the response as typed makes no sense. But it's nice to know that you have no feeling of responsibility for the areas you inhabit.

Not at all. The state the game was in then will be unaffected by whether or not you have a parser now.

It's the state the game is still in. At no point has SE stopped putting DPS checks in even non-endgame content, and at no point has the player base developed competence. You can't pretend that the unbroken chain leading back to beta is irrelevent to the current discussion.

Maybe people shouldn't try to do the hardest content with random people.

You really think that Ravana is the hardest content in the game? Or is this hyperbole? Because I think I remember your saying something about hyperbole being an ineffective argument tactic...

You said you weren't going to get far without numbers. You don't need numbers when you can tell that someone's doing lower DPS.

Some people will listen to numbers. More options good. Less options bad.

Or maybe they're considering scale and that the scale of people harassing over titles is less than those that would harass over DPS. But no, considering the reasonable extent of potential harassment for new features couldn't have possibly crossed their mind, hm?

Well, so far they're not showing promise at assessing risk/reward, if tells in dungeons are any indication. At this point I'd re-assess if they showed their work.

Okay. And that's you. They disagree. It's your job to prove them wrong, not shout that they're wrong.

Or they can at least explain their reasoning. By which I mean their actual risk/reward assessment, not just their conclusion. At least then we can debate the assessment.

Which would almost assuredly change if they changed their policy.
Which doesn't prove anything about how many of those would be elitists.
Which would almost assuredly change if they changed their policy.

Hence numbers seven and 8...This really isn't hard. You take data you have and extrapolate it out to data you don't have to get some idea of what it would look like. This is really, really basic. It's not an exact science, but it's still useful.

Since 7 and 8 are hypotheticals in themselves, would you accept if they said that 75% of people would change into jerks?

At least then we would have a point to start from to try to argue down from, since 75% seems rather unlikely.

These hypotheticals can't be used to adjust because they're complete unknowns. Nobody will admit that they'll turn into a jerk if the policy changes, and obviously nobody can know 8 except a hivemind of the players that don't report them. Maybe 1,000 harassments go unreported daily. Maybe 100 do. Maybe 0 do. Maybe 10,000 do. You're expecting them to prove a hypothetical by weighting an estimate with another hypothetical.

Funny thing. I listed 8 as an assumption, but it's actually possible to assess this with at least fair accuracy. Send a link out to the player base asking if they've suffered any harassment they haven't reported. You won't get everyone to answer, but you can, once again, extrapolate out from the responses you get.

Again, you're not privy to their reasoning

That's kinda the problem I'm getting at, here.

And they don't owe you their reasoning, because they make the decisions and not you.

And I don't owe it to them to not say their reasoning is bunk. >_>

Subjective hypotheticals. If they suggest that 75% of people may turn into elitist jerks, would you accept that? Or would you still say that they're unreasonable? If they said 50%, how about then? Won't you really just say they're unreasonable, period, until they agree with you?

Honestly, I think 30% is probably the extreme upper bound of reasonable, but at least if they said 75% I'd understand how they came to their conclusion.

[Aiselia]

because their gear can at some point improve.

And the fact that I brought up medical disabilities, I had hoped would have been sufficient to get across that I wasn't talking about gear but ability. Regardless, you also ignored that if someone can't accept 500 DPS when they could be doing 1200 DPS, they're not going to accept 600 DPS when they could be doing 1400, which means that while they might be doing higher numbers, it doesn't actually solve any problems. You claim I'm shifting goalposts, but it's more like you just grabbed the ball and ran off the side of the field.

enough to grind Fractal

Which you couldn't do if you keep getting kicked for having low DPS.

Either the mere potential for abuse is sufficient grounds to not implement something, or it isn't.

Except it isn't inherently an "all or nothing" issue. It entirely can be based around scale of effect. If they decide that the potential for abuse of parsers is just significantly higher than potential for abuse of titles, why do you feel you're owed that explanation of how they come to that?

Arguing against hyporbole is arguing semantics.

