Would you like an in-game parser?

[Rawrz]

The proportion of these votes have stayed very consistent. O.O

[Ghishlain]

Random stat breakdown time (take with a grain of salt as this a small and limited sample size):

Total Votes as of May 9th, 2016 - 0847 EST (thread approximately going for 3 days)
Total Vote - 209 Votes
No Parser - 34 Votes (16.27%)
Yes, Group Parser - 107 Votes (51.20%)
Yes, Personal Parser - 68 Votes (32.54%)

No VS Yes, Group Parser

Total Vote - 141 Votes
No Parser - 34 Votes (24.11%)
Yes, Group Parser - 107 Votes (75.89%)

No VS Yes, Personal Parser

Total Vote - 102 Votes
No Parser - 34 Votes (33.33%)
Yes, Personal Parser - 68 Votes (66.67%)

Total Votes arbitrarily assuming 50% of the Group Parser population voted both

Total Vote - 155 Votes
No Parser - 34 Votes (21.94%)
Yes, Group Parser - 53 Votes (34.19%)
Yes, Personal Parser - 14 Votes (9.03%)
Yes, Don't Care About Either (Assumption) - 54 Votes (34.84%)

Total Votes arbitrarily assuming 50% of the Personal Parser population voted both

Total Vote - 175 Votes
No Parser - 34 Votes (19.43%)
Yes, Group Parser - 73 Votes (41.71%)
Yes, Personal Parser - 34 Votes (19.43%)
Yes, Don't Care About Either (Assumption) - 34 Votes (19.43%)

I continue to be surprised that the "No" vote continues to remain as low as it is despite how many people are seemingly opposed to parsers, though that's probably confirmation bias on my own part too.

[Rawrz]

I'm really kicking myself in the face for the wording. But the forum mods, can see the true data, if they used a difference calculator between the forum names, if they feel intrigued by the poll.

[LaylaTsarra]

Random stat breakdown time (take with a grain of salt as this a small and limited sample size):

[U][B]TI continue to be surprised that the "No" vote continues to remain as low as it is despite how many people are seemingly opposed to parsers, though that's probably confirmation bias on my own part too.

The vote is split about 50/50 between those who want a group parser and those who don't. I don't think many opposed to group parsers are not in favor of a personal one for their use only. It really only goes to show that group parsers aren't wanted by half the population here in this thread at least.

[Bloodb]

NO, damage meters just breed elitism and makes some players focus on numbers.

Everything that is important information wise is available in the user interface at the moment. Raids should be more about teamwork and accomplishing a goal together than who's the biggest DPSER or who's the best player....

[LegitChamp]

It should be noted that the forums are a pretty poor random sampling of FF14 players. I would expect the forum population to have a much higher proportion of hardcore/elite players vs casual players compared to the actual population distribution in game(this is based of no known statistics, just my experience with MMORPGs). I would assume the elite players to be more inclined towards allowing an official parser which likely has a lot to do with the numbers we see here.

It should also be noted that many of the hardcore/elite players want a parser not because they want to know their DPS (lets be honest, they are likely already using 3rd party software) but because they want to hold other people accountable for a lack of DPS. Nothing really wrong with that except this is likely going to be directed at dps they meet in PuGs (theoretically they don't have to worry about their FC or friends reporting them for using 3rd party software). I have no issue with people getting reprimanded for sleep walking through a zone. But I don't like the idea of some inexperienced casual trying to finish his daily leveling roulette getting abused (or just randomly kicked) because he can't keep up with some ilvl synced hardcore in 230 gear.

[Ghishlain]

The vote is split about 50/50 between those who want a group parser and those who don't. I don't think many opposed to group parsers are not in favor of a personal one for their use only. It really only goes to show that group parsers aren't wanted by half the population here in this thread at least.

Alternatively, one can interpret the data to say that very few people are actually opposed to a parser, but they're opposed to what type of parser (group vs personal). Hence, my assumed breakdown in my post about those who don't care which type it is as long as they get some form of measuring tool to use.

With that being said, it's pretty clear that the forum population thus far have indeed agreed that they do want a parser in some capacity.

[Bloodb]

You can watch what abilities people are using. You can see right next to their character portrait in the party frame if they have up key buffs like heavy thrust, straight shot, maim, etc.

If someone is going through a leveling roulette by simply only using auto-attack you should be able to tell without a damage meter




For example I tanked an Amdapor recently and watched the dragoon only use 3 skills the whole dungeon, true, vorpal, full thrust.. the 1, 2 ,3 basic combo. Even though I asked him/her to use full thrust for the buff it never happened. I just assumed the dragoon wasn't paying attention to chat or watching tv or something also.

[Seraphix2407]

You can watch what abilities people are using. You can see right next to their character portrait in the party frame if they have up key buffs like heavy thrust, straight shot, maim, etc.

If someone is going through a leveling roulette by simply only using auto-attack you should be able to tell without a damage meter

If you meet a player and trying to tell him he has to get better, lets say in a good mannered way and he tells you to fuck off, is that okay?

[LaylaTsarra]

Alternatively, one can interpret the data to say that very few people are actually opposed to a parser some capacity.

No the issue isn't parsers, it's group parsers. Spin it the way you like but the PRO GROUP PARSER crowd didn't win this one. I think it's been pretty clear in threads on this forum that those by far and large opposed to parsers don't want group ones and this poll at least CLEARLY SHOWS THAT.