Would you like an in-game parser?

[Ghishlain]

thanks for the update, just wanted to do a minor correction on the last one:

those stats aren't group parser vs. personal parser, those are stats for personal parser vs. parser in general. To get the proper stat you would need to do do 180-116 as people can vote multiple times.

so group vs. personal would be
Total - 180 votes
Group - 64 votes (35.55%)
Personal - 116 votes (64.45%)

I believe what you're trying to say is that "Parser" is a bit different from "Group Parser" which I can understand so let me know if that's what you think as your comment initially confused me and I had to read it a few times to make sure I understood.

My interpretation of that option is that he's asking for a "group" parser (AKA full fledged DPS measuring tool without any limitations) but wouldn't mind some clarity either from the OP because I can see your interpretation in that.

[Lambdafish]

snip

I interpretted the OPs posts (both in my calculation and voting) as:

"Yes, I would like an in game parser." - in general, in any form
"Yes, but I would only like a personal in game parser." - specifically personal parser.

My assumption is that anyone who voted for wanting a parser, but did not vote for personal parser only wants a group parser. This would also mean that your stat breakdown for "no vs. yes (group parser)" is now a "no vs. yes" in general.

[Ghishlain]

I interpretted the OPs posts (both in my calculation and voting) as:

"Yes, I would like an in game parser." - in general, in any form
"Yes, but I would only like a personal in game parser." - specifically personal parser.

My assumption is that anyone who voted for wanting a parser, but did not vote for personal parser only wants a group parser. This would also mean that your stat breakdown for "no vs. yes (group parser)" is now a "no vs. yes" in general.

That's understandable and I can see where you're coming from. As I mentioned earlier my interpretation was "Yes, I would like a parser that is unrestricted (aka, group parser)" since I feel when people talking about a parser in general, they mean one without limitations or restrictions.

I can see both ways so it would be nice to get some clarity since you know what they say about assumptions. lol.

[Reinha]

Random stat breakdown (take with a grain of salt as due sample size and limiting respondents to only the official forum community):

Total Votes as of May 23rd, 2016 - 1242 EST (thread approximately going for 17 days - can be skewed as posters can vote for multiple options)
Total Vote - 357 Votes (+51 respondents)
No Parser - 61 Votes (17.09%)
Yes, Group Parser - 180 Votes (50.42%)

*Screams internally* You are still including percentages which are based on the total number of votes and not voters (a sample of the population we are studying). To give you an idea of how badly it allows you to misinterpret the data, I give you a scenario where 61 people voted all 3 as good options and 55 voted for exactly 2 options. A total of 180 voters. Woosh, we get 33.89% no parser, 100% yes (group) parser and 64.44% personal parser. The percentages nearly doubled. How about a scenario where 116 people voted for both parser options, and everyone else picked one option? A total of 241 voters. Now we get 25.31% no parser, 74.69% (group) parser, 48.13% personal parser. "Can be skewed" does not quite cover how utterly wrong your percentages could be. Some people have already announced that they voted for more than 1 option, so we know for a fact it's skewed.

As I said earlier, you should be comparing the options to each other, not to the total number of votes.
180 / 61 = 2.95: The voters want a (group) parser 2.95 times as much as no parser.
180 / 116 = 1.55: The voters want a (group) parser 1.55 times as much as just a personal parser.
116 / 61 = 1.90: The voters want a personal parser 1.90 times as much as no parser.

This method of analysis will not fail regardless of how many options each person voted for. I can do the same calculations with your hypothetical scenario, where everyone only voted once and the total number of votes represents the total number of voters. I can also do the calculations with my own scenarios where the number of voters is much lower. The ratio between the options is always the same, because it is information that does not contain unknown variables.

Your scenario:
50.42% / 17.09% = 2.95
50.42% / 32.49% = 1.55
32.49% / 17.09% = 1.90

My scenarios:
100% / 33.89% = 2.95
100% / 64.44% = 1.55
64.44% / 33.89% = 1.90

74.69% / 25.31% = 2.95
74.69% / 48.13% = 1.55
48.13% / 25.31% = 1.90

Sorry if it seems like I'm nitpicking. I'm a fiend for numbers and this really rustles my jimmies. Just trying to make your random stat breakdowns a little less... random. Misinterpreting data helps no one and there have already been people referencing your posts in their flawed conclusions. (I recall someone summing up that half the population wants public parsers. No, half the population does not necessarily want a group parser. I just showed above that it could be as high as 100%.)

