So, can we just ban damage meters already.

[Ronduwil]

Again, how is that harassment? If the person asks for their numbers, they lose the right to be offended by what they see, if I'm being honest.

Again, the harassment is in sending the numbers to the entire chat. That includes the one guy who asked for them and 7-23 players who didn't ask for them. I'm 99% certain that the guy who asked for the logs isn't the one who reported.

[Forever_Learning]

Im largely against parses due to the mentality they create. Tanks and healers judged on their DPS as opposed to how they play their main roles, while people complain dancer is a bad job because parsers dont show the impact that non-damage actions can contribute.

When I originally posted this, I wasn't referring to how tanks and healers play in this game.

I'm referring to how it impacts people's perception of those roles.

At it's most extreme, some people would argue that there are NO separate roles, everyone is a DPS, and some roles have extra functions like defensive CDs or heals.

I agree that it's important for tanks to mitigate and DPS, and for healers to heal and DPS, but I am concerned that there's a growing mentality that only the DPS they did matter.

Meaning, some people ignore if the heals were good or if the mitagation was good and judge a tank or healer strictly on the DPS they produced.

For example, I agree that a healer's DPS is often related to the party they are with. Now, imagine a scenario where the group is eating mechanics, so the healer has to heal to keep everyone alive, and afterwards, they complain to the healer about the low DPS produced. I'm concerned that this attitude is fostered and reinforced via parsers.

For example, there was a youtube video where all of the jobs were ranked via a tier list, and it became clear that it was entirely based on their DPS parse.

The video has 50% down votes, and the authors themselves even pinned the following comment (of a larger comment):

>Umm, gonna be blunt this is a very badly done video.

>1. Power (to me) does not equal DPS/HPS. To me power suggests an overall power level, this includes damage, support, debuffs and buffs. Since this is a purely numbers list and does not account for any >support or utility you should have titled the video "DPS/HPS Ranking" instead.

Often there are people who only consider DPS when considering the value of a job, and I think that parsers contribute to that mentality.

Another example occurred this week in the Monday with Mr. Happy video.

Someone asked a question about balance, in particular, asking dancer vs. monk, dragoon, and black mage. Basically, talking about how far behind Dancer was in terms of DPS.

I agree with Mr. Happy's response:

Most of the time when people have discussions about FFlogs, I find it to be very narrow minded . . . there are a lot of positive that come out of logs . . . but the way the information is used is unconstrued . . . taking things at face value, comparing jobs between roles, without actually digging a little bit deeper . . . it's kinda unfortunate that FFlogs has become that and there's this culture behind it that doesn't really understand how the tool is meant to be used, but it's kinda used as a D measuring content, you know, it's super disappointing to me cause it's a tool that could be so much more useful, but it's just used for kinda the worst things to be honest, you know.

[Valkyrie_Lenneth]

Coming from WoW, I find this point of view hilariously refreshing. There are tons of thread wars in WoW over whether 25-man raids should be accessible through the WoW equivalent of duty finder (Raid Finder/LFR). The consensus among the elitists there is that widely accessible 25-man content breeds bad players who get used to being carried and should therefore be limited exclusively to pre-made groups. Personally, I think that raids available through duty finder should have no more than 10 people. Any more than that, and it's tough to maintain accountability. The problem is not that people aren't learning how to do mechanics and expecting to be carried. The problem is that 4% of the players aren't learning the mechanics, and odds are that one of those guys will be in your group every time when you're running with 24 random people.

But you see, it's not a group of 24. It's 3 groups of 8, which each party dealing with its own mechanics, spread into 3 parts of the arena generally, so as to not impact the other parties.

[Barraind]

There's a reason why min ilevel exists if not they why even bother having something so arbitrary?

Minimum ilvl exists because those are ilvls where you're expected to not be dead weight.

The first boss of each raid tier is generally set at 10 ilvl below crafted/normal raid gear at the same tier, and the last fight in each tier is set at that tier's normal raid/crafted ilvl.

