The Real Problem with Parsers

[Elazu]

Yep, for cases of Harassment, Cheating, being AFK, or being offline.

Seeing that "different playstyles" is a legitimate reason to kick somebody, as confirmed by the GMs, it's perfectly fine to kick peole who don't meet the party's standard.

[Samsta]

I do this anyway. I have Second Wind and Bloodbath, but too many healers are programmed like FFXII Gambits to cure anything under 80%.

If it's not fatal or debilitating, I will take the hit and cure myself. Medica II does the rest.

This is completely off-topic but the reason the healer is probably quick to heal you is because if you do this constantly you give them a feeling that you will eat all the aoe damage there is and they don't want you to die, they don't know you and they don't know you do this on purpose and heal yourself after that. A good example are dps in alex 4 that just run to the orbs not having any care in the world or waiting for heals, then after eating 2 of them in a row they get hit with perpetual ray and die, or better yet they run next to the tank and die to the missiles. It can be stressful sometimes.

[Aiselia]

Seeing that "different playstyles" is a legitimate reason to kick somebody, as confirmed by the GMs, it's perfectly fine to kick peole who don't meet the party's standard.

And, as confirmed by the GMs, you should report every vote kick you think is bull, suggesting that "Different playstyles" isn't a catch-all excuse for everything.

[Waliel]

There is a time-limit on instances for a reason. SE determined that it might take a group upwards of 90 minutes to finish a set of instances. "Carrying your weight" needs to be weighed against those 90 minutes, not the 15-20 minute speed-runs demanded by bored players looking to gain tomes from some daily roulette and then complaining about all those folk who are slowing them down.

Yep, indeed there are different time checks for different contents. We have the 90 Mins limit for the average dungeon and even more for alliance-type content, as well as really tight time-check content like Savage. That's what SE seems to consider the reasonable time to clear.

The time limit was actually put in place in back in ARR closed beta so players would not hog all the instance servers for themselves by just sitting in there. It started at 60 minutes, but was raised to 90 after complaints that 60 felt too short sometimes. That was back when no one had played this game for longer than two weekends and barely knew how to activate auto-attack, the only dungeon available was Tam-tara at like level 20 or something, and you unlocked a tank for Tam-tara by talking to an NPC after getting your CNJ, ARC or LNC high enough. Fun times.

[La_Bluegirl]

I will just leave this here to show you how parsers in general won't mean anything to the average player if we take WoW as an example.

https://youtu.be/GFWh9aY4pas?t=2m8s

It also highlights that the key issue is not about the numbers and is actually getting people to play to the best of their ability and not lowering the bar over and over.

The fact that we have DPS checks is the only reason that what happens in that video doesn't happen in this game.

I loved that you posted this. Unfortunately, most people against parsers will probably skip watching that video and continue to exaggerate the harrassment. People really are paranoid if you think just because you're 50 dps under someone else you're going to be vote kicked. People get vote kicked for not even bothering to try, not because you're slightly behind the other person. The only time I've vote kicked anyone was because they were literally doing equal dps as a fresh 50 in 2.0, while having plenty of i200 gear, or they just simply can't be bothered to (self admitting) stop chatting to their FC or linkshell and do more than auto attacking.

[Viridiana]

I then immediately qualified that with "Meaning no medical issues restricting them or anything like that?" You either missed that or chose to ignore it intentionally, neither of which does you any favours.

So people with medical issues are automatically incapable of improving. Again, that's just repeating what you said. I don't think it's gonna win you any friends to say that, though. I mean, I tried giving you the benefit ouf the doubt, but you've now doubled down on this idea.

Which will be irrelevant to anybody who gets repeatedly kicked from content for not doing enough DPS because they won't be able to get that gear. And, in fact, the problem will get comparatively worse as the people who DO get the higher end gear will increase their expectations of DPS to match because the higher gear increases everybody's. If someone doesn't accept 500 DPS now, they're not going to accept 550 DPS at i220.

Because it requires Eso gear to get Eso, right? Especially once the new tomestones come out and Eso gets moved to uncapped?

Then scroll back and look at what you said? It seems pretty straightforward to me. You said that joining a group is entering a contract to be able to do enough tanking/healing/DPS to clear it. So then as long as you can clear it, they're holding up their side, right? Even if the dungeon takes another 20 minutes or even another hour, if the content gets cleared, they are holding up their side of the contract?

Maybe it was just your phrasing in your last post, but I couldn't make heads or tails of what you were saying. Rephrased here, though, yes, that's somewhat reasonable.

The problem with your thinking is that you think they owe you that. They don't. If I like to have my door locked because I'm afraid of people walking into my house and robbing me, I don't need to assert a rough estimate of how many people might rob me. Instead, the person trying to convince me to leave my door unlocked has to prove to me that I won't get robbed.

