Parsers add replayability for casual players

[Awha]

If you have such specific standards for groups then you need to be using the PF where you can stipulate those kinds of things, not the DF. The DF is for you to be matched with other players at random, not for you to play at some power trip kicking players you deem unfit to run with you.

Power trip? At the core removing someone for what the groups deems to be an inconvenience or not worth the effort to deal with is why any removal happens be it an AFK player a new player playing a crital role. They are the same only difference is the reason and the reason or validity of a reason differs from person to person so it becomes a moot point.

So objectively how is my action of removing someone different from another? I am just confused since it requires the voting majority to remove someone from a group. In short if the vote passes why does anything else matter? Are we saying that the individual that was removed should have more say in terms what happens to them in a group just because it is random?

Random or not a group is not obligated to play with another person. Also vote kick is just another tool like PF that can be used to help dictate the experience one wants to have. Why do people seem so against tools.

[ZedxKayn]

Um... that's not actually true (that bit I highlighted in bold), at least in my experience. The #1 problem I've had with other people and parsers is the fact that the vast majority of people who use them specifically stop paying attention to a lot of game mechanics and instead focus on the pretty dps numbers. In fact, I've never known any parser to track literally "all of it".

To me, that's the biggest problem with a parser; it doesn't track everything, which leads to some folks focusing on just specific aspects of gameplay rather than all.

Which makes the following statement also patently false; so long as any tool doesn't account for everything, then there will be discrepancies in how people perceive and then use such a tool. And it's that perspective difference that folks want to avoid having formally introduced into the game since it leads to unpleasant experiences.

Am I missing something? Is there really some magical parser out there that inherently knows FFXIV gameplay and mechanics and is accurately tracking not only the individual abilities but also denoting context of when and where they all need to be used?

Such as?
Movement is tracked, enemy casts are tracked, downtime is tracked, fflogs offers pretty accurate replays

[SieyaM]

Power trip? At the core removing someone for what the groups deems to be an inconvenience or not worth the effort to deal with is why any removal happens be it an AFK player a new player playing a crital role. They are the same only difference is the reason and the reason or validity of a reason differs from person to person so it becomes a moot point.

So objectively how is my action of removing someone different from another? I am just confused since it requires the voting majority to remove someone from a group. In short if the vote passes why does anything else matter? Are we saying that the individual that was removed should have more say in terms what happens to them in a group just because it is random?

Random or not a group is not obligated to play with another person. Also vote kick is just another tool like PF that can be used to help dictate the experience one wants to have. Why do people seem so against tools.

If you and another person queue together then you can coordinate a kick, so it is not as simple as oh it passed so good enough. The other reasons are also reasons, they are demonstrably slowing or preventing progress, where as just being new to a dungeon or "not worth the effort" is arbitrary to your mood alone. Also how do you determine they are not worth the effort to deal with if you are kicking them before any combat has even been initiated? And you are not gambling your account, because the one you are posting on is clearly a decoy, unless you really are a level 60 WAR with no other classes levelled beyond that.

[Shurrikhan]

In fact, I've never known any parser to track literally "all of it".

It is objectively counting any and all throughput.

Mistakes will have a cost to, at minimum, one's own throughput, but how much so is still quantifiably measurable. The exact mistake -- e.g., that I flubbed a combo while you misaligned your CDs -- is irrelevant; how much they actually impacted our performance is all that will ultimately matter.

To me, that's the biggest problem with a parser; it doesn't track everything, which leads to some folks focusing on just specific aspects of gameplay rather than all.

Let's pretend for a moment that this wasn't already specifically regarding questions of whose throughput fell short, such as why a group is failing a dps check, or that such a question is somehow not most directly answered through metrics related to throughput.

You seem to be falling under the misconception that parsers can only measure DPS. ACT may call that satisfactory (though it includes more than that as well, just not via its mini display), as it was made only for those who particularly needed DPS metrics (for raids that are ultimately cleared or failed because of DPS), but that's far from from the limit of parsers.

Percent active time, enemy active time against you (a.k.a., kiting percentile), (de)buff uptime, specific (de)buff's uptime, specific (de)buff's uptime against a focus target, avoidable damage taken, number of instances of avoidable damage taken, vulnerability stacks acquired, deaths, raid time spent rezzing you, healer % uptime spent healing your avoidable damage taken, total mitigation, average percent mitigation, average %HP decrease per strike taken, average %HP decrease per strike taken above a set threshold, damage percentiles by source, incoming damage by source, effective healing done, overhealing done, average overhealing percentile, average overhealing cast as portion of total healing casts, damage dealt to specific targets, overkill percentage, and the like are all displayable in real-time through parsers. Heck, a parser can even run live comparisons between someone else's log over time or the time-charted events therein and one's current, allowing one to compare the actions cast and portions and running sums of damage from, say, the world's best ad-hoc build Samurai player in the exact same Savage raid even as you run it. The boundaries of parsers as a concept are far from barebone or basic.

