Parsers add replayability for casual players

[Awha]

The people who want that discourse regarding performance are already having it. Handing parsers to everyone in casual content will only result in that discourse being forced on people who don't want it, in situations that don't need it.

Parsers have caused problems in other games, but this game specifically has one of the largest collections of insecure people I've ever seen. I've honestly never seen a game where people get so worked up over something like a no DPS Healer making a 15 minute easy as piss expert roulette take 18 minutes. This forum specifically is like a shrine to people having mini meltdowns over the most 'who the hell cares' trivial crap. I don't see how adding official parsers to this would be anything short of a disaster.

That is the thing at least from my from my view if you are part of the group your performance by default should be open to criticism. I find having data to back up claims when it comes to talking about ones performance is extremely helpful and helps keep the discourse honest and transparent. Though I do understand why some would be against such a thing or view it as a means of being intolerant.

As you said sure this game does have a large insecure base I will grant that. Though I will say by in large that insecurity is based around this fear of being held accountable by a group standard. Though I get nothing can or will be done and this is why I just silently remove such people from my groups. In truth I wish I could be more transparent and say you were removed for x y and a but sadly that is not the case.

Though I will grant it would be a disaster towards those that wish to hide fly under the radar or hide behind the thin vale of well the content was cleared.

In truth you do not know how many times I have dps ask me why I do not give them cards as an ast and Instead give majority to the tank. I wish I could say well the tank is doing more damage. Though alas they will live in the blissful ignorance that they just ran into a scrub healer that did not know how to play. Which is fine and I get it that people play for different reasons and have different goals. I am just use fan of being transparent across the board. Never liked hiding behind white lies or loopholes but I will do what I must to enjoy my experience within FFXIV.

[Goji1639]

That is the thing at least from my from my view if you are part of the group your performance by default should be open to criticism. I find having data to back up claims when it comes to talking about ones performance is extremely helpful and helps keep the discourse honest and transparent. Though I do understand why some would be against such a thing or view it as a means of being intolerant.

As you said sure this game does have a large insecure base I will grant that. Though I will say by in large that insecurity is based around this fear of being held accountable by a group standard. Though I get nothing can or will be done and this is why I just silently remove such people from my groups. In truth I wish I could be more transparent and say you were removed for x y and a but sadly that is not the case.

Though I will grant it would be a disaster towards those that wish to hide fly under the radar or hide behind the thin vale of well the content was cleared.

In truth you do not know how many times I have dps ask me why I do not give them cards as an ast and Instead give majority to the tank. I wish I could say well the tank is doing more damage. Though alas they will live in the blissful ignorance that they just ran into a scrub healer that did not know how to play.

It seems like you just want to be able to call people out in situations where it isn't really needed or wanted. That's honest of you, but it's also being contentious purely for the sake of being contentious; and that's a little petty. It's something that I feel you want to do mainly to make yourself feel better, but you try to convince yourself that it's all in the name of 'transparent discourse.'

People becoming confrontational with new or casual players just to appease their own frustrations, or stroke their egos, is exactly why SE won't allow parsers, though. The fact that you feel the need to gratify yourself at their expense is kind of why I agree with SE's position, despite the fact that I do enjoy parsers.

[Awha]

It seems like you just want to be able to call people out in situations where it isn't really needed or wanted. That's honest of you, but it's also being contentious purely for the sake of being contentious; and that's a little petty. It's something that I feel you want to do mainly to make yourself feel better, but you try to convince yourself that it's all in the name of 'transparent discourse.'

People becoming confrontational with new or casual players just to appease their own frustrations, or stroke their egos, is exactly why SE won't allow parsers, though. The fact that you feel the need to gratify yourself at their expense is kind of why I agree with SE's position, despite the fact that I do enjoy parsers.

Please understand it has nothing with wanting to make myself feel better, it is not an aspect of validation I seek. By in large this why for the most part I generally queue with friends or people I know. Since I often just view random strangers as nothing more then NPCs that happen to be slightly better on average then trusts.

As said I know full well this will not happen and I already have my own means ingame to deal with such things I find to be an inconvenience. I am an extremely black and white person I personally rather know where I stand with someone and I also like to give people a clear cut reason as to why I do something at the very least when possible.