You don't need to assert a crime rate, because crime rates have already been studied and established. Defering to actual established set of data is reasonable. Bringing up hypothetical data that might prove your point and then asserting that your point is proven is not reasonable.

If they put parsers officially into the game, then in order to maintain their CURRENT state, they'd have to continue to take the stance that you're not allowed to bring anybody else's DPS up, which would, of course, defeat what everyone seems to want. And remember, if their stance right now is "We won't outright stop you from using them, but we don't want you bringing it up to anyone", why do you think people going "Oh yeah, we'd totally call people out" would help move them from that stance?

That's not their current stance at all. Their current stance is "you can use parsers, and you can talk about dps, but you can't mention dps numbers."

This goes back to the whole "estimate" thing. Why should they give you an estimate of how many people would call others out on their DPS when you have a thread full of people here wanting desperately to call people out on their DPS?

Because as it stands they're fear mongering. They're asserting that the players should be afraid of harassment without ever establishing that harassment is a product of parsing. And no, those of us saying that we wish we could call people out for their low DPS are not advocating harassment. As it stands, we're reluctant to give anyone advice no matter how badly they need it because this player base has an astonishing number of people who can't take criticism and will try to report you for saying they can't do their job.

Is it only one time? If so, clearly this isn't an important problem.

Seriously? Do you not understand hyperbole?

Didn't say that. Just that if you continue to make the conscious decision to not premake parties, that's your choice, not anybody else's.

Premaking all my parties is giving up on the enterprise of using DF. So that is actually what you're advocating.

If people abuse banks, banks create policies to crack down on abuse. They exercise their options. Your analogy works against you.

The analogy works just fine, because I've never heard of a bank saying "Well, guess we're never giving out a loan ever again!" Which is basically what I would be doing if I followed your advice and never stepped foot in DF again.

Except what I'm actually saying is that you have options and it's nobody's choice but your own to not use those options.

Use the option of not trusting anybody outside my inner circle. Got it. I think you'd make a grand conspiracy theorist, btw.

And some people are extremely averse to being spoken to in-game. What's your point?

That increasing the number of venues by which one can learn to be a better player is a good thing. Your point seems to be "People suck, so stop playing with them."

If you cleared it, you cleared it. Anything faster than that is obviously better, but not required.

I wish I could join all your groups just to drag them out until the boss is about to enrage. >_>

I'd consider it more under mechanics and teamwork since the DPS aren't the only ones that can use the cannons and DK.

Either the DPS are failing at cannons, in which case it's a DPS problem, or tanks and healers are on the cannons, in which case it's a very serious DPS problem. Again, not doing yourself any favors with this argument.

Sorry, how are these relevant to the state of the game now? Please try to keep your arguments centered on a time period that matters.

None of this argument has been limited to the current state of the game. Maybe in your head it has been, but I'm fairly sure no one else has been limiting their scope to only patch 3.07. If you really insist, though, how about groups failing at the DPS checks in Bismark and Ravana--sometimes in story mode, even. Or having seen the enrage in A1N. Because that's a thing that should be happening, right?

If the answer really is yes, that there are raid groups that clear, say, Savage content where everyone's on a PS3, then doesn't that mean that parsers aren't necessary for success? I mean, clearly those raid groups won't have a parser, but if they're clearing it, clearly they've figured out how to deal with that.

Voice chat isn't needed for success, either. Yet having and discussing voice chat doesn't get you banned, even though you can be harassed over voice chat. Having a chat pane isn't necessary to clear Savage either. Yet we have that even though it's been used for just tons and tons of harassment.

Then your story is not very good proof of much, is it?

Pardon me for not recording random Titan runs and keeping the video around for a year and a half to use as evidence in an argument. Guess you'll have to take solace in the fact that at least I'm not blindly asserting that my memory is perfect.

In my line of work, you learn that "This is what I specifically remember" doesn't have any reasonable bearing on the entirety of a situation. For example, if everybody's DPS was lower than it could be, then everyone contributed to it, not just the lowest person. Or you specifically remember that BECAUSE it was an obvious issue that stuck in your mind to look up while you tunnel visioned over other issues.

So, we can only assign blame to one person if everyone else is playing perfectly, then. That's what you're saying. You do know that it's possible to put primary responsibility on one person while still acknowledging that other people have contributed, right?

But let's say we have a party where everyone but one person truly is playing perfectly, and that one person is dragging the party down to the point that they can't complete the content. Can we call that person out? Current stance is that we can, but we aren't allowed to use numbers. Of course, without numbers just saying "You're bad" is pretty useless.

See above about doors being unlocked. I don't need evidence that someone will rob my house to know that leaving my door unlocked is a bad idea.