The only relevant things a parser cannot calculate are those which requires mapping, such as whether one's movement was greater than the minimum distance by which they could have dodged a given AoE; granted, an official/integrated parser actually could do that. (There is no need to account for latency, a player's human response times, etc., separately from matters already tracked as average activity delays on non-casters.) So, what exactly is it that real-time data as a concept is so inherently reductive of?

Heck, look at the way WoW uses their logs: in addition to all we see already on fflogs, you can watch in-time replays of every player's and mob's positions, their health, their mana, their special resources, each cast made or aura/buff/debuff applied, pauseable, rewindable, fastforward-able, seekable, bookmarkable. We obviously don't need to go that far, but let's not pretend a parser is inherently some barebone "DPS box" alone.

[xxmiamorecadenza]

I have admitted to many things on the forum as have many others. If SE took that approach many people on the forums would have ingame strikes against their account and that does not seem very logical.

I use mods, ACT, have removed people from my group for not being a lalafell or a Roe. Did it again let us see what happens. Though do not get me wrong if I do face consequences for my actions I will not complain. Since I understand my actions do have consequences but yeah I am willing to gamble my account.

So I should care about the game and others because I will not understand the answer. Seems weird answer but you are right I do not understand.

You've got that 'idgaf try me' attitude going on over there, Awha.

I dig it.

[Alxyzntlct]

It is objectively counting any and all throughput.

Mistakes will have a cost to, at minimum, one's own throughput, but how much so is still quantifiably measurable. The exact mistake -- e.g., that I flubbed a combo while you misaligned your CDs -- is irrelevant; how much they actually impacted our performance is all that will ultimately matter.


Let's pretend for a moment that this wasn't already specifically regarding questions of whose throughput fell short, such as why a group is failing a dps check, or that such a question is somehow not most directly answered through metrics related to throughput.

You seem to be falling under the misconception that parsers can only measure DPS. ACT may call that satisfactory (though it includes more than that as well, just not via its mini display), as it was made only for those who particularly needed DPS metrics (for raids that are ultimately cleared or failed because of DPS), but that's far from from the limit of parsers.

Percent active time, enemy active time against you (a.k.a., kiting percentile), (de)buff uptime, specific (de)buff's uptime, specific (de)buff's uptime against a focus target, avoidable damage taken, number of instances of avoidable damage taken, vulnerability stacks acquired, deaths, raid time spent rezzing you, healer % uptime spent healing your avoidable damage taken, total mitigation, average percent mitigation, average %HP decrease per strike taken, average %HP decrease per strike taken above a set threshold, damage percentiles by source, incoming damage by source, effective healing done, overhealing done, average overhealing percentile, average overhealing cast as portion of total healing casts, damage dealt to specific targets, overkill percentage, and the like are all displayable in real-time through parsers.

Ah, no, I'm not falling under any misconceptions. I specifically denoted how I usually see others focusing on dps.

I see what you mean though; yes, technically, a parser can track a ton of variables. The problem I'm trying to flag stays the same though; it requires someone to go through that volume of information and parse it out into a usable context, which again, frequently devolves into human perspective. Over-selling the "data purity" of a parser doesn't remove humans from the equation, ultimately.

Either way, I see that the discussion is still moot though...

My statements at the start of this entire still hold true to me:
- I can see how a personal score or gauge could be fun
- I personally feel group or public formal parsers are a step in the wrong direction
- So ultimately, the current implementation seems fine as it is and Dev resources could likely be better spent elsewhere

[Lanadra]

If you and another person queue together then you can coordinate a kick, so it is not as simple as oh it passed so good enough. The other reasons are also reasons, they are demonstrably slowing or preventing progress, where as just being new to a dungeon or "not worth the effort" is arbitrary to your mood alone. Also how do you determine they are not worth the effort to deal with if you are kicking them before any combat has even been initiated? And you are not gambling your account, because the one you are posting on is clearly a decoy, unless you really are a level 60 WAR with no other classes levelled beyond that.

Also worth noting.. that's literally what he does. Has admitted to it in the past, bringing a friend specifically to stack the vote so he can get rid of anyone he don't want around.

