Parsers add replayability for casual players

[TaleraRistain]

Asking for a SCH to summon their fairy or a DRG to use their DoT and to not have a mental breakdown when asked to try to do something is not being hardcore. Christ. That's what is bothering the oh so toxic pro-parser elitists. No one is gonna care as long as a modicum of mindfulness is put in multiplayer content.

That's not related to parsing. And both raider and casual in this thread have said that just not doing anything isn't okay. But the focus of the thread was on parsing and incremental changes in numbers and how that is supposed to improve the game for casual players.

It doesn't, because casual players don't focus on that. It just invites toxicity and negativity. And my point about respecting casual content is that things like numbers aren't as important in casual content. A clear can still happen by the game design because as others have said, the devs expect the strong players will help the weak. And many of the casual mindset are happy to do exactly that, because they understand there needs to be more leeway for different playstyles in the less hardcore content.

So as I said, casuals need to respect that harder content requires a focused mentality and playstyle. But raiders also need to respect that casual content requires a more flexible mentality and playstyle. Right now, as another poster mentioned, the raider side is trying to gatekeep and dictate who can even play the game at all, and that's just not right. There's room for everyone in this game.

[Caurcas]

There is nothing to respect about casual content. Never has been, and I ain't going to start now.

[TaleraRistain]

I guess that just brings to question, what is an arbitrary standard?

Let's not pretend the numbers (e.g., boss HP and enrage timers) aren't coming from somewhere. Do we call each player playing at ~80% of what their character, if perfectly mapped out, could do in that fight under identical conditions "arbitrary"?
If the enrage timer were set to whatever clear time play-testers managed with mild experience over the given spec but decent enough understanding of many other factors of "good play" in the average of a few trial runs, is that, too, "arbitrary"?

Similarly, if someone, in having found several more ways by which to engage with their job -- say, by learning how to make use of a Yaten-Enpi extension for rotational sync, how to swap in an early Yuki rotationally to have Yaten-Enpi available for forced melee downtime, when to rotate in a Yuki-Hagakure vs. a Gekko/Kasha-Hagakure, when to remain in scripted Haga rotation vs. switch to "overclocked" or "ad-hoc" rotation -- and like that content is initially tuned for a given tier to have stakes by which that engagement felt pertinent and rewarding, is it "arbitrary" that they would want to see that tuning principle remain?

Well let's look at one that's commonly brought up relating to more casual content: time spent.

I've seen all over these forums that people expect a dungeon to take no more than 15 minutes. If it goes to even something like 18, they feel that is too much.

But where in the game design is that a requirement? That's what makes it arbitrary. They're not using the time allowed by the game and in this content you usually don't run into an enrage timer. It's an arbitrary standard created by a segment of the community. There's no statements by the devs or anything in their design that says the content can't be completed outside that standard. Just the expectations of some people they visit upon people in a situation where they let the game randomly match them up with others who may have differing playstyles.

One of the things people need to do when they put their fate into the hands of the random matching system is not be so unbendable on those expectations. Because PUG situations can be very different. If they aren't willing or able to play with less than perfect players, the game does give them the option of going in premade.

[SieyaM]

In game parsers are never going to happen and there is good reason since in nearly all cases that a parser is available players tend to be abusive with it. A grade or scoring system wouldn't be a terrible idea though and they could offer rewards for clearing things with a certain grade. For instance get max grade in all ARR dungeons and get a title and maybe glam item or Triad card or something. Who knows possibilities are endless.

[JRat]

... These players who get kicked should understand why they are and not be upset with it but we all know how players are.


....

I kinda get where you are coming from. We shouldn't be dictating anothers gameplay.
But, how are they supposed to understand anything if you are not allowed to talk to them and suggest improvements?

[TaleraRistain]

Just because you have 90 minutes in a dungeon, doesn't mean it should take 90 minutes. I suspect there is a large time to account for potential disconnects, waiting for new party members, time to explain boss mechanics etc.