No it isn't.

I would take it in context and try to determine if you're being literal.

And whether I was or wasn't, would it prove my point at all? Of course not. If I actually thought that, clearly that'd be stupid. If I didn't think that, then it was irrelevant to bring up because it doesn't support my point. That's why hyperbole doesn't have a place in an argument.

And everyone else is suffering for the minority.

People can convince themselves they're suffering, but that doesn't mean they are. The game's lasted two years without an official parser, so it's not like the parser is necessary for the game's survival.

So accountability would have to come from a tracker of some sort to remember the bad people from prior PFs.

If only there was some sort of in-game list to which we could add the names of people we don't like. Some sort of a really, really dark list. Y'know? Like, so dark it's black or something.

Because the response as typed makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense. You asked if I think it's my duty. I said not when others don't think it is. If someone doesn't care enough about how good they are to read their tooltips or look rotations up on the internet, I don't consider it my duty to help them as they probably don't think it's my duty to help them. If they're completely new, I may offer some assistance, but if they've got a full rack of 50+ and still failing, it's either due to willful ignorance or apathy, and I don't feel a duty to find out which.

It's the state the game is still in.

Then current examples suffice.

You really think that Ravana is the hardest content in the game?

EX Primals are meant to be examples of the harder content in the game, yes. I'm sure there's a reason why there's no EX Primal roulette. I honestly doubt they're even designed with DF in mind, which is supported with the fact that when they first come out, you can't DF them.

Some people will listen to numbers.

And some will think that digging for numbers just makes you a bigger jerk.

At this point I'd re-assess if they showed their work.

Then it's a good thing for them that they don't have any accountability to you when choosing what they put in! \o/

Or they can at least explain their reasoning.

Or they could not because they don't honestly need to. It wouldn't make a difference anyways. Do you really think that no matter what expectation they give, you'll agree with it? I don't. Even if they say they only expect a 5% increase in elitism and that's too much for them, people, possibly you, will just argue that it's not high enough to be worth worrying about. But that's not an objective standpoint, and certainly not looking at it from their standpoint as a business that needs customers to make money. That's a subjective standpoint biased by the desire for a parser regardless of who may get trodden on in the process.

You won't get everyone to answer

If they couldn't be bothered to put in a report for harassment, I'd be surprised if they bothered to answer the question, especially if it requires them to leave the game. You'd still have to operate under a major assumption that the responses are accurate and indicative of the whole, as well that they were actually harassed and not just have super thin skin or that someone who was actually harassed just plain didn't care and they answer no.

That's kinda the problem I'm getting at, here.

But it's only a problem to you because you think you can convince them their reasoning is wrong. Problem is, your idea of what are acceptable losses and their idea may not match up, and probably don't, so knowing their figures doesn't help you at all. The best it can do is give you a specific number to say is bunk rather than the whole idea is bunk, but you'd still lack any actual argument to disprove their figures and worries.

Maybe I just assume that they've taking into consideration a reasonable scale of effect and decided it's just not worth it and that whether I personally agree with their scale or what's "worth it" is subjective and since their opinion is what matters (since it's their game and their money at stake), it doesn't matter whether or not I agree.

If you're physically or mentally incapable to do over 700 DPS because of something medical, why are you playing content where it's not even close to being good enough?

How dare people with disabilities want to experience content in the game they pay for?

Also, the argument isn't restricted to only high-end content. 700 DPS is completely good enough for things like Expert Roulette, but some people would still kick over that.

It shows that the average pug really doesn't give a crap about your dps

It shows that he managed to find a few groups that don't care. How many did he run in total? How many did he get kicked out of that he didn't show you? Since when do outliers prove an average? Does this mean that if I go into FFXIV right now and slap myself on follow in 5 dungeon runs and get kicked in each one, that's evidence that 100% of people in FFXIV care about what you do?

If a game's chugging out hundreds/thousands of dungeon runs a day, a video showing a handful is no proof of anything except that examples are really easy to cherry-pick.