If you're in a coordinated group, who isnt going to have the +1 ilvl/piece from current tier limited tomestones before entering savage the first time, you're NEVER going to have minimum Ilvl across every player, because you'll already be 5-10 ilvl higher than the minimum before you zone in t the first two, and you'll have picked up ~5-6 or ~9-10 ilvl from the drops you get in early floors for the later floors.

If you ARENT in a coordinated group, you're still not going into those fights at minimum ilvl, and will most likely be doing them with notably higher ilvl the first time you clear them.

[HyoMinPark]

Again, the harassment is in sending the numbers to the entire chat. That includes the one guy who asked for them and 7-23 players who didn't ask for them. I'm 99% certain that the guy who asked for the logs isn't the one who reported.

If only the number of the person who asked is posted, how is that harassment? No one else’s numbers are posted. Are they going to feel harassed by another’s performance? Generally, only the number of the player who requests the number is posted. Rarely are the numbers of everyone laid out chat.

Person A: Was anyone parsing? How did I do?
Person B: You did [number].

That is how these exchanges usually occur when they do happen. So, again: is Person C/D/E/F/G/H going to be offended by Person A’s numbers? No. The people who report exchanges like this do so because of the “omg parser bad” mentality.

[Callinon]

Again, the harassment is in sending the numbers to the entire chat. That includes the one guy who asked for them and 7-23 players who didn't ask for them. I'm 99% certain that the guy who asked for the logs isn't the one who reported.

You're aware tells can't be sent while in a duty right? Like, at all?

[Melichoir]

If only the number of the person who asked is posted, how is that harassment? No one else’s numbers are posted. Are they going to feel harassed by another’s performance? Generally, only the number of the player who requests the number is posted. Rarely are the numbers of everyone laid out chat.

Person A: Was anyone parsing? How did I do?
Person B: You did [number].

That is how these exchanges usually occur when they do happen. So, again: is Person C/D/E/F/G/H going to be offended by Person A’s numbers? No. The people who report exchanges like this do so because of the “omg parser bad” mentality.

The issue, unfortunately, becomes when player C starts thinking "If Player B knows Player As numbers, then they know mine. And I did not give them permission for that/Theyre secretly judging me and any negativity I receive from them is because of the parser".

[Daibunnie]

Again, the harassment is in sending the numbers to the entire chat. That includes the one guy who asked for them and 7-23 players who didn't ask for them. I'm 99% certain that the guy who asked for the logs isn't the one who reported.

Imagine being offended over your party being able to see how much you're contributing to the raid that you have to report someone for "harassment." In normal content, most people don't even parse, but it's very easy to tell when someone is slacking.

[Saintly]

More like "afraid of no longer getting carried". When I try to join static and they tell me my DPS isn't good enough for a clear, that's an objective, measurable, neutral fact. I can then decide to either try to improve or to accept that I won't be doing savage. The only person that is afraid of that scenario is the person that was still hoping of doing savage while knowing they are not good enough.
Just bc 99% of the game is a participation medal doesn't mean the final 1% which is endgame is as well. The game just does a bad job at communicating it, so people still feel entitled to keep getting rewarded for subpar play.

The most underrated reply in the whole topic, Royal nailed it.

Whe worst part is that people do not only expect to get carried at Sav, they do exactly the same at Ex.
And since we are not allowed to post proof of such players cause their fragile feelings will get hurt, ill turn my attention to SE and ask:

Why don't you "lock" the Ex/Sav content behind a tutorial at the very least?
Something like an obstacle course with 1HKO mechs that players can attend up to X times per week.

Will it fix everything? Of course not.
Would it filter out people who wouldn't pass Titan or even Lev without getting carried? Possibly.

[Barraind]

Why don't you "lock" the Ex/Sav content behind a tutorial at the very least?

I 'd be perfectly fine with a stone/sky/sea trial that required pulling at least a significant % of the necessary damage in order to flag the player as savage/ex'able