I generally just do not like playing with people that play appear to not be trying for whatever reason it may be. Though that point aside I do understand how my silent kicks also do not do much to alleviate the problems I have with the current skill level of the game on average. This is why I would love to be able to show people in game where they are going wrong with numbers. In short as many have said in other threads I should treat people as I would like to be treated and this is how I would like to be treated that if removed I would love to know the reason why. Just like if someone does not like me or something I do wish to know the reason sure I cannot change it but still I do like that level of transparency when it comes to people. I get this is different by most people standards since many operate on have nothing nice to say do not say anything at all. Me I rather hear the not so nice things then have the person bottle it up. This is why irl I tell people exactly how I feel about them, in game I no longer do that cause I already have a strike on my account for such level of honestly.

Here is the other thing I feel when it comes to needs or wants it is all subjective. Sure do I need to try and remove the small pull tank? Nah, hell it probably would be faster to just stick it out then to remove them. Though for me I find small pulls boring as shit so if I run into a tank that does it I will try to remove them at the 5 min mark and if it passes cool, if it does not then I have a call to make stay or leave. More often in the rare occasion they do not pass I just leave. Though I am also not happy I have to hide behind such a loophole and wish I could just be forthright though I value my own account over staying consistent with my own value system. Sure you may feel it is about making myself feel better though for lack of better words I really do not care what a stranger thinks that I place slightly above a trust. This is also why I do not feel what people should not feel the action of being removed is a personal one cause I know when I remove someone it is often just a product of me not wanting to deal with whatever trait that stranger may have. So taking it personally is silly since it just allows the person to live rent free when in the grand scheme to do think the ones that did the removal or said the hurtful thing forgot about the person or only mention the person as a passing joke.

Though yes I do wish I could provide data to back up my stance for removing someone.

Do not get me wrong I do understand where SE comes from I do not agree with it but I do get from the sense of fostering a healthy community my stance is not productive to that ends in this community or this era of gamers.

[VelKallor]

That is the thing at least from my from my view if you are part of the group your performance by default should be open to criticism

If by "criticism" you mean public shaming, name calling, abuse, screamed epithets, no thanks. Thats how WOW uses it, thats how it will be used here, it WILL be abused and misused. Badly.

I defy you to prove me wrong.

Though I do understand why some would be against such a thing or view it as a means of being intolerant.

The less than stellar example of how it is abused in WOW has already shown us just how badly it can be used to publically humiliate others.

As you said sure this game does have a large insecure base I will grant that

If by insecure you mean behaviour that that person would NEVER DARE say to a persons face, you mean. I have eight years of experience, others have decades of valid cases where a parser has been used as a weapon by cowards who feel they can use the anonymity of the internet to behave in a manner that outside the game would result in an immediate arrest.

In a workplace? That kind of behaviour almost always results in termination and immediate ejection..example, had a manager who was prone to fits of rage, and went off his nut on some small matter. In less than three minutes he was fired and escorted FORCIBLY out of the building.

A lot of this predicates that people wont listen to advice or you cant tel them how to play..I counter that by saying I have mentored and helped a lot of players..then again, it has a lot to do with how you approach them in the first place. Might be a good place to start.

Though I will say by in large that insecurity is based around this fear of being held accountable by a group standard

What you call insecurity I call a persons right to not be subjected to harassment.

[Awha]

If by "criticism" you mean public shaming, name calling, abuse, screamed epithets, no thanks. Thats how WOW uses it, thats how it will be used here, it WILL be abused and misused. Badly.

I defy you to prove me wrong.



The less than stellar example of how it is abused in WOW has already shown us just how badly it can be used to publically humiliate others.



If by insecure you mean behaviour that that person would NEVER DARE say to a persons face, you mean. I have eight years of experience, others have decades of valid cases where a parser has been used as a weapon by cowards who feel they can use the anonymity of the internet to behave in a manner that outside the game would result in an immediate arrest.



What you call insecurity I call a persons right to not be subjected to harassment.

To be fair I cannot prove you wrong cause to do that SE would have to make parsing openly allowed across the board. Which we all know will never happen, I will say I wish they would release the numbers regarding how many actionable parsing related harassment tickets they get just for curiosity sake. Though I have admitted it will be misused that will not change, though as you can use your many years of experience in MMO's I can also use my own and I am sorry but I honestly do think if we weighed every negative experience against the positive or neutral experiences with parsing the latter would be overall larger. I do understand that the negative experiences one faces tend to having a more lasting impact on a person though I do largely think that people in general are overselling how bad parsing has made other games like WoW. I was part of the community and I played niche class and I was a horrible player at the start, and I can honestly say most my experiences with parsing fall under the neutral category. I had my bad experiences, one of which that lead me down the path to get into hardcore raiding.

