Final Fantasy XIV and a Culture of Enabling

[Awha]

But again, the raw data doesn't make a run bad.

The data would show a run where a player is new to the game and tanking and is having problems and is being open to criticism and suggestions and is in general improving as a bad run. But that to me is a good run. Because a player increased their skill level. Yes, the run may have been longer than average, but a player was learning their roll.

It just strikes me as odd as why the OP is so focused on getting people to agree to the severity of the problem rather than getting people to focus on finding possible solutions.

Depends on the person, what makes a bad run is subjective. If someone finds playing with a subpar player as an inconvenience then that is enough for them to personally view the run as a bad run. As you that info alone is not enough to call it a bad run, but for someone like myself to me it makes it a bad run.

I do agree that the focusing on the severity is moot, but I could see where they are getting their 50% metric from it just depends on what one as a person finds as problematic.

As a data driven player I am in the camp that numbers are the only thing I care about, I just go by the numbers I really do not care about the reason as to why the numbers are a certain way. I do the same with my own numbers, I beat myself up over what others would view as little mistakes.

[Seera1024]

Depends on the person, what makes a bad run is subjective. If someone finds playing with a subpar player as an inconvenience then that is enough for them to personally view the run as a bad run.

Exactly.

Hence the data by itself not making a run bad or not.

And since it is so subjective, arguing on the severity of the problem is not going to end with people agreeing on the severity of it.

Again pointing to my confusion over why OP so interested in arguing severity of problem rather than discussing solutions and workarounds until solutions can be implemented and have time to work.

[Awha]

Exactly.

Hence the data by itself not making a run bad or not.

And since it is so subjective, arguing on the severity of the problem is not going to end with people agreeing on the severity of it.

Again pointing to my confusion over why OP so interested in arguing severity of problem rather than discussing solutions and workarounds until solutions can be implemented and have time to work.

The data is not subjective, how one uses it can be seen as subjective. For me as mentioned in my edit, the data alone is enough for me to make a judgement call on whether a run is good or bad. I do not care about the personality of the player I just care about how they perform.

I agree that it is moot, but I understand where they are coming from, and I understand the new to focus on severity because it is easier to try to get another party to take responsibility in this case SE instead of just being viewed as an asshole and removing the players in question from ones DF when they see them.

[Seera1024]

The data is not subjective, how one uses it can be seen as subjective.

I had some bad wording.

It refers to whether a run is bad or not. Not the data.

[Awha]

I had some bad wording.

It refers to whether a run is bad or not. Not the data.

Nah I got what you meant, what I am saying for someone the data alone can be what is used to determine the quality of a run. It just does not seem the case for your personally. Which is far, but data alone can be used to make the judgement on whether a run is good or bad. Though I agree we should focus on solutions, but the reality is we all know SE will not be doing anything regarding the issue all we can do is try take control over our own parties this is why I say people should remove players they view as problematic for any reason.

[Caurcas]

Solutions have been proffered time and time again in thos thread. The two most common, and best, would be to raise the bar of challenge in normal content or baking in more hard checks when leveling or learning a job.

[Seera1024]

Solutions have been proffered time and time again in thos thread. The two most common, and best, would be to raise the bar of challenge in normal content or baking in more hard checks when leveling or learning a job.

I never said solutions weren't being offered in the thread.

Just that you seemed more focused on arguing about the severity of the problem.

Class quests could probably do more about making sure players know how to use their skills in relation to the role they have in group content. Can't really say for sure as I've yet to level up a healer or a tank. And the DPS ones do have mechanics to do sometimes, though I've rarely seen a DPS check in them if at all.

Could probably pretty easily add in a check to require players to have their job stone equipped past say level 35 (giving players some room for putting the class quest into where they want to take a break from the MSQ).

MSQ and other such quests can't do that as well due to the content needing to be made so that all roles can complete it.

As for difficulty increases, they would have to be careful as to how steep they made the learning curve. Guild Wars 2 suffered greatly when they made the jump in difficulty between base game and their first expansion pack too great. When a player base is used to things being at a specific difficulty level, the difficulty level is hard to change without changing slowly or alienating players. And if you alienate too many at one time, that can spell disaster.

A good start would be to update the Hall of the Novice and maybe add in a Hall of the Intermediate.