Would you like an in-game parser?

[Moomba33]

I think part of the concern is that it isn't clear cut how much dps is acceptable. I'm sure everyone would agree that something like 400 is terrible for a 60 dps, but what about 800? 1000? The answer will likely change depending on who you're talking to, the content itself, and other factors such as how geared the dps is.

With tanking and healing you can say that a player has done their job if they're holding aggro and keeping their group up and doing a great job if they're adding dps on top of their responsibilities.
Most content in the game doesn't have tight dps checks so it isn't as easy to judge objectively. In my own experience I've only had one group with dps low enough to fail a dungeon mechanic (the jails in the Aery) and we got through it after I started helping on my tank.

[Seraphix2407]

I hate taking exams every day.

Only way to pass one is to be good enough. If you arent you never tried your best to learn.

[KarstenS]

I learn, I try strats and strategies, and i do my damndest in df

But how much success you will have this way and how do you know about that?

Just a quick fictive example: You do it this way and have the feeling you are quite good. But in reality, you are just performing around 20% compared to really good players at the same class/job.

You never will know when you just trust your feelings.

[Kallera]

Oooooh....it all makes sense. You're afraid of failing the DPS test. What if it turns out you're always top DPS and the best? Would you care about parsers then? If you knew you had nothing to worry about?

What do you mean?

But how much success you will have this way and how do you know about that?

Just a quick fictive example: You do it this way and have the feeling you are quite good. But in reality, you are just performing around 20% compared to really good players at the same class/job.

You never will know when you just trust your feelings.

I'd rather not care, to be honest, if the effort is akin to a giant wall. I would rather not do it, but i cannot leave things well enough alone to try at first.

The parser is not some raid or content that might be cleared. itll be there forever like total playtime, some thing monitoring me and how "into the game" i am, in a statistic.

You don't like taking tests. You're afraid of failing the test. Parsers are a DPS "test". If your DPS is low you fail, if it's high you pass. What if you found out you always had super high DPS. Would you still be afraid of parsers? I honestly don't think you argument is some altruistic stance that "people will be mean to others" but rather a selfish "I don't want people to be mean to ME because I'm bad." But what if you're super pro and 90th percentile in your class? That would be good to know right?

I'm sure I'm not that, ive never checked anyway to find out. Even if i was that wouldn't stop the general use of parsers to be something to disband a party and disparage people with.

And of course im also worried about getting some of those comments myself. I've read and been told enough PSAs about DPS. I was doing raids in 2.x partly to not be "that person" people complained about at the end of failed pfs and successful roulettes.

Seems like kinda a late time to say "don't worry about it" now when a tool like this gets suggested.

[Krissey]

What do you mean?

You don't like taking tests. You're afraid of failing the test. Parsers are a DPS "test". If your DPS is low you fail, if it's high you pass. What if you found out you always had super high DPS. Would you still be afraid of parsers? I honestly don't think you argument is some altruistic stance that "people will be mean to others" but rather a selfish "I don't want people to be mean to ME because I'm bad." But what if you're super pro and 90th percentile in your class? That would be good to know right?

[Seraphix2407]

You don't like taking tests. You're afraid of failing the test. Parsers are a DPS "test". If your DPS is low you fail, if it's high you pass. What if you found out you always had super high DPS. Would you still be afraid of parsers? I honestly don't think you argument is some altruistic stance that "people will be mean to others" but rather a selfish "I don't want people to be mean to ME because I'm bad." But what if you're super pro and 90th percentile in your class? That would be good to know right?

People are selfish. Said it many times. When they do whatever they want its all me me me.

[Neophyte]

If there would be no parser and I really want to have better results by kicking the bad ones, I'd just kick those of my party who [i]seem[\i] to be the problem.
I'd try to [i]proof[\i] it by looking on the attacks (rotation) they perform written in the chatlog and on the numbers shown there, if he does something like 24 GCDs per minute and his gear.
If I don't like his 'different playstyle'... kick.

I guess that's better than using a parser.

[Kezy_Kaatapoh]

It's not false. People choose to use parsers. They don't have to use them. It's a choice, not a requirement.

Saying "EVERY!!!" top group has used them is just argumentum ad populum.

It also implies so-called "top players" aren't good enough to defeat encounters without add-ons/3rd party tools to help them. You're implying they need a crutch to do so. You're implying that relying on their own skill, knowledge of their given role/job, ability to coordinate and communicate, and learn the mechanics through trial-and-error, isn't enough; they still fall flat. You're saying every (EVERY!!!) top group isn't quite as good as they seem to think, since - according to you - every (EVERY!!!) one of them requires add-ons to clear it.

That's effectively what you're saying.

Not very flattering! I suspect some in the end-game community would take exception to your broad-stroke characterization of them.

