They Should Add An Official Damage Meter With One Condition

[Bobby66]

Obviously going by wether these people are causing harm to other players should be the central thing to care about.

So if someone reports saying x behavior causes them harm it is a valid report? Who determines if an action does cause harm or not? That is the problem with enforcing rules based around a spectrum instead of was x rule broken. Not was x rule broken under y circumstance. I do agree it would be nice if SE just came out and said x mods are approved y mods are not though.

[Semirhage]

So if someone reports saying x behavior causes them harm it is a valid report? Who determines if an action does cause harm or not? That is the problem with enforcing rules based around a spectrum instead of was x rule broken. Not was x rule broken under y circumstance. I do agree it would be nice if SE just came out and said x mods are approved y mods are not though.

Enforcement based on a spectrum doesn't work, but creating rules based on harm in the first place works. If Square wants to ban all mods because they don't control them, then fine. If they want to ban parsers because they have a "possibility of harassment", that's a steaming pile of manure. It's clear the toxic casuals don't give a crap about harm, they've shown it over and over and over again that it's because they have a boiling hatred for any person, real or hypothetical or made of straw in their minds, who dares suggest they could improve.

If you're going to ban parsers as a company, just say it's because your overly bubble-wrapped babied playerbase is too immature to handle being shown their own numbers. It's the actual reason for it, after all.

[Bobby66]

Enforcement based on a spectrum doesn't work, but creating rules based on harm in the first place works. If Square wants to ban all mods because they don't control them, then fine. If they want to ban parsers because they have a "possibility of harassment", that's a steaming pile of manure. It's clear the toxic casuals don't give a crap about harm, they've shown it over and over and over again that it's because they have a boiling hatred for any person, real or hypothetical or made of straw in their minds, who dares suggest they could improve.

If you're going to ban parsers as a company, just say it's because your overly bubble-wrapped babied playerbase is too immature to handle being shown their own numbers. It's the actual reason for it, after all.

Come on we all know Yoshi-P will not come out and say we cannot have parsers because our community is riddled with snowflakes. Taking the stance that parsing is bad due to potential harassment is far easier. Granted it does not help that under the watch of Yoshi-P during some online event a japanese host was harassed for poor performance. I forgot the name of the event but Yoshi-P was not not pleased. Yoshi-P is one of the people that live in the bubble world where parsing is inherently bad.

[Semirhage]

Come on we all know Yoshi-P will not come out and say we cannot have parsers because our community is riddled with snowflakes. Taking the stance that parsing is bad due to potential harassment is far easier. Granted it does not help that under the watch of Yoshi-P during some online event a japanese host was harassed for poor performance. I forgot the name of the event but Yoshi-P was not not pleased. Yoshi-P is one of the people that live in the bubble world where parsing is inherently bad.

It leaves a sour taste in my mouth that YoshiP has watched world first streams with parser overlays blatantly in front of his face, and hasn't objected to them or punished them at all. But THIS time, the snowflakes on 5chan pitched a fit about it, and bans rolled out.

So clearly enforcement is based on whether the casuals decide to get pissed over something that doesn't concern them. I'd rather Square not foster the kind of community where the TOS gets wielded as a cudgel by the least-knowledgeable, most easily offended portion of the playerbase.

[Klytania]

It leaves a sour taste in my mouth that YoshiP has watched world first streams with parser overlays blatantly in front of his face, and hasn't objected to them or punished them at all. But THIS time, the snowflakes on 5chan pitched a fit about it, and bans rolled out.

So clearly enforcement is based on whether the casuals decide to get pissed over something that doesn't concern them. I'd rather Square not foster the kind of community where the TOS gets wielded as a cudgel by the least-knowledgeable, most easily offended portion of the playerbase.

This is exactly right. They have to react if they see a bunch of reports, but they don't actually care

[Shurrikhan]

Lost Ark used as an example again, the game that ranks a person as MVP with dmg and bascially has a damage meter with the % dmg done after the fight.

It also has extradimensional Training Rooms into which one can summon, by pretty finely customizable choice, any number of enemies --ranging from from common mobs to rares to outright bosses-- around which to test one's uptime maximization... complete with an in-game parser.

Honestly, if our SSS were similarly customizable to simulate actual raid environments and much of their cognitive load / intensity, we'd probably have far fewer players who'd feel like a parser is necessary for enrage-based higher-end content.

Now, having a usable-anywhere parser would still be a great and convenient tool to have for casual experimentation and comparing one's performances (better still if instead used nominal relative potency --which isn't so stat and luck-driven-- and could be toggled between Raw, Adjusted, and Raid relative potency per second), but at least the game wouldn't then essentially be blinding its players (as well as they can through regulations enforceable only on streamers) to information given freely in most MMOs in the interest of making its content last longer through artificial difficulty.

Going out of one's way to prevent information access (long before the third-party addons controversy it was those who let others in on how the game's stats actually work who were getting suspensions) is honestly of little difference from outright outlawing guides; you're simply removing the primary means of proving out better/best practices instead of the primary means of sharing those better/best practices (that would otherwise be rightly held suspect if they were denied precise empirical forms of measurement).

[DatPotato]

I don't know why it's a debate... I'm certain the producer meant the call out part of act or the other ones making aoe appears in advance.

not ACT, I mean, if he was so against it why would he add multiple DPS checks as a mechanic.

and do something so when players do something right they get hints at it, all you get from this are numbers, no visual clues about a rotation well done.

heck the game also has a difference between magical damages and physical one and while the animation is a clue in itself, some attacks are magical and you will not expect it

(e.g. bugs using darkness type attack as their attacks and good luck figuring this out without act or a proper meter for tank or heal check)

[ICountFrom0]

Best place to put a damage meter would be to attach it to the "record" feature, and then they just remove the limitation on what missions you can record.

Once it's recorded, a few minutes after, the next playback gets you bars and details and breakdowns.

Should be trivial.

[Yeastyloins]

Best place to put a damage meter would be to attach it to the "record" feature, and then they just remove the limitation on what missions you can record.

Once it's recorded, a few minutes after, the next playback gets you bars and details and breakdowns.

Should be trivial.

That ok for reviewing footage but monitoring damage/healing/damage taken metrics are important while you are actively doing the fight itself to see if there can be improvement in the moment. Your group tries one strat and then tries another strat and see how far they got and whether or not there was an increase in performance.

[Shurrikhan]

Best place to put a damage meter would be to attach it to the "record" feature, and then they just remove the limitation on what missions you can record.

Once it's recorded, a few minutes after, the next playback gets you bars and details and breakdowns.

Ideally, though, you want to make this kind of at-a-glance information convenient enough for casual experimentation as to keep it a quick, accessible learning tool. Boxing it instead into a feature within a feature is... not that.