But you already have evidence that someone might rob your house. Seriously, there's a reason that when my parents' and grandparents' generations talk about the good ole days being better their first example tends to be that you didn't have to lock your door at night.

The difference, again, is the policy. Jerks can run parsers now, but they can't say anything. Adding in an official parser and maintaining the same policy that they can't say anything will not increase verbal harassment because they're still not allowed to say anything, but that defeats your purpose of wanting to be able to call people out on their DPS. Not adding in an official parser but rescinding the current policy about not talking about it will, clearly, increase the number of people calling others out on DPS.

I notice that you keep trying to make "call someone out on their DPS numbers" synonymous with "harass someone for their DPS." They aren't synonyms, and trying to use them as such is dishonest.

"Hey, I noticed that you're doing a couple hundred DPS less than you could be with that gear. I main that class and could offer advice if you want it."
"Dude, the DPS here sucks and we keep wiping. Just vote abandon so I don't have to take a 30 minute penalty."

Which of those is more constructive? Which one will get you banned under the current policy? Hint: Both questions have the same answer.

You, seemingly, and apparently most people here, are not just talking about adding a parser in. They want the ability to call people out on the DPS.

Yes, because without being able to tell people just what their DPS is numerically, you aren't going to get very far helping people. Again, "calling people out on their DPS numbers" is not the same as "harassing people over their DPS numbers." Oh, and, as an aside, we aren't allowed to discuss sensitive matters like people's performance in a dungeon through private messages, because SE is worried that allowing tells in dungeons will lead to harassment. Even though having to harass people in /p doesn't seem to dissuade people.

People who already use a parser but are arguing that they should add a parser are CLEARLY not concerned with adding the parser itself, but wanting the policy about not wanting people to call others out rescinded. So while it isn't the parser that will turn people into jerks, it's the rescinding of the policy that will open the door for them to be jerks.

Or, y'know, they're concerned about the disparity between PC capabilities and PS3/PS4 capabilities in a game that strives to have an even playing field between the three. And yes, pretty much everyone arguing in favor of parsers is arguing in favor of being able to discuss the numbers those parsers give us. Discussing those numbers does not automatically constitute harassment, though.

You're so wrong on two counts. I mean, first of all, you expect SE is capable of proving a hypothetical, which is a completely unrealistic expectation.

Gathering evidence for a hypothesis is an unrealistic expectation. My mind boggles that you would say that. Have you heard of this thing called the scientific method? I suspect you have, because you're about to argue that I should be using it; but I almost doubt it, because you're telling me that gathering evidence for a hypothesis is unrealistic.

Secondly, look around you. This thread alone makes it pretty clear that if they rescind the policy that you can't talk about someone's DPS, they're going to get an increase in people being called out,

This smear campaign you're running against the idea of using actual numbers is seriously troubling.

just from the number of people who've shared stories about "Oh, this person was crap but I had to bite my tongue because I couldn't say anything and it was infuriating". Those people are the EXACT people who prove SE's point.

A lot of us are saying "This person was absolute crap but I bit my tongue because even mentioning DPS obliquely leads to the possibility of a ban, regardless of whether I needed a parser in this case or not." We're asking to be able to say "Hey, your DPS is objectively less than the WHM's; do you need help with that?" or "I noticed the parser isn't showing you attacking the add at all, and the add is wiping us. Are you not noticing the add, or is my parser messing up?" or "Okay, the parser shows that you only have about 95% accuracy, so you should probably boost your Acc some."

Since you love real world analogies so much, when people want certain drugs to not be restricted by law because they're not really harmful, the onus is on them to prove that they're not really harmful. They're the ones trying to change a law with their argument, so it's their job to prove their argument. So it's your job to prove that they won't be proven completely right and that rescinding their policy won't result in an increase in people being called out and an increase in harassment reports.

If I were in a position to be even remotely able to prove it, I would. From where I'm standing, I would need the following information:

1) How many active PC users are there?
2) How many of them routinely parse?
3) How many of them say they would parse if parsing were okay?
4) How many tickets does SE get related to parsing?
5) How many tickets does SE get about harassment unrelated to parsing?
6) How many active PS3/PS4 players are there?
7) Assumption: How many people would change their behavior to a harassive one if parsing were okay?
8) Assumption: What percentage of harassment incidents go unreported?

I can't possibly get any of that information (aside from points 7 and 8) without breaking several laws in the process. I need to know how many active PC users there are and how many actively parse so that I can know what percentage of active parsers get reported for harassment related to parsing and what percentage of harassment that makes. Then I need to know how many new parsers would be added when an official parser became available so that I could assess how many people newly able (or willing, in the PC cases) to parse I could expect to harass people. Finally, I would need to make assumptions about behaviour change and about unreported cases. The former to try to more accurately assess the potential increase in workload, and the latter to try to more accurately assess the actual community the game has developed.