[Ghishlain]

*Screams internally* You are still including percentages which are based on the total number of votes and not voters (a sample of the population we are studying). To give you an idea of how badly it allows you to misinterpret the data, I give you a scenario where 61 people voted all 3 as good options and 55 voted for exactly 2 options. A total of 180 voters. Woosh, we get 33.89% no parser, 100% yes (group) parser and 64.44% personal parser. The percentages nearly doubled. How about a scenario where 116 people voted for both parser options, and everyone else picked one option? A total of 241 voters. Now we get 25.31% no parser, 74.69% (group) parser, 48.13% personal parser. "Can be skewed" does not quite cover how utterly wrong your percentages could be. Some people have already announced that they voted for more than 1 option, so we know for a fact it's skewed.

As I said earlier, you should be comparing the options to each other, not to the total number of votes.
180 / 61 = 2.95: The voters want a (group) parser 2.95 times as much as no parser.
180 / 116 = 1.55: The voters want a (group) parser 1.55 times as much as just a personal parser.
116 / 61 = 1.90: The voters want a personal parser 1.90 times as much as no parser.

This method of analysis will not fail regardless of how many options each person voted for. I can do the same calculations with your hypothetical scenario, where everyone only voted once and the total number of votes represents the total number of voters. I can also do the calculations with my own scenarios where the number of voters is much lower. The ratio between the options is always the same, because it is information that does not contain unknown variables.

Your scenario:
50.42% / 17.09% = 2.95
50.42% / 32.49% = 1.55
32.49% / 17.09% = 1.90

My scenarios:
100% / 33.89% = 2.95
100% / 64.44% = 1.55
64.44% / 33.89% = 1.90

74.69% / 25.31% = 2.95
74.69% / 48.13% = 1.55
48.13% / 25.31% = 1.90

Sorry if it seems like I'm nitpicking. I'm a fiend for numbers and this really rustles my jimmies. Just trying to make your random stat breakdowns a little less... random. Misinterpreting data helps no one and there have already been people referencing your posts in their flawed conclusions. (I recall someone summing up that half the population wants public parsers. No, half the population does not necessarily want a group parser. I just showed above that it could be as high as 100%.)

It's okay, I'm a fiend with numbers too and don't mind being told otherwise, lol since I don't really want to skew facts badly either. I honestly wish there was more people like you to fact check me because I like seeing the different avenues numbers can be approached at and ensuring accurate information is on the table. I dislike misinformation and if I'm a cause of that I'd be irked at myself too.

Back on the topic of statistics, I can see where you're coming from regarding the percentage and I think I finally comprehend what you mean on the previous post. It's a shame there's no way to tell how many posters doubled (or tripled if they wanted to troll) up because it makes it difficult to analysis the data effectively.

I do believe it's important to show the data over a period of time just to see how the data is trending, though I also do so because I'm curious about keeping a record of what's going on for myself and others to interpret. In an effort to reduce skewed discussions, would you prefer the data be presented in a format as shown below?:

Random stat breakdown (take with a grain of salt as due sample size and limiting respondents to only the official forum community):

Total Votes as of May 23rd, 2016 - 1242 EST (thread approximately going for 17 days - can be skewed as posters due note that posters can vote for multiple options)
Total Vote - 357 Votes (+51 respondents total votes)
No Parser - 61 Votes (17.09%)
Yes, Group Parser - 180 Votes (50.42%)
Yes, Personal Parser - 116 Votes (32.49%)

Previous Tally from a week ago

Total Vote - 306 Votes
No Parser - 50 Votes (16.34%)
Yes, Group Parser - 156 Votes (50.98%)
Yes, Personal Parser - 100 Votes (32.68%)

