How would an optional, official parser be toxic?

[KaivaC]

well-thought out response

Okay, that is a fair assessment, one that I hadn't considered. Let me throw a different sort of question, and really, anybody can tag along in it if they desire. Not really trying to turn this into a discussion about me, but I am affected by the lack of a parser. Personally, I don't mind if good or bad logs are uploaded on me - it's something that I can still use. Unfortunately, I feel like a personal parser would be the closest compromise we could hope for. Which would be so much better than nothing. I don't like that the JP playerbase are the ones that, for the most part, determine QoL issues to be addressed by the devs. Suspicion aside, the ToS could still cover harassment over logs - there's no reason to feel pressured by somebody else to provide official parser information. If statics want to know, they could either look up fflogs or do a test run to see if a player is a right fit. At least, that's just how I feel.

[Shurrikhan]

Okay, that is a fair assessment, one that I hadn't considered. Let me throw a different sort of question, and really, anybody can tag along in it if they desire. Not really trying to turn this into a discussion about me, but I am affected by the lack of a parser. Personally, I don't mind if good or bad logs are uploaded on me - it's something that I can still use. Unfortunately, I feel like a personal parser would be the closest compromise we could hope for. Which would be so much better than nothing. I don't like that the JP playerbase are the ones that, for the most part, determine QoL issues to be addressed by the devs. Suspicion aside, the ToS could still cover harassment over logs - there's no reason to feel pressured by somebody else to provide official parser information. If statics want to know, they could either look up fflogs or do a test run to see if a player is a right fit. At least, that's just how I feel.

I'd be fine with automatic online reporting, or even just convenient manual reporting, as I imagine an official means would be (well, if not provided by the XIV team, at least). I just don't like when it's inconvenient to get into, yet others have the ability to report as if... for you... in ways you may not (likely will not) desire. If it's not going to be representative due to count, it ought at least to be evenly preferential.

So, in short, I'd like to see logs publishable through Lodestone, via highly convenient integrated systems, which ought still to tie into pretty much exactly fflogs systems (as it's hard to imagine better detailed readability than what that site provides), perhaps also with toast and link systems ingame.

Honestly, if they actually could take a simplest comprehensive solution approach, rather than forcing counterintuitives into design as usual, I'm less worried about online records than just the useful metrics which aren't merely DPS or HPS within the real-time parsers.

___________________


Many players have suggested a DMC-style letter ranking system and while I disagreed with such at first because I didn't want it to be the limit of parser information, I new feel that such could be a great "at a glance" metric, if well tuned and defined. But, such would be very complicated to craft well. In WoW, such a system would doubtless include mitigation provided--including by interrupt or CC, and perhaps even by holding attention on would-be damage without permitting it (i.e. kiting)--but that's... awfully difficult to calculate.

Alternatively, though, you could just look at the rating for a particular fight, group-wide, and then just provide metrics on a player-by-player basis without judging the individual contributions. Did you slaughter that pull, relative to your ilvl? (Or, both.)