The Real Problem with Parsers

[Viridiana]

I wonder how long we can make these posts. >_>

Meanwhile, if we reread what I said, I specifically said "Medical issues restricting them". So yes, if a medical issue is restricting them, they cannot magically heal it just so they can git gud enough for you. Maybe try reading every word.

You're still saying saying that medical people are incapable of getting better. You asked me if everyone could improve. I said yes. You then asserted that medical people can't improve. Which is patently false.

How are they going to get esos if they keep getting kicked? I notice you ignored the "widening gap" issue too.

How about they exercise their options and use PF? I mean, if they don't want to deal with random people kicking them, they should remove the random people from their experience. >_>

As for the widening gap, the gap basically resets each time there's a new currency that comes out.

It's a fact that in other games, there has been plenty of elitism and abuse centered around DPS charts. That's inarguable. If they are worried that it might spill into here, they don't need to prove it will.

It's a fact that in other games there has been elitism and abuse centered around completion of raids. That's inarguable. If they're worried about elitism and abuse, they should avoid adding raids.

Because 1.0 worked out so well. >_>

This avoids my question. Please answer the question.

It answers the question. You asserted that their current stance is that they don't want you talking about DPS at all. That's demonstrably not their current stance, as you can easily talk about DPS as long as you don't talk about numbers. Their stance is that they don't want you mentioning numbers. Allowing parsers by default means that you're allowing people to mention numbers. Bam, problem solved.

Except it's already established in other games that DPS meters are a huge tool for elitists to be elitists. So, for the 99th time, they don't need to prove it would happen here, just that it could. If you want them to change their stance, you need to disprove that. You can't. That's really the end of it.

Except it's already established in this game that titles awarded for raiding are a tool for elitists to be elitists. If they don't want people being elitists, they should remove titles from the game.

Hyperbole is a terrible thing to use in arguments because over-exaggerating anything weakens your point, not supports.

If it's unclear that I'm using hyperbole, sure. The context makes it blatantly clear that I'm employing hyperbole. Your ignoring it reflects either willful ignorance or a lack of reading comprehension.

Fine. And if you feel that DF is so terrible that you waste your time in it, then it's your logical duty to exercise other options available to you.

Oooorrrrrrr...I can try to help increase the quality of the DF and make the overall experience better.

No it doesn't. A more fitting analogy would be if a bank gave a loan to a random person with no accountability and got stiffed on it, because that's what DF is, and then decided that they shouldn't give out loans to random people and decided instead to only give out loans to people who have identification and accountability.

No, because DF usually works pretty well. It only occassionally fails miserably. And of course, you're assuming that PF provides something analogous to accountability. Aside from one occassion, I can't think of any times that I've partied with the same person twice. I literally can't name any of the people I've partied in PF with outside my LS/FC. And if you mean to restrict it all the way down to only partying with the in group, the bank basically isn't loaning any money...

If you want to guarantee fast clears, then the logical way to do that is by playing with people you know will get you fast clears. Sorry if you labour under the misconception that it's your solemn duty to clean up the duty finder.

You don't think it's your duty to uphold and improve your environment?

Again inaccurate. My point is "If you can't handle random people, stop grouping with random people."

Sorry, "Random people suck, stop playing with random people." More accurate now?

I'd have hoped that when I say DPS, the fact that I'm talking about a player's personal DPS and not their ability to do mechanics would be clear. I guess not. A parser wouldn't have helped anyone clear Steps of Faith if nobody's doing cannons or DKs right.

I can't actually recall if ACT picks up SoF cannons. Regardless, mechanics are a part of DPS. Being unable to do mechanics leads to being unable to do DPS. Of course, before even making it to SoF, you have the DPS checks in Chrysalis.

Anything that's happened before is irrelevant to how useful a parser would be now.

Bull****. There's a clear trend of SE requiring a certain amount of DPS to clear content (not even talking about endgame content) only for the player base to prove their incompetence again and again, followed by prolonged whining until SE nerfs the content. The most recent time was less than 4 months ago. That's basically one major patch cycle.

