They Should Add An Official Damage Meter With One Condition

[Saimeren]

Competition isn’t a bad thing though, so who cares.

Until it becomes "you can't join our group unless you can do "X" damage. Then it becomes gatekeeping.

[Saraide]

Until it becomes "you can't join our group unless you can do "X" damage. Then it becomes gatekeeping.

Walk me through the logistics of that vs what is currently possible and happening. Do you really think someone is gonna write the essay required to specify target dps thresholds for each job which doesnt even really work with many jobs having group buffs that rely on their allies to also contribute correctly and differs for every fight. Or do you think people would just set and ilvl gate, set the PF to duty complete and then just kick based on who isnt up to expectations. That's how it works right now and it's far easier to do as PF host.

Gatekeeping is already happening in PF and that's good. Forcing people together with mismatched expectations only breeds frustrations afterall. And as always, you can just host your own PF if you dont like the duty complete requirement or the specified ilvl.

[UkcsAlias]

Do you really think someone is gonna write the essay required to specify target dps thresholds for each job

Yes! And not just a little bit, it will be with an excessive amount of detail explaining why the treshold is made that way. They will probably even mention optimal values on a per dungeon basis because they know the total HP existing in those, and all sorts of phases.

And they will even be rewarded for doing that by getting constant references towards their guide, and the ads on the site will ensure that it remains up.

With luck it will only go as far as icy-veins in showing builds and recommendations, but i suspect that some groups will make large excel sheets with statistics and parse information from that. And to give you an idea: Heroes of the storm while it was already dead after the HGC death, still had people refer to hotslogs for information about optimal values. And there people only just complained if you took a healer that on average has 10% less healing (yet in that game individual skill does a lot). Icy veins in that with their advise was often even that bad, that you should be discouraged from using it at lower ranks (they demanded low level players to use things they simply cannot manage).

Thats why DPS must be prevented to be measured. Its not going to be helpful, and only just cause hinder. A good player isnt measured by average performance in regards to DPS, its in performance in regards to completion speed. Even if you consistently do 20% less damage, but your team on average ends up 10% faster, you are doing a very good job.

[Shurrikhan]

...

Icy-veins created some largely singular, one-size-fits-all guides per HotS character (which, by the way, they're pretty open about) --which is really just to say, they didn't go though the trouble of making multiple separate guides per character-- and thus all measurement is bad?

I think you've skipped a step or three in that reasoning there.



Yes, people can be overly fixated on minute advantages. You know they do when they don't information, though? They fixate on presumed advantages, believing them to be still more sizable and relevant than they are to an even greater gap from what is reasonable.

Remember Stormblood before fflogs switched from raw DPS to rDPS as their primary metric (you'd have to go to xivhero and link the particular fflog for it to calculate the rDPS)?

People would swear up and down that NIN/DRG/MCH/BRD and SMN/DRG/MCH/BRD were by far and away the best comps because of their "synergy" and that anyone trying to play Monk, Samurai, Black Mage, or Red Mage, even in their optimal teams, were "kinda griefing, bruh." Turned out the jobs' rDPS, though, was actually incredibly balanced by late Stormblood; the presumed "advantages" that were pushing people towards particular metas, fell between inexistent and irrelevant. And that would have been common knowledge if people actually looked into the numbers instead of assuming that the more "selfish" jobs couldn't possibly make up for their rDPS debt with their raw numbers.

Not only looking, but understanding. You're making the assumption that numbers like this will be properly understood and utilized by people.

It was a difference of having a number (the numeric value of buffs applied minus buffs received) or not. That was it. One chart included the number/factor that the other lacked.

Seeing jobs' rDPS might still underplay the value of "selfish" DPS (as those who do half the work of giving the buffers their rDPS contribution by maximally exploiting those buffs), but it's no rocket-science to go from looking at one chart without those numbers and still thinking "SAM might be doing stupid high damage but it's all fake and they actually underperform Bard" to looking at the other and seeing that, no, even when given no credit for exploiting those buffs, SAM is still doing just fine for the moment. You can take A and B (the ability to exploit buffs and the ability to, at net value, give them) and very easily eyeball job balance from between the two graphic organizers given to you. Those chart's conclusion, at the time: All jobs were actually way more closely competitive than they were rumored to be.

Granted, it still took almost another year just for people to stop treating a lack of raid buffs as an incurable disease just because those numbers be scary while ill-informed maxims are apparently not?

