Parsers add replayability for casual players

[Mikey_R]

Instead of just arguing about why the other side's opinion is wrong, why doesn't everyone just try to come up with a solution that takes the other side's concerns into account?

But, that is exactly what is happening. People who are against parsers make the claim it will cause more' toxicity', limit their party choices etc. Of which it has been stated, if you are harassed, you can report as it is covered by the ToS, as for party choices, there are more than one, or you can make your own. Their main issue doesn't seem to be with a parser itself, however, what it will do to the community as a whole.

As for the ones who advocate for parsers, they make the claim it will help people improve at the game, as it provides some sort of metric to compare yourself to. They see it as a way the community can better themselves, it could help people see that, yes, they are ready to tackle extreme/savage content etc. It has been suggested that the parses can be kept private, so that only you can see your own and noone else can, so it really is a personal measure of how you are doing.

The problem then lies in the middle. Two completely opposite views, one where they think the community will go downhill, the other which can only see it get better. What compromise can realistically be obtained with such opposed views?

In my opinion, Extreme/Savage/Ultimates should have some sort of measure for a DPS and my reasoning is simple. You know when a tank or healer has messed up, if they do, the issue can easily be identified and fixed. However, there is no easy measure of how well a DPS is doing. You hit the hard enrage and wiped, but who is holding you back, who is not pulling their weight. It seems silly to have expectations of tanks and healers and yet have no easy way to identify the problem with damage.

[Awha]

That's because you have no filter. If anything has become clear to me about you across two topics about parsers/community conduct now.. it's that you have no filter. I wouldn't even say that's a bad thing personally.. some people are like that, my own younger sister is like that.

You will boot people for any reason, first timer, annoying you, for giggles (by your own admission in the other thread) simply because you can, because you think it may pass. Not really considering whether you should.

It's similar to how you seem to regard the matter of 'being honest', you think upfront, blunt honesty is always the way to go. except when you can silent votekick Most other people recognize that no, honesty is not always the best route, sometimes you recognize that 'okay, this is something I'd better not say this way' or 'this I better keep to myself'.

To be fair I did state that I wish I could be honest and give the reason for removal but alas given the nature of the ToS as you mentioned yes I have to weigh out my options.

Though generally this has more so to do with me dealing with a private company. Generally my behavior and comments made in public may not make me many allies or friends in the real world but generally my actions cannot also be seen inherently harmful. For the most part intent of the action matters IRL. Sure if I was overly biggoited or wished genuine harm on a person IRL I would face issues.

Though unlike in game despite I think many people wishing this was the case being an asshole is not illegal and even assholes have rights unlike say in a place where the rules are established by their own standards.

Kinda just goes to my point I bare no ill will towards those that feel a certain way about my actions nor do I expect them to want to play along aisle me. If someone rules me in the context of the game for being me who am I to judge even if I do not like the action they are free to make that choice.

In the end truly do believe if people were more upfront and honest with one another we would have less issues since we would know exactly where we stand with people. Though I also know this is not 100% possible and practicable.

Though as mentioned in the other thread and in this one other one why does the reason for the removal inherently matter? It is a choice many in the group have to make. End of the day it appears it largely is either based around self-preservation which I get. If you wish to enjoy the game for years to come my stance is not a great one to take. This much I get and I agree with generally and understand why SE may not feel it is their best interest to make them legal so to speak. Though this view does not frame the action as right or wrong for the most part.

My issue stems from the other side where the action is wrong because it does not like up with their own collective standard.

Since at core isn't holding people to an abratiery standard what I am doing yet it is wrong in my context but right in another? Granted I never been a huge fan of Utilitarianism and that is what this view largely seems based off of.

I have said multiple times going into DF or roulette with a parse running is just asking for punishment. Parsers will not change the enviorment in Roulette or DF, but if people want to torture themselves who I am to stop them.

Sadly my friends also warned me against it. Unfortunately I cannot unseen the horrors. Though I also refuse to willfully deal with said horrors. :P Thankfully SE has provided us with tools that do limit said interactions.

This is useful. Though I'd argue we ought to look at it a few different ways.

