Parsers add replayability for casual players

[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.

[Lanadra]

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.

Going to have to agree here. I may not want to deal with the tool myself even if they add it, but I don't think the tool itself is the problem. The people, as with most things, are.