I am sorry I do honestly think if people really looked deep down and recall all their time playing games with parsing generally I am willing to bet that for the most part their experiences would also fall under the neutral category. One thing I will say on a personal level I have never said anything to a person in a video game I would not say to another person in real life, and I have said some pretty messed up shit. Though that is just the the type of person I am I really do not have much of a filter and for the most part rather let people know exactly where they stand with me. Though I do get where you are coming from as I said my position leads to what most people would view as intolerant. I just do not think telling someone they are doing less damage then a tank or healer should be seen as harassment if we have objective data point to show it. Though I do get why people are against such a thing.

They dont.

Arthars got banned for it.

Did not get banned for parsing, he got banned for his comments leading to a witch hunt against another player, even though the player in question did egg on Arthars while in stream and in their group. SE does turn a blind eye to streamers that use ACT. I do not recall which one it was but I do believe in a tweet where they congratulated a world first kill ACT was visible in the screen shot they tweeted. Though I also do not agree with this stance, I do wish SE did not have this gray area when it comes to enforcement of the ToS.

[WoW]

Did not get banned for parsing, he got banned for his comments leading to a witch hunt against another player, even though the player in question did egg on Arthars while in stream and in their group. SE does turn a blind eye to streamers that use ACT. I do not recall which one it was but I do believe in a tweet where they congratulated a world first kill ACT was visible in the screen shot they tweeted.

Don't bother arguing with them, fellow hair acquaintance. They are blinded by casual rage and emotion. Arthars after the ban was still using ACT but hid the names of the players when pugging. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that ACT wasn't the cause of the ban.

[VelKallor]

Arthars after the ban was still using ACT but hid the names of the players when pugging

Then he learned his lesson. Good.

[ForteNightshade]

If by "criticism" you mean public shaming, name calling, abuse, screamed epithets, no thanks. Thats how WOW uses it, thats how it will be used here, it WILL be abused and misused. Badly.

I defy you to prove me wrong.

Challenge accepted.

Everything you cited remains against the ToS. Therefore, any player doing such should find themselves quickly banned if GMs do their jobs. I won't deny the initial month or so would be a "rough patch" as morons take things to unnecessary extremes. However, you could make the argument giving these people the rope to hang themselves only benefits the community since we'd be ridding the community of a toxic player. Furthermore, people this prone to toxicity will find other ways to get around the rules. Not to mention, both the strict "don't tell" policy and lack of a parse ironically leads to toxic casual behavior. Many players know they can't be called out or criticised for lackluster damage so they'll take advantage of that. Bit of a double standard this is viewed as okay while the mere idea of publicly allowing parsers is seem as opening Pandora's box.

We also need to define "harassment". Some people take being told their damage is low or that due to said low damage they're being repped as harassment. Which it simply isn't.

[linayar]

Everything you cited remains against the ToS. Therefore, any player doing such should find themselves quickly banned if GMs do their jobs. I won't deny the initial month or so would be a "rough patch" as morons take things to unnecessary extremes. However, you could make the argument giving these people the rope to hang themselves only benefits the community since we'd be ridding the community of a toxic player. Furthermore, people this prone to toxicity will find other ways to get around the rules.

Just because the rules and enforcement won't change doesn't mean SE would want to embolden players to break the rules by officially endorsing parser.

Not to mention, both the strict "don't tell" policy and lack of a parse ironically leads to toxic casual behavior. Many players know they can't be called out or criticised for lackluster damage so they'll take advantage of that. Bit of a double standard this is viewed as okay while the mere idea of publicly allowing parsers is seem as opening Pandora's box.

SE defines obstruction of play as nuisance behavior, which can still result in penalty even if it is not classified as harassment.

If "lackluster damage" is a means used to deliberately obstruct play, then you can try reporting it. Otherwise, there is no double standard because making a rule based on judging people's performance is just silly. If the content allows for even "lackluster damage" to clear, then it is not a problem with the player.

We also need to define "harassment". Some people take being told their damage is low or that due to said low damage they're being repped as harassment. Which it simply isn't.

It depends on how you say it. If you're insulting someone for their performance, then it is harassment as defined by SE.

[DPZ2]

Everything you cited remains against the ToS. Therefore, any player doing such should find themselves quickly banned if GMs do their jobs. I won't deny the initial month or so would be a "rough patch"... We also need to define "harassment". Some people take being told their damage is low or that due to said low damage they're being repped as harassment. Which it simply isn't.

So, because it's against the ToS, you are willing to subject a massive amount of players to abuse for a month (hah!) in order to get a parser ?

And then you qualify telling people about their 'low damage' as "It simply isn't [harassment]" ... Perhaps, in your eyes. Not in mine. Go ahead and "gently" abuse, and see how long the ToS permanent ban takes to come crashing down on you.