I would also argue that an expectation HAS been set by the game and that expectation is set by the trusts. Trust dungeons normally take about 30 minutes with the trusts doing variable damage in relation to how skilled the player is. If the player is doing less than expected, the trusts do more damage to compensate, if the player is doing better, then the trusts do less (they probably have some sot of minimum, which is where they expect them to be, then increase damage to compensate).

With this expectation that a dungeon should take about 30 minutes, it should be unreasonable to expect runs to take longer than this (issues not withstanding). Trusts were designed not to replace humans after all. So, you can argue, if your dungeon run takes longer than a trust dungeon, something is wrong and people are performing worse than a bot designed by SE to be worse than a player.

But people lose it if a dungeon takes more than 10 or 15 minutes, even those from ShB where there is the Trust metric to go by. So we're not even using the metric that SE is giving us.

Plus there are instances where you can hit the 90 (or just not clear). The Vault, for instance, was a huge healer check and was completely unforgiving to mistakes when it first came out. I went in with all friends, not even randoms, and we didn't clear our first time.

It's perfectly fine to have a desire to complete a dungeon in X time. But the issue is visiting that expectation on people randomly matched with you. Sometimes the dice don't roll that way and some flexibility is required. A clear is still possible. It's just not going to follow any sort of optimal mindset.

[TaleraRistain]

First of all, no one is asking to have parsers in low level dungeons.

This is literally what the OP asked for. They said they don't do Extremes or Savage. They want parsers to gauge their performance in normal content.

[DPZ2]

The idea people would suddenly start blacklisting you for poor gear is pointless fearmongering. Unless your gear is so bad, you can barely live an AoE.

Not 'poor gear'. Not having gear that is at least 30 iLevels above that required for the content.

Meh, it was a thing. You apparently never lived through those days in WoW.

[Caurcas]

If only the anti parser crowd put the same amount of energy into learning their job and fights as they do performing mental gymnastics in order to fearmonger about parsers, well the game would have the greatest of communities.

[Awha]

Not 'poor gear'. Not having gear that is at least 30 iLevels above that required for the content.

Meh, it was a thing. You apparently never lived through those days in WoW.

Though even in WoW if people wish to have their group be 30 ilvls higher what exactly is the issue if that is the desire of the group?

I mean in DF I sometimes already boot first time players in certain dungeons if they are playing crital roles cause I rather not deal with it. Sure it may be rude and a asshole response but end of the day if the group wants a certain standard I do not see why it is such a large issue.

The topic isn't black or white though.

Some people want parsers and don't care how toxic the game becomes after it.

Some people do not want parsers at all and think that adding them will definitely make the game completely toxic the moment they are allowed.

Some people on both sides of the issue realize that there is a risk to adding parsers and what impact it will have on this game's community. Will the moderators be able to prune the toxic people out of the game before they do enough damage to the reputation? Perception is reality and if too many people voice their bad experiences due to parsers, it could give a bad perception, even if those experiences make up a vast minority of runs.

As for me, I'm fine with their current stance with parsers because I'm not sure the benefit of parsers is worth the risk mentioned above given the current position on parsers.

I have mentied all of that in one of my earlier posts though in reality this issue is still rather black and white. Parsing is a tool the perception does not change that. To bar access to a tool because of a poor experiences which from just a seer logical perspective the negative experiences would fall into the minority when weighed against the natural or postive encounters across the board for everyone who has had experience with them. Sure you get some outliers but to make a policy around a perception of negative experience largely boils down to as I said in my other well we cannot confirm or deny the impact so let us just cater to the possible negative outcome.

If people were for the most part being honest majority of the complaints against having an open stance for them largely comes down to feelings though.

It is just a tool, run into an asshole report black list and move on. Why is prevention is so important when it comes to this issue. I mean I get why an open stance is not good for image of the game and does run the risk of alienating people especially those that use this game as the heaven away from WoW.