That's a ridiculous misinterpretation of what I was saying for your own agenda. It's not a tool that's strictly required for high play, but it does provide information to help you know if a new strategy did improve DPS, a new way you approached something improved DPS, etc. It provides information that is highly useful for high end raiding and top raiders all use it. They don't use it because they strictly need it to clear, they use it because it helps speed progression by confirming strategy changes, ability timings, and if anyone is holding them back.

You mean what the PC players have had the ability to do unofficially, on the down-low. You're talking like parsers have already been officially sanctioned by SE and are considered legit, but just haven't made it to consoles, yet. You're talking like number parsers are something Yoshi-P has officially spoken out in favor of on an official level. He, quite clearly, hasn't. Again, you seem to be arguing from this position of "Well, people are already using them, therefor they're necessary, and everyone should have access to them!", while ignoring all of the facts that clearly run counter to that. Your argument is pure confirmation bias. Unfortunately for you, ignoring readily and easily verifiable facts, however inconvenient they are to your narrative, doesn't make them go away.

I'm not talking like SE sanctions them, I'm talking like they already have widespread use, which is the reality we live in. I'm not arguing "people already have them, so they're necessary", another gross misinterpretation. I'm arguing that this sudden mass of harassment people claim will happen in their official inclusion either won't exist or will be so small it's hardly noticeable (and will die down after the initial deployment anyway). You don't have facts in the other direction. Just because it's happened in other MMOs (which to my knowledge is debatable on if they even had negative impacts) doesn't mean it'll happen in this one. It's a different community and a different GM staff. Harassment is still harassment and is reportable whether parsers are official or not.

I love this attitude. It boils down to: "Jerks will be jerks regardless, so what's the difference if we give them one more way to do so, eh?"

Of course, in your case, "... as long as I get what I want!" is appended to the end of that statement.

I mean, after all, as long as you get what you want (an official parser), then hey, you'll just accept it as a necessary side-effect, right? Let others deal with it. You, and/or others in your camp will be too busy obsessing over others' parser numbers to see who the "bads" are to care!

It's also plainly hypocritical. You people are crying foul about not having something the game has never officially supported, and that you do not need to clear content (unless, again, you're not actually as good as you want to think), and consider it some great injustice. Yet you turn around and are basically "pfft.. whatever. Others will work it out" about the fact that the inclusion of said thing would empower people to become even bigger ass-hats than they already are to people who are just trying to enjoy playing the damn game.

Your priorities are backwards.

Nowhere do I imply "as long as I get what I want". You're really enjoying putting words in my mouth. You keep saying it'll make people bigger asshats, but that doesn't change that it's both A) still reportable, and B) usually the people who are doing bad attacking people. Again, it's something that, while not officially supported, is widespread in it's use and SE does turn a blind eye to it. I'm not crying foul, I wasn't even upset. I simply put in my opinion, but you're the one blowing up here.

To the rest of your post:

Yes, everyone wants to play the game how they want, and while it's not promised to us, it is quite widespread in use. Maybe I want to play the game by having basic information on my performance available to me to that I can help improve myself. People will use it as a tool for abuse, absolutely, but the argument here is that those people are already being abusive using things other than the parser, having a parser just moves them from abusing you one way to abusing you in another. In the end, there's literally no difference, except parser usage will actually be able to prevent those morons who think they're the greatest and are actually pretty bad.

Finally, stop putting words in my mouth. You're just as bad as those abusers you're afraid of.

[Kezy_Kaatapoh]

Do I? Nowhere do I claim you should not close the gap, nor do I even discourage it. Truly, I am going on in great detail how to close the gap that exists effectively and in a lasting manner. In case you missed it, again and brief this time: If you truly want to close the gap, enforce the rules already in place. Full stop. This makes the implementation of any third party program on terms of equality redundant because equality already exists under these circumstances. Full stop.

I have addressed that point before you even made it. Then, I addressed it again. And yet you claim I ignore it. I'm honestly not sure why you comment on a condescending tone in my post(s) when you apparently don't even read them anyway. But have fun pushing your agenda!

I have read your posts. You've been encouraging closing the gap through removal of features, which is obviously not the path anyone wants. I shouldn't have to state that closing the gap in that fashion isn't good for the game and that adding features to systems that don't have them is the way to go.

Your point was made rhetorically, making it a null point, while you keep saying that we shouldn't add features to one because we can never have them all. So no, you didn't make that point and you keep failing to acknowledge the only truly reasonable solution to it. I'm not pushing an agenda, it would seem you are.

[Neophyte]

I think every sprinter of the worlds top 100 uses stopwatches/tools for speed measurement.

So I guess I'm saying here that the best sprinters in the world can't win a competition without using those tools. Sounds ridicolous.. And that's what it is.
Can you win the world record in 100m sprint, if you've never trained with a stopwatch? Sure you can, but nobody would really do or even try it. Guess why!

They use it to get better and to be able to actually see if they got better.


.... Some arguments are just...