[LeonKeyh]

Icy-veins created some largely singular, one-size-fits-all guides per HotS character (which, by the way, they're pretty open about) --which is really just to say, they didn't go though the trouble of making multiple separate guides per character-- and thus all measurement is bad?

I think you've skipped a step or three in that reasoning there.



Yes, people can be overly fixated on minute advantages. You know they do when they don't information, though? They fixate on presumed advantages, believing them to be still more sizable and relevant than they are to an even greater gap from what is reasonable.

Remember Stormblood before fflogs switched from raw DPS to rDPS as their primary metric (you'd have to go to xivhero and link the particular fflog for it to calculate the rDPS)?

People would swear up and down that NIN/DRG/MCH/BRD and SMN/DRG/MCH/BRD were by far and away the best comps because of their "synergy" and that anyone trying to play Monk, Samurai, Black Mage, or Red Mage, even in their optimal teams, were "kinda griefing, bruh." Turned out the jobs' rDPS, though, was actually incredibly balanced by late Stormblood; the presumed "advantages" that pushing people towards particular metas, feel between inexistent and irrelevant. And that would have been common knowledge if people actually looked into the numbers instead of assuming that the more "selfish" jobs couldn't possibly make up for rDPS debt with their raw numbers.

Not only looking, but understanding. You're making the assumption that numbers like this will be properly understood and utilized by people. In my experience that hasn't been the case. Even the people who ENJOY parsing which SHOULD have a high amount of people that understand what they're looking at (relative to the full community) don't have any understanding of what numbers are and what they mean and the actual differences between them (and the complexities of different systems).

They don't understand the swing that can be caused by crit chance which differs by job since some jobs have autocrits now. They probably don't understand the 5% stat bonus in parties and how that effects things.

You're ultimately just "arming" people who don't understand what statistics/numbers mean with information that they can use incorrectly. For an example of that, look at the last 2 years.


rDPS has been a great addition to show just how balanced things are for sure, but that doesn't mean that people will understand it.

Personally, I would love for it to be added because I LOVE trying to improve my gameplay and I'm a console pleb so I have no way of truly measuring what I'm doing. But, I completely understand why it will never be added and I agree with the reasoning. Too many people would abuse it.

[Saraide]

Yes! And not just a little bit, it will be with an excessive amount of detail explaining why the treshold is made that way. They will probably even mention optimal values on a per dungeon basis because they know the total HP existing in those, and all sorts of phases.

And they will even be rewarded for doing that by getting constant references towards their guide, and the ads on the site will ensure that it remains up.

With luck it will only go as far as icy-veins in showing builds and recommendations, but i suspect that some groups will make large excel sheets with statistics and parse information from that. And to give you an idea: Heroes of the storm while it was already dead after the HGC death, still had people refer to hotslogs for information about optimal values. And there people only just complained if you took a healer that on average has 10% less healing (yet in that game individual skill does a lot). Icy veins in that with their advise was often even that bad, that you should be discouraged from using it at lower ranks (they demanded low level players to use things they simply cannot manage).

Thats why DPS must be prevented to be measured. Its not going to be helpful, and only just cause hinder. A good player isnt measured by average performance in regards to DPS, its in performance in regards to completion speed. Even if you consistently do 20% less damage, but your team on average ends up 10% faster, you are doing a very good job.

Well then, get going on writing those essays. Meanwhile normal people will just set an ilvl, set duty complete status, kick people grossly underperforming and be done with it. I have to warn you though that by doing that kind of PF essay writing "skip soar or disband" is going to look like a mild blunder compared to your essay writing.

[Rein_eon_Osborne]

Until it becomes "you can't join our group unless you can do "X" damage. Then it becomes gatekeeping.

Not quite convinced. That's like saying gatekeeping a low performing student from advancing their study to next degree is bad because they could not meet the minimum passing average grade. Allowing them to just advance when they can barely do well on lower degree will only frustrate both the student and their teacher.

The same is also true for statics recruitment and in-game content that presents you a minimum passing grade that is DPS check, which mostly only matter in high ends. One can be a deadweight in normal to lower end content and they'll still get their clear with the help of 3 to 7 other players thanks to how those encounters are designed to begin with---hardly anybody cares in there.

[Klytania]

Until it becomes "you can't join our group unless you can do "X" damage. Then it becomes gatekeeping.

This system is already in place with duty complete, and iL filters.