I'd agree, for instance, that expecting run times to fall within 20% of their ideal is, in an average party, overly demanding. But that also wouldn't account for context. Is the run taking 20 minutes because the tank is dying when the heal starts to idle? Because one or more DPS cannot, for the life of them, dodge the boss mechanics and ends up at less than half their would-be throughput? Is the run taking 25 minutes because the tank will only pull only one mob at a time? Is it taking that long because a DPS refuses to AoE? Or, is it just a minimally geared party? Given all those varying contexts possible, a fixed expectation would indeed seem arbitrary.

That said, and I apologize if I misread the trajectory of your prior posts and those to whom you were responding, my point was aimed more at quality of play itself, and the timers that convey those standards (e.g., Hard enrages in Extreme and Savage content). Similar to the dungeon clear times, if looked at as some fixed number (even if on X job at Y gear), quality of play would again seem arbitrary, but generally those numbers instead come from somewhere (e.g., some level of familiarity and effort at the minimal or likely gear levels) that connects back to making a form of player engagement pertinent and rewarding.




Citation needed.



I cannot say on principle that even unreasonable levels of exclusion (i.e., those greatly in excess, through gear or prior achievement progress, etc., of what adjusts for risk of some factor of failure, such as skill, latency, etc.) are inherently toxic, but it will often be self-defeating. If fearmongering occludes a place for skill or merit, for instance, such as by requiring so much gear that one is carried through relative performance that would be far below standard, it both

1. forms a very different identity for the game, likely not in the direction most of the people initially attempting to improve their content enjoyment created those parameters for, and
2. will likely create a trench in progression paths for which the devs will have no remedy, since it would be almost entirely a community-formed issue.

That is of course assuming, perhaps hyperbolically, that the practices spread or otherwise standardize. I'll let your own experiences judge whether that is a typical phenomenon. I can only offer that exclusive practices have seemingly tended to exponentiate slightly (or, to "trend") in each of the MMOs I've played thus far (Neverwinter, Ragnorak Online, TERA, Blade & Soul, WoW, and, ofc, XIV).

I apologize if this has seemed to give off a tone that exclusion is inherently bad. Often what we call "exclusion" is in fact just the presence of a greater number of (thereby more finely tuned/crafted) difficulty levels and differences in intended audience. Many of the things we in one breath call fundamentals of good design (such as by letting the player determine to what extent they want to engage in/with X, Y, or Z) can be turned about into derogatory meta-descriptors in the next. But, that can lead into a great many rabbit-holes (especially regarding intrinsic vs. extrinsic reward and consequent tenuous goal intersections), so let me oversimplify for now with a hackneyed, "Your actions have (subtle, longterm) consequences (that may run opposite to the principles your actions followed)."

I do agree. My general issue is with those that frame my actions as inherently toxic because it goes against their own perceived standard that they feel others should be held to.

I have already acknowledged that my stance is not a tenable one for long term longevity of a game if they wish to maintain a certain image or feel so to speak.

Though for the most part my stance has very little to do with outward helping others. Sure I wish I could openly tell hey X your are doing Y when it is possible to do Z for great effect. Here is the data. What they choose do with that data and information is on them, that is as far as my efforts would go to help someone. Overall it is not my place to tell another person how they should play just do not expect me to just sit back and accept it because it is the "proper" thing to do.

I though I understand and generally agree with what you are saying just the core I really do not care what impact my actions have on the game, SE, or others for the most part.

[DPZ2]

Which goes back to my first response to you. Why are you entitled to join their party? This isn't DF where you're randomly slotted into a party nor are players putting these restrictions preventing you from accessing the content. You're perfectly capable of making your own PF without "at least 30 ilvls above the requirement" stipulation.

It's about the mentality of the players, which then gets applied to roulettes in this game and in these forums (which I've been reading from certain 'pro-parser' players here a lot ... complaining about level 77 tanks, for example)

[Rinhi]

It's about the mentality of the players, which then gets applied to roulettes in this game and in these forums (which I've been reading from certain 'pro-parser' players here a lot ... complaining about level 77 tanks, for example)

what's wrong with expecting that a level 77 tank, who has spent 10+ hours on leveling said class, to play their class at a decent level?

[DPZ2]

what's wrong with expecting that a level 77 tank, who has spent 10+ hours on leveling said class, to play their class at a decent level?

Define 'decent level' without referring to a parser.

