Parsers add replayability for casual players

[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.

[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.

[ZedxKayn]

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.

I don't see how that's an answer. Tanking is very easy and straightforward so much that's it's almost "you either do it right, or you don't", where's the issue in expecting a nearly lv80 tank to be able to grab aggro, keep their 1-2 combo going, mitigate and run far enough to grab more than 1 pack of mobs?

[Shurrikhan]

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.

Sequencing defensives. Using their oGCD attacks. Comboing correctly. Not spinning mobs constantly/unnecessarily. Pulling according to what the group is capable of.

...How is a parser even remotely relevant to the complaints typically held about "level 77 tanks"?

Though I would argue it's not the tool itself that causes the divide but how people approach multiplayer content.

But, but... we can't shoot (unwritten) messages, only the messenger.

[Rinhi]

Define 'decent level' without referring to a parser..

let's see:

• do something more than single pull
  use their AOE combo when it's more than 3 enemies
  use their defensive cooldowns properly
  especially this late into the class: pull wall to wall unless they're undergeared

enough times I've seen a tank lose aggro to the DPS or even me when I was leveling my healers, enough times I've seen them use all their defensive cooldowns at the same time, enough times I've seen them activate it when their health went low, but not once before (this was a mentor btw), I've seen enough tanks throw a fit and get upset because everyone but them wanted to pull more than 1 darn pack, even when you tell them that pulling more is EASIER than pulling 1 pack at a time and thus wasting all their cooldowns (if they even use them lol) and everyone else's cooldowns because they have some kind of aversion for more than 3 enemies
hell, I've seen tanks lose aggro in the last nier raid, which has a minimum ilvl of 495: how are you that far into the game - and that geared up - if you can't even do the bare minimum?!
https://twitter.com/ffxivstruggle/st...31667387650050

[DPZ2]

let's see:]

So, you can definitely observe a tank in leveling content without requiring a parser.

Remind me again why you need a parser?

[ZedxKayn]

So, you can definitely observe a tank in leveling content without requiring a parser.

Remind me again why you need a parser?

Times and times over the arguments of why we want parsers have been presented, you're free to skim through the pages, repeating ourselves is tiring.

[DPZ2]

Times and times over the arguments of why we want parsers have been presented, you're free to skim through the pages, repeating ourselves is tiring.

Not really. Time and time again, I read arguments citing 'bad players' and frustration at [level 77 tanks] that (somehow?) make parsers ok?


Here's the thing. Using parsers, official or not, is entirely up to the player. You want to use a non-official parser (and are on a PC), good on you. Nothing stopping you from utilizing tools at your disposal to do so.

You're on a PS4/PS5 you say? I've heard of this great set of internet resources that does all sorts of 'best rotations' work. Why not start with that?


You want to force a company that has already declined to incorporate an official parser in game? Your arguments had better be spot on and to-the-point, not the mish-mash of complaints and anecdotes I've been reading.

How, exactly, would having an in-game parser benefit those who you would label as a 'bad player' if they don't use it? I've never played Lords of Vermillion. It's in-game, and I don't use it. There are plenty of features in-game that players ignore. Why would this be different?

Unless, of course, you attempt to shame your so-called 'bad players'. And we all know that's the primary reason you won't get a parser.

You cannot demand a player use a parser to 'git gud' ... it's against the ToS.

You want to present a solid argument for in-game parser? Don't use a thread title like "Parsers add replayability for casual players', because that argument is patent nonsense. Don't use complaints about bad players. Don't use anecdotes involving leveling players. Lay out, in detail, who could benefit, who would not. And, for the sake of all, do not use the 'git gud' argument, or disparage a player you've run across who could definitely benefit from the use of said parser.

I don't expect to see a cogent thread title with polite people trying to make a solid argument rather than the tactics used so far for the simple reason that proponents can't keep themselves from arguing by anecdote and disparagement. The moment the term 'bad player' is written at the keyboard, the argument will be lost.

[ZedxKayn]

Not really. Time and time again, I read arguments citing 'bad players' and frustration at [level 77 tanks] that (somehow?) make parsers ok?


Here's the thing. Using parsers, official or not, is entirely up to the player. You want to use a non-official parser (and are on a PC), good on you. Nothing stopping you from utilizing tools at your disposal to do so.

You're on a PS4/PS5 you say? I've heard of this great set of internet resources that does all sorts of 'best rotations' work. Why not start with that?


You want to force a company that has already declined to incorporate an official parser in game? Your arguments had better be spot on and to-the-point, not the mish-mash of complaints and anecdotes I've been reading.

How, exactly, would having an in-game parser benefit those who you would label as a 'bad player' if they don't use it? I've never played Lords of Vermillion. It's in-game, and I don't use it. There are plenty of features in-game that players ignore. Why would this be different?

Unless, of course, you attempt to shame your so-called 'bad players'. And we all know that's the primary reason you won't get a parser.

You cannot demand a player use a parser to 'git gud' ... it's against the ToS.

You want to present a solid argument for in-game parser? Don't use a thread title like "Parsers add replayability for casual players', because that argument is patent nonsense. Don't use complaints about bad players. Don't use anecdotes involving leveling players. Lay out, in detail, who could benefit, who would not. And, for the sake of all, do not use the 'git gud' argument, or disparage a player you've run across who could definitely benefit from the use of said parser.

I don't expect to see a cogent thread title with polite people trying to make a solid argument rather than the tactics used so far for the simple reason that proponents can't keep themselves from arguing by anecdote and disparagement. The moment the term 'bad player' is written at the keyboard, the argument will be lost.

Thanks for pretty much admitting you either didn't take the time to read the arguments or chose to only acknowledge those you can pick on, lol

[Katie_Kitty]

Not really. Time and time again, I read arguments citing 'bad players' and frustration at [level 77 tanks] that (somehow?) make parsers ok?
.

Well, no, frustration doesn't make parsers okay. Parsers are okay by default, there is literally nothing wrong with them. Even the people who oppose them admit there's nothing wrong with them. The issue is player behavior, not parsing.