Please add damage meters, Yoshi P.

[Kazhar]

And this is probably ONE of the SEVERAL reasons we will never have DPS meters.

It's not at all the worst one, mind you, but there are a lot of reasons for why we won't have them.

Why? I'm curious. What's wrong with judging people for their actual contributions in dungeons? If a DPS did good damage, they deserve their comms as much as a Tank or a Healer who did their job competently.

There are arguments to be made against the use of damage meters in casual content (some of which I agree with), but I see nothing wrong with wanting to give comms to people who deserve it.

[Shurrikhan]

Why? I'm curious. What's wrong with judging people for their actual contributions in dungeons? If a DPS did good damage, they deserve their comms as much as a Tank or a Healer who did their job competently.

Because a meritocracy would be horrifying. Better for these things to be based on visibility and pretense alone. /s



(That a meritocracy [or, a slight shift there-towards, as opposed to commendation being given based on assumed guidelines alone] shouldn't terrify anyone is obviously just my own opinion, based largely on the premise that there are already undue influential dynamics --just as prevalent and severe as any compulsion to "optimize everything" that people fear would overtake even places for which there is no such need or relevance-- that we just don't notice as easily because they come in more myriad forms of irrational but tacitly accepted social pressures. That is to say, I think we already have all the things that could "go wrong" under meritocratic paradigms, for anyone who'd want to thus get ahead or push rank -- just in a less intuitive, more convoluted form. Not that I particularly think parsers would make the game any more meritocratic that it is now; it'd just give more information from which to make the decisions people had already determined their criteria for.)

[Dzonathan]

Why? I'm curious. What's wrong with judging people for their actual contributions in dungeons? If a DPS did good damage, they deserve their comms as much as a Tank or a Healer who did their job competently.

There are arguments to be made against the use of damage meters in casual content (some of which I agree with), but I see nothing wrong with wanting to give comms to people who deserve it.

Slippery Slope is not a fallacy and one concession to overly meritocratic approach to game will eventually lead to more and more concessions until we reach a point where FFXIV becomes another WoW and videos like this can be made about FFXIV:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKP1I7IocYU

Am I being hyperbolic and paranoid? Perhaps from an outside point of view, but I've been on both sides of the curtain and I'd much rather deal with FFXIV toxic casualism that ultimately compels me to spam /beesknees in a fc club rather than deal with WoW's toxic elitism that ultimately compels me to turn a hobby into a job.

[Kazhar]

Slippery Slope is not a fallacy and one concession to overly meritocratic approach to game will eventually lead to more and more concessions until we reach a point where FFXIV becomes another WoW and videos like this can be made about FFXIV:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKP1I7IocYU

Am I being hyperbolic and paranoid? Perhaps from an outside point of view, but I've been on both sides of the curtain and I'd much rather deal with FFXIV toxic casualism that ultimately compels me to spam /beesknees in a fc club rather than deal with WoW's toxic elitism that ultimately compels me to turn a hobby into a job.

... Slippery slope is definitely a fallacy.
DPS actually getting comms for good contribution isn't going to destroy the game. The very same community always complain about mentors yet you tell me that giving comms to whoever plays healer in guildhests is a feature, not a bug?

[Shurrikhan]

... Slippery slope is definitely a fallacy.
DPS actually getting comms for good contribution isn't going to destroy the game. The very same community always complain about mentors yet you tell me that giving comms to whoever plays healer in guildhests is a feature, not a bug?

It's a fallacy only if you start calling something a slope slippery out of hand rather than per any evidence of critical thresholds that'd increasingly accelerate the effects rendered.

There's a ton of dishonest information out there that would assure you that so long as a conflict does not appear specifically through party chat, or perhaps even so long as it doesn't feature some element of "exclusion" (no matter how otherwise fair it would be to ask that those who sign up to do something meet at least a minimum level of preparedness and effort by which not to leech off others)... then that must not be conflict at all. Given their skewed metrics though, yes, parsers would appear to actually indicate a slippery slope, which means it wouldn't seem a fallacy to call their introduction a slippery slope.

Now, if we actually look at things differentially --attributing to parsers only what parsers specifically add to the equation, rather than conflating all preexisting factors behind a game's conflicts and/or the ways those conflicts could become noticeable (many of which simply swapped over their expression from one existing means to the new one)-- then no, there would be no significant evidence that the slope is slippery. Even then, though, it'd be hard to call it outright fallacy unless one were to harp on about "but what if ---, what if ----" (while purposely ignoring the systems already in place that deal with exactly those things and/or that the problems already made visible with identical degree and frequency through other means).

The way Dzonathan is looking at it isn't that, though; he's simply advocating for his own preference between two packaged options.

[Packetdancer]

I can’t think of a single mainstream MMORPG that has a built in damage meter. TERA?

A damage meter specifically? I can't think of one either.

Combat analysis, though? Eh... it depends on how you classify "MMORPG", honestly. Because there are massively multiplayer games like Destiny 2 and Warframe that do an end-of-mission breakdown... and they are often classified as MMORPGs, despite playing differently than something like FFXIV or WoW.

Destiny 2 will break down a couple of things like how many of the kills were yours, how many were precision kills, how many orbs of power you created, etc. (And in some content, on a wipe, also how many deaths you've had, etc...) Of course, this is rarely complete, because someone will yeet themselves out of the instance at Mach 6 the instant the loot pinata is has exploded at the end... and much like comms in FFXIV, if someone's already left, they're no longer included.

Warframe is a bit more general unless you pull up the 'stats' tab, but will still highlight one achievement for each party member, like "82% of damage dealt" (pro tip: EVERYTHING is explosive, if you just believe hard enough... and have the ability to manipulate antimatter), or "21 chests opened" (woo, thank you for the loot!), or "113% accuracy" (gotta love punch-through that can hit more than one enemy at a time) or whatever. The actual "Stats" button at the end-of-mission screen will give a much more detailed breakdown of stuff.

But even there, it's not like even those much more performance-focused and damage-optimization-heavy games give you a live damage meter during gameplay.

[FireMage]

Trying to make meritocracies look bad, oof this board has some bad takes

[Rein_eon_Osborne]

While this thread has been marinating a bit over 1 month, apparently I just noticed the newest 6.3 dungeon's 2nd boss 'parses' your performance by giving you 12 ranks after defeating her, with 1 being the highest (and quite possibly always achieved regardless if you play with trust NPCs) and 12 being the absolute bottom in performance. Now whether she parses the overall performance or individually each player, who knows

Feels like they're teasing us.

[LianaThorne]

I would love some sort of personal score at each dungeon. Where you would get a small personal reward for beating your personal skill or score.

This is a good compromise imo. People who want to see their damage/"score" get what they want and those who are worried about a public parser because of possible shaming get the protection they want. Everyone can see their own damage and use it to improve if they so choose. Win/win.

Personally I'd push myself more to beat a "personal high score" compared to being screamed at by randoms for not hitting their own unspoken expectations (excluding advertised parsed runs because at least you know from the start what the person wants). Even moreso if some sort of reward/incentive is provided for reaching certain score milestones.

[FireMage]

While this thread has been marinating a bit over 1 month, apparently I just noticed the newest 6.3 dungeon's 2nd boss 'parses' your performance by giving you 12 ranks after defeating her, with 1 being the highest (and quite possibly always achieved regardless if you play with trust NPCs) and 12 being the absolute bottom in performance. Now whether she parses the overall performance or individually each player, who knows

Feels like they're teasing us.

It's semi random, I've tested