How would an optional, official parser be toxic?

[TaranTatsuuchi]

Ya'll heard of parsing in Pagos, now get ready for some next level parsing of less than high end content.

Next up, parsing leveling roulette.

Pretty sure people already do that...

[Bourne_Endeavor]

It's apparently not enough SE turns a blind eye to people using ACT as it is, but the abuse is against ToS. You can't say you know parsing isn't impacting how people behave and treat others. Do you have a metric for this? Do you really think people will say they are kicking someone for bad DPS, knowing it's against ToS to use a third party program like ACT?

:| "Giving people metrics to judge each other, that will never affect people being jerks to each other."
*Watches every other facet of life prove this incorrect.*

If parsing impacted people to extent insinuated on the forums, you would see mass kicking and widespread complaints about it. And yet in the past year you could count the number of threads bringing up such a dilemma on a single hand. Parse abuse is the same boogeyman nonsense "raider elitism" and other such buzzwords are. You're generalizing the actions of a few.

Don't be obtuse. Judging people and harassment are not the same thing. I can judge you on the context of your post here and now. Is that harassment? If not, then please don't put words in my mouth. Nevertheless, if we're going to fault the tool. Why hasn't Vote Abandon been removed from the game? People spam it incessantly following a couple wipes, especially in 24 mans just to avoid taking a penalty. I can kick you for literally any reason, including "I don't like your glamour." I suppose we need to remove the Vote Kick option, hmm? These argument seems to entirely omit the fact harassment remains against the ToS. If I tell you to uninstall your game, I can be reported. It makes little difference whether I cite parse numbers first. Therefore, unless SE abruptly stops taking harassment seriously, the people who do act like jerks will end up banned.

But yes, let's assume adding an official parse or simply allowing ACT to be discussed openly will magically turn even half the community into raging assholes.

Ya'll heard of parsing in Pagos, now get ready for some next level parsing of less than high end content.

Next up, parsing leveling roulette.

People already do both. You can even upload dungeon parses to FFlogs nowadays. No one cares, though it would be nice to show DPS why aoeing large pulls is better than single targeting, but I digress.

[TaiyoShikasu]

If I can get a WHM in Aetherochemical Research Facility that doesn't use Holy during large pulls, you won't be able to explain to DPS why AOE abilities on a million mobs is a good thing.

Pretty sure people already do that...

And the absurdity of it makes my toes curl.

[JunseiKei]

If parsing impacted people to extent insinuated on the forums, you would see mass kicking and widespread complaints about it. And yet in the past year you could count the number of threads bringing up such a dilemma on a single hand. Parse abuse is the same boogeyman nonsense "raider elitism" and other such buzzwords are. You're generalizing the actions of a few.

Last I checked, boogeymen aren't real. However, players kicking others over numbers is history - it happened - it's what made SE clarify that third party programs also included parsers.

I didn't put words in your mouth, nor do I care to address a strawman argument.

And? Some people are jerks. Welcome to life. A parse or "gatekeeper" isn't going to change that evident by the fact despite parsing technically being against the tos, people are still jerks. Therefore, the parse isn't impacting it. People with a shitty attitude will have one regardless. And people who are otherwise decent won't magically become jerks if ACT were suddenly allowed.

You made a statement without fact. You said people will be jerks and parsing won't impact that. I want to know how you know this and what did you do to come to this conclusion.

[RiyahArp]

If parsing impacted people to extent insinuated on the forums, you would see mass kicking and widespread complaints about it.

the problem would be the one two punch of parsers and making casual content harder, which a lot of pro-parser people lump together. Casual content being trivial is what keeps parsers from having an impact outside of hard raids. Keep in mind too, if they make parsers legal, eventually they will design content based on people having them, i.e. much more frequent dps checks.

[Shurrikhan]

Last I checked, boogeymen aren't real. However, players kicking others over numbers is history - it happened - it's what made SE clarify that third party programs also included parsers.

And? What does players being kicked, over numbers or otherwise, inherently have to do with toxicity?

What defines a toxic use of parsers to you? Or inversely, at what point does obfuscation of relevant information prevent toxicity, in your opinion? And, at what point specifically is a kick or exclusivity toxic?

Thus far we have a handful of actual accounts of people being kicked "due to numbers".

We have far more of people being kicked because they tanked too quickly or slowly, or, separately, because they suggested that their healer could maybe spend less than 80% of the time idling. We've had people kicked for asking their DPS + tank premade to stand in fewer AoEs.