Needless to say, I have none of that information and can't get it without petitioning SE for numbers I don't think they'd be willing to share. Meanwhile SE has 1, 4, 5, and 6. They could get, if they wanted, 2 and 3. Either side would have to assume 7 and 8.

[NekoGenesis]

I'm not entirely seeing the problem here - so far there's been two arguments why parsers should not be implemented.

1. They may be abused by assholes who will name and shame you by dropping your 'X' DPS in party chat for all the world to see.

You can report them for harassment, depending obviously on how they say it. If they say something akin to "lol Neko your DPS is mcshit I was pulling that in ilvl 70 gear uninstall the game and go kill urself" then yep, sending a ticket. If they're like "Neko, you're doing less than half the DPS of the other DPS, can you please concentrate more on your rotation or look up a guide before re-attempting the fight?" then that, to me, is alright. However, it seems like the second sentence is scaring all of the DPS players on this sub-forum from having their inability being called out in any way, when Healers and Tanks get criticism (constructive or otherwise) straight off the bat. You failed to tank swap in Bismarck Ex? People will call you out on it. You can't keep up with the outgoing damage from Atma-Linga in Ravana Ex? You will get called out on it. You do sub 500 DPS up to ph 2 in Bismarck Ex? Nope can't call you out on it, because lolparsers i repot u huehuehue.

In short, report the assholes and get them suspended/banned. Because a parser is there doesn't mean that you have to act like a dick. The GMs will sort out what constitutes harassment and also decide if the reportee was just being unnecessarily butthurt. It's their job.

2. People will start randomly asking for SS of your individual parsers.

This would not be a problem with group parsers, but rather if they implement individual parsers (because no-one else would have any idea of what you're pulling except for you and those already using ACT). I have to admit I would react like someone who posted before, and instantly vote-kick a person in DF who goes around screaming for SSs of personal parsers or AFK and who starts trying to boot people unless they post their numbers up in a random DF PUG (majority rules is a wonderful thing). However, if it is in PF, I do not see why they are not entitled to post their expectation of what DPS they want the DPS in their group to bring to the table.

I don't even care if they put "need 1100+ DPS for Ramuh Pony Farm post SS." It's their PF, their rules. Don't like it? Don't join and go make your own. The people who don't like it, and refuse to make their own party that doesn't have such bleeding-edge DPS requirements are generally looking to get carried and are upset they're being excluded because they can't reach the high levels of play that these groups require of them. Note that this last opinion is only applicable to PFs, as you have the right to select who goes into your PF and who doesn't make the cut. DFs are an entirely different story, and you should approach it knowing that you get a mixed bag of people who may or may not conform to your own standards.

[Aiselia]

So people with medical issues are automatically incapable of improving.

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.

Because it requires Eso gear to get Eso, right?

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

Bringing up hypothetical data that might prove your point and then asserting that your point is proven is not reasonable.

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.

That's not their current stance at all.

This avoids my question. Please answer the question.

They're asserting that the players should be afraid of harassment without ever establishing that harassment is a product of parsing.

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.

Do you not understand hyperbole?

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

Premaking all my parties is giving up on the enterprise of using DF. So that is actually what you're advocating.

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.

The analogy works just fine

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.

Use the option of not trusting anybody outside my inner circle.

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.

Your point seems to be "People suck, so stop playing with them."

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

Again, not doing yourself any favors with this argument.

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.

None of this argument has been limited to the current state of the game.

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

sometimes in story mode, even.

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.

even though you can be harassed ... even though it's been used

Nobody won victories for being able to carry a gun by saying "Well, I could just stab someone with my pen, so what are you going to do, ban pens?" Nobody won victories for drug legalization by saying "Well, I could just overdose on Tylenol, what are you going to do, ban Tylenol?" So why do people think that they'll win victories for parsers by saying "Well, I could just harass someone for wearing purple clothes, are you going to ban purple dyes?"

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

But you already have evidence that someone might rob your house.

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

I notice that you keep trying to make "call someone out on their DPS numbers" synonymous with "harass someone for their DPS."

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

because without being able to tell people just what their DPS is numerically, you aren't going to get very far helping people.

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.

Discussing those numbers does not automatically constitute harassment, though.

Of course it doesn't. But that doesn't matter. What matters is the people for whom it would constitute harassment, and the people who would harass. You seem to not be grasping this, so I'll phrase it specifically as clear as I can: 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.

Gathering evidence for a hypothesis is an unrealistic expectation.

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.

We're asking

Some are. Not all. Again, this is an incredibly important distinction that you keep glossing over. If SE is worried about some, not all, then it's irrelevant if not all would do it as long as some would.

If I were in a position to be even remotely able to prove it, I would.

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

Meanwhile SE has 1, 4, 5, and 6.

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.

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.

[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?