[Viridiana]

Regardless, you also ignored that if someone can't accept 500 DPS when they could be doing 1200 DPS, they're not going to accept 600 DPS when they could be doing 1400, which means that while they might be doing higher numbers, it doesn't actually solve any problems. You claim I'm shifting goalposts, but it's more like you just grabbed the ball and ran off the side of the field.

I could probably do close to 1400 DPS with current gear. If I did 550 instead, do you honestly think I'd get kicked?

Except it isn't inherently an "all or nothing" issue. It entirely can be based around scale of effect. If they decide that the potential for abuse of parsers is just significantly higher than potential for abuse of titles, why do you feel you're owed that explanation of how they come to that?

Because they've used the justification before for tells in dungeons even though it appears to have zero effect. So when they trot it out again you ask for evidence.

No it isn't.

And whether I was or wasn't, would it prove my point at all? Of course not.

Does literally every sentence you make have to be directly in support of your argument, or are you allowed to have sentences for flavor to break up the monotony of assertions and questions?

People can convince themselves they're suffering, but that doesn't mean they are. The game's lasted two years without an official parser, so it's not like the parser is necessary for the game's survival.

Right. Because PS3/PS4 players having to rely on others in order to just see their DPS numbers isn't a type of suffering.

If only there was some sort of in-game list to which we could add the names of people we don't like. Some sort of a really, really dark list. Y'know? Like, so dark it's black or something.

Which is awesome for those of us on Balmung or JP servers where gil spam barely happens if at all. I can't say how it's going on other servers, but considering 2,000 accounts have been banned since HW launch for RMT advertisement, I'm guessing other servers have better things to do with their blacklists. Unless you're suggesting that they keep a list of people in their blacklist that are bad so they don't accidentally un-blacklist them when clearing the RMT accounts. Which kinda defeats the point of using the blacklist for it. >_>

If someone doesn't care enough about how good they are to read their tooltips or look rotations up on the internet, I don't consider it my duty to help them as they probably don't think it's my duty to help them.

So people aren't worth helping if they don't help themselves? Very altruistic of you.

EX Primals are meant to be examples of the harder content in the game, yes. I'm sure there's a reason why there's no EX Primal roulette. I honestly doubt they're even designed with DF in mind, which is supported with the fact that when they first come out, you can't DF them.

But you said it was the hardest content. Was that hyperbole, or did you literally mean that it was the hardest content? And really, I was being generous when I asked if you were really saying that Ravana Ex was the hardest content, because you actually referenced "Ex Primals" as the hardest content in the game, which presumably includes Bismark. That means you technically put Bismark Ex over, say, A4S. Unless that was hyperbole, of course. >_>

And some will think that digging for numbers just makes you a bigger jerk.

Ooooooptionnnnns. Options. Say it with me: Options. Maybe look in the mirror as you say it until you can say it without scrunching up your face.

If they couldn't be bothered to put in a report for harassment, I'd be surprised if they bothered to answer the question.

Maybe. Filing a report is way more tedious than clicking a link and hitting a few buttons. Heck, it's something some people could do at work.

since their opinion is what matters (since it's their game and their money at stake), it doesn't matter whether or not I agree.

That's how stagnation happens. If we all took this stance, WAR would still be a joke tank never used for anything end-game. After all, Yoshida told 2.0 WARs to git gud and that WAR was fine.

Edit:

Guys?

Seriously.

It's a good start, but you need like, 10 more lines or so. And I personally prefer to maintain the shiny pictures!

[Aiselia]

If I did 550 instead, do you honestly think I'd get kicked?

Depends who you're grouping with. For example, from the first page of this very thread:

If i queu for a lvl 60 dungeon and someone with similar gear is pulling 500dps while i pull 1.4k, ill kick them

Yes, in that case you would.

Because they've used the justification before for tells in dungeons even though it appears to have zero effect.

Whether or not it appears to have zero effect is irrelevant because you don't have a comparison of what the situation currently would be otherwise. I mean, let's think about this carefully here.