I've even seen, personally, more times in which someone has been kicked so that a party of two can leave a dungeon without penalty that there are actual accounts of people being, to their mind, unfairly kicked over their numbers. I'd vote against the seemingly trollish kick, be outvoted, and then the remaining two would vanish instantly. Over the course of leveling all but AST to 70, that's happened 7 or 8 times. I've both been the lucky and unlucky of the two premade members to (not) be kicked by a couple of German-queued friends on a NA servers, whose friend quickly joined thereafter for the daily bonus. Now, those are blatant system abuses. I think we can agree that they fall well into or even beyond toxic behavior. But, where does "toxic" begin? Is it when I dare to assert my preferences through words rather than action? Is it fine if I, as a tank, refuse to pull more than the smallest possible number of mobs at a time -- so long as I do so silently -- but not if I suggest that we could pull more if players would use their AoEs? Just, draw your line in the sand. Please.

You've not proposed that these situations, too, are or are not toxic. But if we're going to discuss toxicity that will arrive from conflicts in intent or playstyle--which, information obscured or not all these things come down to--it seems to omit the entire category to which something belongs, even if only in interest of discovering the unique intent towards and results in toxic behavior that parsing may or may trigger. I cannot personally find that uniqueness. I see, if one wishes to categorize it separately, a relative small subset of complaints, dwarfed by other subsets in count yet inversely more notorious. I see a difference in medium, at most. And just I don't consider assault by steak knife fundamentally different in intent or injury than assault by pocket knife, even if the latter can be more easily concealed, I don't see discrimination or abuse (which I would define as action harmful to another's experience without reasonable cause and/or with the intent of personal gain at that others expense via a method outside the ToA) by the fact alone that a more advanced tool was used in causing that injury.

You made a statement without fact. You said people will be jerks and parsing won't impact that. I want to know how you know this and what did you do to come to this conclusion.

I cannot speak on Bourne's behalf, and thus it would be inefficient to retailor a response in his or her place, but if you really are asking for understanding, posts with those very details are already scattered throughout this thread.

[Legion88]

the problem would be the one two punch of parsers and making casual content harder, which a lot of pro-parser people lump together. Casual content being trivial is what keeps parsers from having an impact outside of hard raids. Keep in mind too, if they make parsers legal, eventually they will design content based on people having them, i.e. much more frequent dps checks.

We already have a DPS check in ever second dungeon and more.
You just don't notice him because he is balanced for the min ilvl and in general the average casual player exceeds this ilvl.

[JunseiKei]

And? What does players being kicked, over numbers or otherwise, inherently have to do with toxicity?

What defines a toxic use of parsers to you? Or inversely, at what point does obfuscation of relevant information prevent toxicity, in your opinion? And, at what point specifically is a kick or exclusivity toxic?

Thus far we have a handful of actual accounts of people being kicked "due to numbers".

We have far more of people being kicked because they tanked too quickly or slowly, or, separately, because they suggested that their healer could maybe spend less than 80% of the time idling. We've had people kicked for asking their DPS + tank premade to stand in fewer AoEs.

You've not proposed that these, too, are or are not toxic. But if we're going to discuss toxicity that will arrive from conflicts in intent or playstyle--which, information obscured or not all these things come down to--it seems to omit the entire category to which something belongs, even if only in interest of discovering the unique intent towards and results in toxic behavior that parsing may or may trigger. I cannot find that uniqueness. I see, if one wishes to categorize it separately, a relative small subset of complaints, dwarfed by other subsets in count yet inversely more notorious.


I cannot speak on Bourne's behalf, and thus it would be inefficient to retailor a response in his or her place, but if you really are asking for understanding, posts with those very details are already scattered throughout this thread.

*Shakes head.*

It has little to do with what I think is toxic. The developers said they wouldn't implement for their own reasons. People are always going to be jerks and the developers think parsers will give jerks more incentive to treat people poorly. What anyone thinks in this thread is irrelevant.

[Shurrikhan]

Pretty sure people already do that...

You say that like it's a bad thing...

The hope is that one learns their job, minus the 70 ability's integration into their rotation and priorities, by the time they hit 70. Why should a learning tool be excluded, then, from the vast majority of that learning process.

Because it makes no sense to exclude people in match-made leveling roulettes? True, true, it doesn't. Hmm. One might even figure that's... not a parser's use except in such tightly tuned fights as where developing poor (enrage-insufficient) in-context muscle memory would cause further stress for the party later on or when trialing members for explicitly exclusive statics?

[Shurrikhan]

*Shakes head.*

It has little to do with what I think is toxic. The developers said they wouldn't implement for their own reasons. People are always going to be jerks and the developers think parsers will give jerks more incentive to treat people poorly. What anyone thinks in this thread is irrelevant.

So you see your presence here solely as a PSA?

Even if one may have good reason to believe that, like certain other aspects of the game, the above stance lacks comprehensive thought or is in some way errant, it is worthless to discuss such things, even when that falls well within the parameters of these forums' purpose?

This thread is not titled "Is XIV likely to see an official parser?" The question, if one were to interpolate liberally, is whether it should. And the direct question... is the name of the thread.

I get the realist angle. I do. But you're applying your fixation to a question to which it is irrelevant.