No VS Yes, Group Parser
Total Vote - 241 Votes
No Parser - 61 Votes (25.31%)
Yes, Group Parser - 180 Votes (74.69%)


No VS Yes, Personal Parser
Total Vote - 177 Votes
No Parser - 61 Votes (34.46%)
Yes, Personal Parser - 116 Votes (65.54%)


Yes, Group Parser VS Yes, Personal Parser
Total Vote - 296 Votes
Yes, Group Parser - 180 Votes (60.81%)
Yes, Personal Parser - 116 Votes (39.19%)

What sucks is that without knowing who's voted for which, we really can't analysis beyond the information that you (rightfully) mentioned. I don't even really want to add the ratios you mentioned either because I feel the context isn't clear either. What group of people voted for both Group and Personal Parser? That would change the "ratio" of players in each category if there's a "Both" option. I understand that in your context you're just looking at the raw numbers - the votes without thinking about what may happen if they double up but even that can be mishandled in a specific way too.

Ah well.

If S-E were to do say a login census of the player base, I almost hope they do these options:

"Would you like to see the implementation of a DPS measuring tool within FFXIV?"

1. No, I would not like a DPS measuring tool.
2. Yes, I would like a way to gauge my personal DPS only.
3. Yes, I would like a way to gauge my own and my group's DPS.
4. Yes, I would like a way to gauge my DPS (doesn't matter if personal or group).
5. I do not care about damage meters.

I'm not sure if there's any other options - I think that covers most of the potential answers though I'm not sure how I could word an option to be "I'm opposed to a parser, but if one were to be implemented I would only want it to be for personal use" since I imagine the option for "No parser, but if we have to include make it go all out". Actually, upon typing that you'd probably just want to add a second question to it too for the "No Parser" crowd though that almost feels slightly redundant too. Like, ask the question "If we are going to implement a parser, which would you prefer?" with options (1) Personal; (2) Group; (3) I remain highly against a parser and abstain from voting.

Well, just some food for thought for S-E if they're reading this and anyone else wants to help refine it too~

[Rawrz]

#Regretshisunclearcookiecutterstatement

[Reinha]

Back on the topic of statistics, I can see where you're coming from regarding the percentage and I think I finally comprehend what you mean on the previous post. It's a shame there's no way to tell how many posters doubled (or tripled if they wanted to troll) up because it makes it difficult to analysis the data effectively.

I agree. These kind of surveys with multiple options make it very difficult to judge what the priorities of people are and what amount actually supports what. I'm guessing that's why SE only counted one vote from everyone in the hair style contest. If we had individual answers from everyone on an Excel sheet it would be possible to analyze it properly.

I do believe it's important to show the data over a period of time just to see how the data is trending, though I also do so because I'm curious about keeping a record of what's going on for myself and others to interpret. In an effort to reduce skewed discussions, would you prefer the data be presented in a format as shown below?:

I think you improved it there. Something I just realized as I was typing this, is that if you want to include the previous percentages you could mention that they are minimum percentages. For example, (referring to my previous post) the support for public parsers could be 50.42% (minimum) or all the way up to 100% (maximum). No parser support is somewhere between 17.09% - 33.89%. You can find the maximum percentages by comparing to the highest individual vote count (the group parser one) as the total voter count. It's the worst case scenario where as many people as mathematically possible voted triple and double.

What sucks is that without knowing who's voted for which, we really can't analysis beyond the information that you (rightfully) mentioned. I don't even really want to add the ratios you mentioned either because I feel the context isn't clear either. What group of people voted for both Group and Personal Parser? That would change the "ratio" of players in each category if there's a "Both" option. I understand that in your context you're just looking at the raw numbers - the votes without thinking about what may happen if they double up but even that can be mishandled in a specific way too.

Ah well.

You're right. If we had 100 votes on pear ice cream and 100 votes on toffee ice cream, there would be no way of knowing if it's a case of 200 people highly opinionated about ice cream or 100 people who simply like any ice cream. In either case they are equally as popular, but if the shop knew which scenario was true they should probably consider whether they want to serve pear-toffee cones for everyone or perhaps let the customer pick one flavor.

