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.
Which you couldn't do if you keep getting kicked for having low DPS.enough to grind Fractal
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?Either the mere potential for abuse is sufficient grounds to not implement something, or it isn't.
No it isn't.Arguing against hyporbole is arguing semantics.
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.I would take it in context and try to determine if you're being literal.
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.And everyone else is suffering for the minority.
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.So accountability would have to come from a tracker of some sort to remember the bad people from prior PFs.
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.Because the response as typed makes no sense.
Then current examples suffice.It's the state the game is still in.
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.You really think that Ravana is the hardest content in the game?
And some will think that digging for numbers just makes you a bigger jerk.Some people will listen to numbers.
Then it's a good thing for them that they don't have any accountability to you when choosing what they put in! \o/At this point I'd re-assess if they showed their work.
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.Or they can at least explain their reasoning.
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.You won't get everyone to answer
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.That's kinda the problem I'm getting at, here.
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.
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 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.