The Real Problem with Parsers

[Elazu]

As long as people are going into content with a higher than 3rd grade mentality then you should be giving advice if you are the more experienced one in the dungeon or raid.

Wouldn't be surprised if many people gave up on giving advice, because a lot of times the response will be "**** you, I play how I want."

[Subucnimorning]

Calling out does not necessarily mean negative tone, it just means pointing out where someone can improve. Although a lot of people associate calling out with being toxic...does not make it true though!

[Kabooa]

Calling out does not necessarily mean negative tone, it just means pointing out where someone can improve. Although a lot of people associate calling out with being toxic...does not make it true though!

It's similar to the devolution of the term 'gg'

Originally it was a term expressing "Good Game", which was thanking the other person for playing the game with you, not a representative of the quality of game. It seems these days GG sounds condescending, and even members of your own team would think other wise.

Similarly, 'calling someone out' is nothing more than "You there." You combine it with "Your X is Y.". This is not rude by itself, but it tends to be construed that way because people do not like being singled out of a group, especially if it is in regards to their performance.

It's not really necessary in anything outside savage content and extreme primals since your team is heavily punished by a mistake made by one person. So for 95+% of content, no, calling someone out isn't necessary, but for the remaining 5%, you can still do it with more tact.

"Someone needs to not drag the death zone onto the healers." <= Tactful
"Hey Leonardo, stop dragging the death zone onto the healers." <= Less tactful

[spelley]

"Someone needs to not drag the death zone onto the healers." <= Tactful
"Hey Leonardo, stop dragging the death zone onto the healers." <= Less tactful

Or the even nicer way:

"Hey guys, I noticed we were placing the death zone onto the healers by mistake. If we try and put them [here] and [here] (using waypoints) I think we should be able to handle this no problemo. We got this!"

What usually helps the most, and tends to result in people NOT getting up in arms is:

a) Not singling out by name (as you suggest) and
b) Offering, politely, the solution/general tips so you don't just sound like a complainer

[RapBreon]

"Someone needs to not drag the death zone onto the healers." <= Tactful
"Hey Leonardo, stop dragging the death zone onto the healers." <= Less tactful

While I agree broadly with your points.

The 'tactful' example, is very passive-aggressive. Some people find that worse. Meh.

[SpookyGhost]

While I agree broadly with your points.

The 'tactful' example, is very passive-aggressive. Some people find that worse. Meh.

An easy way I've found for saying 'dont do this' is to just say what the problem is and making sure everyone is aware of it:

"We can't have the death zone on the healers, so please everyone watch out for that when it goes out"

Or something like that.

[Aiselia]

Calling out does not necessarily mean negative tone

Let's pretend that what appears to be the generally accepted definition of the phrase does not mean negative tone. Let's say that it could be either negative or positive tone.

If someone is using the phrase with the clear intention of meaning the negative tone definition, then whether it has a positive definition is irrelevant and semantic arguments suck.

What matters is the definition that the person using the phrase intends. So if someone says "People shouldn't call others out on their DPS" meaning "People shouldn't try to shame or insult others on their DPS", pointing out that "calling someone out" could be done nicely is irrelevant, because they obviously mean that people shouldn't be doing it negatively.

[zlotjko]

Lets say you join a pf for 8man stuff. You fail a dps check. You wipe. few times. few more times. times run out and you disband.

A parser allows you to replace/kick the right member. "Sorry mate, you are holding us back, go back, train some more, git gud and do the job". Rest of the group finds a competent member(s) and finishes the job.

Bad dps found out he needs more training.
Good group got the job done,
everyone happy vs the first scenario where nobody got the job done

So, bad dps, might be equal to "not-good-enough" or sugar coat it as u want, but still they didn't meet the requirement and punishes the rest of the group
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

also the game needs few things to make this "issue" a non-issue:

1) to alert the dps when they are bad
2) to have an ingame guide that will show them what is bad and what is good
3) to have a ingame field to practice and git gud

solution for all of those in a extreme lazy way is a parser and mini-instances that work as trials and tickets that grant you a pass to certain content.

let me elaborate:
each week you need to do one solo-trial per job. Each time you complete it (just the most advanced one you completed) you get some eso, gil, crap reward and you have a ticket to join appropriated content (unless going in 8man premade, or make it a checkbox requirement in pf too)

you ain't good enough, you automatically can't join stuff that is above your skill/knowledge level. (unless pf allows that).
No hard feelings if you don't reach the requirement (like ilvl for example), and you then can't blame people for being aHoles and hide behind disabled people.
And if people under perform even then (by far) you can kick them and say they cheat (as they did have the ticket and can do better but are too lazy) without any risk of being punished by GM.

So such a rigid, unyielding, black-white system (like ilvl requirement) can make the community much less toxic. Because people that are doing very bad are gonna know that without other people telling them which results in much less frustration (on both sides, and will save time in the long run).

If other people want to carry you, that is their choice and can be only done in pf.

Am not putting any numbers, but if the gear requirement for something is ilvl 170, the efficiency of using that gear should also be a requirement, and the only way to test it (no obvious things like tank/healing checks) is a parser in appropriated environment .

Add to that overhealing, mana efficiency, tp efficiency (that could be only tested in those solo-trials, as dummy parser ain't gonna to a thing there).
With those tools, and set-in-stone requirements, you can start building a healthy community.

It may sound harsh, but is beneficial for everyone on the long run. Nobody is publicly marked, shamed or anything like that and can do content they are able to do/learn/finish.

With no real implementation of those tools, there is chaos, and where is chaos there is frustration. When frustrations comes into play, toxicity is born.

[TatsuyaSumaru]

If the main reason of not having a parser is due to people calling out over dps, then you're argument is pretty invalid. If you mess up a mechanic during an important boss fight time and time again, should you not be called out for it? Your continuous failure is causing the group to wipe over and over. Regardless if you're new or not. If your dps is much lower than it should be during a dps check, then yes, you're holding your team back and should be held accountable for.

[SerosJourney]

What I see as the biggest problem is, that there are many people which DO use Parser. But if you play on PS-System, you just can't!

I don't like the thought of getting a Parser for everyone neither....

But if there will be a "Parser-Puppet", then we ALL got the opportunity to see were we stay and so we all can improve ourselves.