In competition with myself: a request for PERSONAL parsers

[Krotoan]

Two thoughts here...

1. People who want to be jerks are going to be jerks regardless of how much ammo they do or don't have. If they're in a party that isn't passing a DPS check and they have no parser, they'll just vote to kick the DPS playing the class perceived to be the weakest.

2. I'd be more on board with the whole "don't let people have ammo to be toxic" idea if tanks and healers weren't already subjected to this exact sort of scrutiny all the time. Adding some means of judging a DPS' contribution would actually be leveling the playing field to be equal to what tanks and healers already experience.

1. True, jerks are jerks and will be no matter what we do, but denying them one more thing to superficially bitch about is a good thing.

2. I tank too. I don't want people ALSO bitching about the DPS I'm doing/not doing in addition to how I don't use cooldowns and/or should pull more stuff. I imagine a parser would also be able to tell you how much the Healer is overhealing or not contributing to DPS, that sounds like extra unfun they don't need. Saying that those classes suffer so DPS should too isn't a great argument. You'd be adding grief to everyone's life if this couldn't be turned off.


I think it's very important to provide the functionality everyone is asking for without auto-opting in everyone.

[RichardButte]

I think it's very important to provide the functionality everyone is asking for without auto-opting in everyone.

Fair enough, and yeah, all I want is a tool to self-improve and I definitely don't feel as though I have that right now.

Yoshi has gone on record to say he does not want a personal parser added to the game either because he knows (emphasis on knows) that people will crack it to allow for monitoring of others, too.

Between this and the revelation that FFXIV's database server is actually 300 abacuses taped together, I'm wondering how the game is still running at all...

Though what he's describing is the 3rd party parsers which already exist so I'm not sure what his problem is. The same rule still applies. Someone calls you out on your DPS? Report them because they have information they shouldn't.

[Shurrikhan]

1. True, jerks are jerks and will be no matter what we do, but denying them one more thing to superficially bitch about is a good thing.

2. I tank too. I don't want people ALSO bitching about the DPS I'm doing/not doing in addition to how I don't use cooldowns and/or should pull more stuff. I imagine a parser would also be able to tell you how much the Healer is overhealing or not contributing to DPS, that sounds like extra unfun they don't need. Saying that those classes suffer so DPS should too isn't a great argument. You'd be adding grief to everyone's life if this couldn't be turned off.


I think it's very important to provide the functionality everyone is asking for without auto-opting in everyone.

1. True, but denying jerks actual ammo does not deny them something to bitch about. They're perfectly happy firing blanks. In most cases, jerks can do more to make your life miserable through ambiguity and supposition thereupon than with proof to the same effect.

2. Why shouldn't they, though? A bit more leniency ought to be given, since they have more pressing concerns to worry about when learning a fight or managing its more complex moments, but there's no less reason for a tank or healer to optimize, given the time, than for a DPS to do so. In the end this mostly comes down to how apparent the parser can make its benchmarking. Just as relative potency provides a more reliable metric than true damage, and support damage to be counted to its contributor rather than its executor -- or at least in large portion -- better shows actual contributions, one could technically even go the step further to look at theoretical relative potency possible over the seconds of combat in play and give a performance percentile accordingly -- assuming those estimates could be made variably as to favor the goals apparent. You could even go a step further from there and look at performance percentile accordant to movements between stationary-requiring casts or forcibly instant casts and other actions per minute, mitigation performance, etc., and mark other throughputs in an accordant rating color based on expectation in that category given the performance in the others (doing more elsewhere, then a 82% performance in DPS is already at the highest possible rank for that tank). There are plenty of possibilities here.

I'll agree though that anything with an opt-in option needs to default to opt-out. I don't particularly believe that there even needs to be an opt-out option, nor that parsers need to be personal only, but so long as you're going to have the option, a deactivated default behavior is just a given. Outside of a trial, you don't call something truly "free" so long as you cancel it before a massive subscription bill; you don't call something like this no-risk if you need to figure out how to opt out in the first place.

Drawing from experience from other games with embedded official or essentially mandatory parsers, in a party where every player has a parser, bad dps call-outs just for the sake of drawing attention to those numbers is met with the same sigh of perceived stupidity as noting that people mostly speak in words. The numbers are there for everyone. Thus that step is skipped in favor of the advice or decision stages, and if neither is available then people just don't bother. It's the possibility that someone might not be parsing that gives the excuse for implicative pointing. Once it's clear no one needs that information, that whole subtle form of epeening -- except in jest, usually between friends -- becomes a silly redundancy and is almost always avoided. And the funny thing is, I've yet to see toxicity in any of those cases where it wouldn't have occured more frequently in a game without mandatory parsers, mostly because the only time it does occur is when someone is clearly unfit for the content they are attempting (more often due to being in poor form at the time or were misinformed about the likely gear requirements than a general lack of mechanical knowledge or skill), and such cases occur far less often when people have benchmarking information available to them at all times.