Present situation: Cannot send tells in DF because it might lead to harassment in private. Some people still harass in public.
Assumption: Some people bite their tongue because they don't want to look like a jerk to the entire group because THEY might be kicked instead.
Potential abuse situation: Someone harasses someone else in public, leaving it up to the group to decide who should be kicked, the jerk or the target.

Now let's think about this hypothetical situation in which you can send tells.

Hypothetical situation: Can send tells in DF.
Logical assumption: The people who harass in public are clearly not going to suddenly become nicer. They will either continue to harass in public or just take it to tells.
Assumption: People who bit their tongue to avoid harassing in public now have a private forum to harass.
Obvious statement: You cannot see who's being harassed in tells, which means you have no clue who is being harassed and, most importantly, have no evidence.
Potential abuse situation: Someone wants someone kicked, complains that they're being harassed in tells. Group believes them, kick target gets kicked because the person lied.
Other potential abuse situation: Someone IS getting harassed in tells, complains to group. Group tells them they're a whiner and kicks them.
Other potential abuse situation: Someone is getting harassed in tells, complains to group. Harasser lies and says that the person is lying. Group believes harasser, ignores or kicks the person getting harassed.

I don't think it's particularly arguable which is more easily abused.

Does literally every sentence you make have to be directly in support of your argument

If you're responding to a point with something, then yeah, preferably it'd be nice to have that response have a point.

Because PS3/PS4 players having to rely on others in order to just see their DPS numbers isn't a type of suffering.

An incredibly, incredibly weak form of suffering, I suppose. However, there are PS3/PS4 players perfectly happy without being able to see their DPS numbers, which means it's also not objective suffering. It's self-inflicted suffering.

I'm guessing other servers have better things to do with their blacklists.

It's an option. Of course, if they took reasonable steps to prevent RMT spamming, that'd make the blacklist cleaner, but that's a different subject.

So people aren't worth helping if they don't help themselves? Very altruistic of you.

Like I said, if they're new, I'll try to help. If they're loaded with 50s, it's either willful ignorance or apathy, and it's not worth the time trying to break through that.

But you said it was the hardest content. ... That means you technically put Bismark Ex over, say, A4S.

It's part of the higher tiers of content, evidenced by the stricter DPS necessities and harder mechanics. I didn't say anything about it being harder than A4S. What I did say was maybe people shouldn't try to do the hardest content with random people. That includes Savage, not excludes.

Heck, it's something some people could do at work.

Still runs on the assumption that it's accurate and objective, which, obviously, what is considered harassment by any specific person is not objective.

That's how stagnation happens.

Objective performance of a class is irrelevant to their subjective decision of what are unacceptable projections of elitism.

[Viridiana]

Assumption: Some people bite their tongue because they don't want to look like a jerk to the entire group because THEY might be kicked instead.

So when I make assumptions, they're bad, but when you do it they're cool. Gotcha.

[Waliel]

Meanwhile, if we reread what I said, I specifically said "Medical issues restricting them". So yes, if a medical issue is restricting them, they cannot magically heal it just so they can git gud enough for you. Maybe try reading every word.

I said that people with medical issues restricting them can't get over their medical issues. It's not my problem if you ignore the "restrictions" part. But I guess according to you, if someone can't walk because they're medically paralyzed, they're just not trying hard enough.

If you're physically or mentally incapable to do over 700 DPS because of something medical, why are you playing content where it's not even close to being good enough?

Depends if there's a hard cap even on edited posts.

Twenty a day.

What video did you watch cause this did not support parsers it showed how even with the damage meters no one even bothered to say anything....this video was more about the community ignoring things like this and there being no penalty in the matter not that parsers will save you from this situation...

And the main point of the opposition seems to be that all hell will break loose were parses added. As you can see in that video, no one cared one bit even if you stood in every aoe and never attacked anything (except that one rogue who he was using /follow on) as long as stuff got done.