You can't have it both ways. Either a parser is only used for weeding out end-game players, or it is used for weeding out players you'll 'tolerate' in non-end-game roulette.

[RushRiviera]

But, that is exactly what is happening. People who are against parsers make the claim it will cause more' toxicity', limit their party choices etc. Of which it has been stated, if you are harassed, you can report as it is covered by the ToS, as for party choices, there are more than one, or you can make your own. Their main issue doesn't seem to be with a parser itself, however, what it will do to the community as a whole.

I said "why doesn't everyone just try to come up with a solution that takes the other side's concerns into account?"... "if you are harassed, you can report" does not take into account their concern that they will get harassed. This really isn't hard to understand.

The dev teams main concern is also harassment, and I'm pretty sure they are well aware that they built the function to report people into their own game, so I don't think that's a great solution you have there as the dev team clearly doesn't want the harassment happening in the first place.

So, as I said, come up with an idea that avoids the main concern of harassment.

[DPZ2]

So, as I said, come up with an idea that avoids the main concern of harassment.

Yup. Certain posters here appear to believe that a month of harassment from people kinda like them (going by their constant complaints) to people who, somehow, 'deserve it', will encourage SE to give in to their demands.

The damage has already been done.

[Awha]

Define 'decent level' without referring to a parser.

You can't have it both ways. Either a parser is only used for weeding out end-game players, or it is used for weeding out players you'll 'tolerate' in non-end-game roulette.

You say that like it is a bad thing. Wanting to only play with those you can tolerate.

[Mikey_R]

So, as I said, come up with an idea that avoids the main concern of harassment.

It has been suggested, personal parsers. Only you can see your own and you cannot see anyone else's. You cannot harass someone if you don't know their parse after all.

Things have been suggested for pretty much everything to cover the anti-parser's concerns, however, they keep coming back to harassment.

Even if people do not want a solid hard number, it has been suggested that a rank could be shown at the end of a duty for your personally that only you can see to give an indication of how well you performed but that gets thrown back saying, 'people will ask for proof of good play before you can join', whilst failing to realise, 1. That is how it currently is. Those high ilevel PFs are to weed out the ones likely to try and get a carry; 2. Join another party, or make your own. But again, people seem hesitant to do that as well.

This is why people come to the conclusion that, people just do not want to see how they are performing. The do not want to see that they are potentially being a hinderance to the group and so would rather remain ignorant than face the fact they are the ones holding the group back. They can then claim potential for harassment and the cycle continues. Unless I am missing something here with my admittedly biased view, there has always been compromise on the part of the pro-parsers however, no budging on the anti-parsers, which makes coming to a compromise impossible.

[Awha]

It has been suggested, personal parsers. Only you can see your own and you cannot see anyone else's. You cannot harass someone if you don't know their parse after all.

Things have been suggested for pretty much everything to cover the anti-parser's concerns, however, they keep coming back to harassment.

Even if people do not want a solid hard number, it has been suggested that a rank could be shown at the end of a duty for your personally that only you can see to give an indication of how well you performed but that gets thrown back saying, 'people will ask for proof of good play before you can join', whilst failing to realise, 1. That is how it currently is. Those high ilevel PFs are to weed out the ones likely to try and get a carry; 2. Join another party, or make your own. But again, people seem hesitant to do that as well.

This is why people come to the conclusion that, people just do not want to see how they are performing. The do not want to see that they are potentially being a hinderance to the group and so would rather remain ignorant than face the fact they are the ones holding the group back. They can then claim potential for harassment and the cycle continues. Unless I am missing something here with my admittedly biased view, there has always been compromise on the part of the pro-parsers however, no budging on the anti-parsers, which makes coming to a compromise impossible.

As you said it is impossible to compromise when the issue we are trying to form a compromise largely boils down to potential harassment is an issue. The reality is no solution can be made either would water down the metric to the point where it will not matter and or be used as a metric to cause potential harassment.

Unless they made the system that just have a letter grade at the end to avoid potential harassment / exclusion their would have to be only one grade and 100% of all players would be able to get it. Or it would lead to issues. Even if we just copied the same structure as fates the gold silver bronze that could still lead to potential harassment.

How in good faith can one come up with a compromise when the issue we have is based around a potential harm.

In short I agree with ya 100%