If S-E were to do say a login census of the player base, I almost hope they do these options:

"Would you like to see the implementation of a DPS measuring tool within FFXIV?"

1. No, I would not like a DPS measuring tool.
2. Yes, I would like a way to gauge my personal DPS only.
3. Yes, I would like a way to gauge my own and my group's DPS.
4. Yes, I would like a way to gauge my DPS (doesn't matter if personal or group).
5. I do not care about damage meters.

I'm not sure if there's any other options - I think that covers most of the potential answers though I'm not sure how I could word an option to be "I'm opposed to a parser, but if one were to be implemented I would only want it to be for personal use" since I imagine the option for "No parser, but if we have to include make it go all out". Actually, upon typing that you'd probably just want to add a second question to it too for the "No Parser" crowd though that almost feels slightly redundant too. Like, ask the question "If we are going to implement a parser, which would you prefer?" with options (1) Personal; (2) Group; (3) I remain highly against a parser and abstain from voting.

Well, just some food for thought for S-E if they're reading this and anyone else wants to help refine it too~

Then there are also opinions about whether the parser (personal or group) should be optional, and further whether it should be optional to be parsed by others, optional to be parsed in casual content, or optional for the party leader to parse in premade groups. Sigh...

I suggest a survey of yes/no answers that really go into detail to avoid any misinterpretation. The survey should save individual answer sheets, so that people voting yes or no in specific parts could be separated and analysed as a subgroup.

1. Do you want a tool to measure your own damage per second? yes/no
2. Do you want a tool to measure other player's damage per second? yes/no
3. Are you opposed to other players seeing your own damage per second? yes/no
4. Are you opposed to players seeing the damage per second of other players (not you)? yes/no
5. Are you opposed to players seeing their own damage per second? yes/no
6. Are you opposed to players being able to measure dps in casual content in some way? yes/no
7. Are you opposed to players being able to measure dps in hardcore content in some way? yes/no
8. Do you think a player should be given an option to hide their individual dps from others if a party-wide parser was implemented? yes/no
9. Do you think a party leader in a premade group should be able to parse all party members after notifying the party and selecting the parser option in duty settings? yes/no
10. Do you think it is important to give players a chance to avoid parser harassment by allowing players to opt out of parser use, be it by hiding their numbers from others or by choosing content or premades where a parser is not used? yes/no
11. Do you think it's important to establish guidelines about what is considered reportable parser harassment and what isn't? yes/no

[KarstenS]

this is getting a little witch-hunty.

Hm.

Tanks get booted when they don't do their job and the content doesn't get finished. Everybody does see, who is the one.

Healers get bootet when the party constantly dies because of not enough healing and the content gets not finished. Here too, everybody does see who is the one.

When missing damage is the reason to not clear the content like in the example 66% enrage in A8 story mode, it is a which hunt when people want to know who is causing this issue?

My answer: There should be equal rights for all 3 roles. This would be fair to everybody else.

[Thunda_Cat_SMASH]

Healers get bootet when the party constantly dies because of not enough healing and the content gets not finished. Here too, everybody does see who is the one.

When missing damage is the reason to not clear the content like in the example 66% enrage in A8 story mode, it is a which hunt when people want to know who is causing this issue?

Healers are booted daily from all content for not DPSing, even when the content is extremely difficult. In addition, tanks and healers are more often blamed for failing content due to DPS checks than the actual DPS. Until the healer DPS meta is dealt with, DPS will never be considered a target for low DPS related problems.

At least, that's the way it is on my data center.

Edit #2: Brute Justice being at 66% on enrage is just as much a fault of the tanks as it is the DPS. There's no reason to have such a depressing enrage unless both tanks are in tank stance 24/7 and all 4 DPS are terrible.

[Launched]

Edit #2: Brute Justice being at 66% on enrage is just as much a fault of the tanks as it is the DPS. There's no reason to have such a depressing enrage unless both tanks are in tank stance 24/7 and all 4 DPS are terrible.

What if most of that DPS did come from the tanks and healers? Even a tank in tank stance can beat a bunch of the bad DPS players I see often enough. You can't say it's as much the tank's fault without a parser to show proof.