[Shurrikhan]

My statements at the start of this entire still hold true to me:
- I can see how a personal score or gauge could be fun
- I personally feel group or public formal parsers are a step in the wrong direction
- So ultimately, the current implementation seems [to me] fine as it is and Dev resources could likely be better spent elsewhere

And (bold added) that's fair. Personally, I feel that the private/personal score is the essential portion, as my main interest is in making a powerful learning tool less exclusive.

Benefits of extending parsers to the group or public level are altogether separate: they mark a change to social dynamics, give opportunities for friendly competition, can socially center learning when people are willing to help, shop-talk, and provide more immediate redress or pertinent discussion when hitting a wall in content.

However, yes, they may also put points of conflict into view; it is up to you whether you wish to blame the glasses for how ugly your view now unarguably is, but personally I can hardly fault parsers for their added clarity, so long as due standards are met to keep the information contextualized (giving a more picture more indicative or gestalt than that provided by raw damage numbers alone).

I'd be happy even just giving a personal parser to PS players, though I do also think stopping there would be a tremendous waste, as it'd deny context and maintain certain paradigms I, personally, feel are far more toxic than what public information would effect. I would rather dispense with the blame games and move on to informed correction directly, if it's even seemingly necessary.

Perhaps you could say that I am naïve in my thinking that we're not typically so belligerent as to go off on each other the moment our blindfolds are removed. I'd offer instead, though, that we already have sufficient excuses, glimpsed from within that limited vision, but merely lack clarity; worse, lacking that clarity, we often want to fill the unknown with what guesswork, however poor or outright feigned, we can utilize, and often in a way more fixated on one's self than typically seen with well-contextualized public information.

Put another way, in the absence of information as public, plain, and incidental, questions of fault often dissolve into a me-or-them sort of false dichotomy. It too often turns to "Is it my fault?" and consequently "It's (one of) them! They're the problem!" as if "they" were somehow collective and/or interchangeable. When you are one among many, even if you happen to have performed the worse, granular "fault" or room for improvement still shows among all others and, assuming you are not so badly underperforming as to show the content an ill fit for you at present, the task thus appears more collective.

[Awha]

If you and another person queue together then you can coordinate a kick, so it is not as simple as oh it passed so good enough. The other reasons are also reasons, they are demonstrably slowing or preventing progress, where as just being new to a dungeon or "not worth the effort" is arbitrary to your mood alone. Also how do you determine they are not worth the effort to deal with if you are kicking them before any combat has even been initiated? And you are not gambling your account, because the one you are posting on is clearly a decoy, unless you really are a level 60 WAR with no other classes levelled beyond that.

I am pretty sure if they wanted they could see what my most played character used associated with this account. So because one queues with a friend their vote should not count? I can see that and I if you want to argue that tge vote system needs to be changed that is fair. Though looking at it from the scope of the current rule set. All that is required for a vote to pass is the majority of the those able to vote agreeing to it so two out of the three.

I have already every reason for removal is arbitrary and depends on the group in question. Thus the reason for removal is a weird standard fo go by cause it differs from everyone is different as we can see here. So only objective standard we can go based off using the current system is did the vote pass.

To vote kick someone you need to wait 5 min aways so what I do is wait the 5 then start the vote. It is not so much about speed just as you said is based around my mood. I have not removed afk players cause at that point in time it did not bother me.

So see why tge reason is kinda moot it varies from person to person. If we have such an issue with removing people then instead of fighting back parsing people should create a thread to get SE to change and take action against improper use of vote kick.

I run into this alot since I am a life long vegan parents raised me vegan. I never understand this mindset of being upset towards people for doing an action the system allows. Do not want people to do something make noise to alter the system to prevent such uses from happening. I have said already tge vote system is not fair but that is also illrelavent. Since fair is also an objective standard. The current vote system does not care if you queue with friends or not a vote is a vote.

If you want to change how it used then get SE to change it.

Also worth noting.. that's literally what he does. Has admitted to it in the past, bringing a friend specifically to stack the vote so he can get rid of anyone he don't want around.

Aye though you say this it should bother me. I get you disapprove with how I use it but the reality is it is moot. Want it changed get SE to alter how group votes count but until SE does something people will keep using the tool in such a way.

I get it though many people like to operate just because you can do something does not mean you should. Though I operate if ya don't want me to do something make it so the pros do not out way the potential cons.

[Lanadra]

Aye though you say this it should bother me. I get you disapprove with how I use it but the reality is it is moot. Want it changed get SE to alter how group votes count but until SE does something people will keep using the tool in such a way.

I get it though many people like to operate just because you can do something does not mean you should. Though I operate if ya don't want me to do something make it so the pros do not out way the potential cons.

I'd rather see an auto-flag system where someone who kicks by the dozens every day gets to have a chat with a GM explaining why such blatant overuse is necessary.