I've cleared Bismarck in story mode with a DPS dead from the very start because they jumped off the side before the pull "just to see if they could". If three DPS could do it, then if a whole group is failing it, then you'll have to practically replace the entire group of DPS anyways, so a parser isn't going to solve much.

Good job picking one subpoint out of numerous examples. A1N enrage. Ravana story swords. Extreme modes which are routinely pugged. Hows about you respond to those.

Whether or not other things can/have been used for harassment is irrelevant and doesn't mean parsers should be added.

It's actually extremely relevent, as it establishes whether harassment by itself is a determining factor for whether a feature is implemented. Features used to harass people are constantly being brought into the game, so clearly the justification is bunk.

And I already have evidence that someone might abuse parsers - other games.

And I alerady have evidence that someone might abuse titles--this game.

If I meant "politely bring up somebody's DPS", I would say "politely bring up somebody's DPS".

The problem is that you're taking a fairly innocuous term and twisting it to be something negative, thereby trying to shape the perceptions of those watching.

Really? Because I don't parse my husband's MCH but noticed he was doing significantly less damage than my Bard from the threat meter alone, so I looked up some MCH guides and gave some pointers and on some fights he's now giving my Bard a run for its gil. Didn't require specific numbers at all.

Great! You can get someone who already trusts you to take your word for something! Explain how that applies to random DF people again?

Just because it won't be abused by 100% of people doesn't negate that it may be abused by some people. And SE isn't banning it under the misconception that everybody ever would be an elitist jerk, I'm sure. Give them a little credit.

I'm giving them credit that they aren't saying everyone would do it. But they're saying that anyone doing it is grounds to not allow it, which is clearly not the standard they're holding other features to. That's the crux of the problem. Is a subgroup of users causing a problem reason enough to scrap the whole program? If it is, we shouldn't have a lot of the features we do have. You keep ignoring or misunderstanding this.

Other games are your evidence. They don't need to have specific numbers because those are impossible to prove without having it happen first. They have more than enough reason to expect that there would be elitism spawning from parser use based on frequency it happens in other games.

Goody.

I'm in a really easy position to prove that elitism may result. Other games in which elitism centers around DPS charts.

Man, you keep really missing the point. I'm saying that I don't believe that there will be enough abuse to outweigh the advantages of having them. At no point have I ever claimed that there will be no elitism. I have claimed that the clamouring of SE about elitism is fear mongering based on insufficient data and that elitism is already present in the game from features SE continues to endorse. If preventing elitism is truly their goal, they're failing spectacularly and don't seem to care--except for parsers. This tells me that they're using elitism as a demonstrably weak justification that should be done away with. They should either endorse parsers to be consistent or produce a better justification.

1 is irrelevant. 4 is irrelevant, because the number that there is now would be logically expected to change if people weren't forced to bite their tongues about parsers. 5 is also irrelevant because the amount of harassment reports for other reasons is irrelevant to how many reports they may start getting for parser reasons. 6 is also irrelevant to a degree because whether or not they could use parsers now, they'd still be subject to the same restrictions of talking about them.

I clearly explained the relevence of each of those. 2/4 gives you the percent of people who harass with parsers as it stands. 3/1 gives you the approximate rate of players who would parse if they were allowed to. (3/1)*(1+6) gives you the approximate number of total players who would parse if allowed (assuming PS3/PS4 players would parse at about the same rate as PC players). 4 adjusted for 8 gives you the approximate number of parser-harassments currently happening with the current policy. 4 adjusted for both 7 and 8 would give you the number of harassments happening under the proposed policy. How much larger is the second value? Because they're saying it's big enough to justify not having an extremely valuable tool, and I'm in no position to verify or refute it.

(Okay, so 5 was probably useless for this)

All of that information is irrelevant because they don't represent the hypothetical altered situation. If people know they can get reported for bringing up parser numbers, then clearly there's going to be less people bringing them up, and it logically follows that that would lead to less reports.

What do you think 7 and 8 were for? I mean, 7 directly addresses changes caused by a change in policy. Did you not even read it?