Would you like an in-game parser?

[Zojha]

The thing is, people want an official in game parser mostly to bring PS3/PS4 players the ability to do what the PC players have had the capability to do for ages, [...]

Namely to violate the terms of service via third party programs that only a PC can run?

I'd really appreciate if people could finally stop using the PS3/PS4 argument. PCs are simply more capable than consoles due to the ability to freely run third party programs. As such, PC players will always be able to do more than console players, they will always have more abilities. Using this advantage however is prohibited by the terms of service and the only reason people aren't being banned for parsing right now is because SE is nice and lenient. If you actually want equality, ask SE to stop being nice, because that's what the inequality stems from. And if you don't, please just stop using the argument.

[Kezy_Kaatapoh]

Namely to violate the terms of service via third party programs that only a PC can run?

I'd really appreciate if people could finally stop using the PS3/PS4 argument. PCs are simply more capable than consoles due to the ability to freely run third party programs. As such, PC players will always be able to do more than console players, they will always have more abilities. Using this advantage however is prohibited by the terms of service and the only reason people aren't being banned for parsing right now is because SE is nice and lenient. If you actually want equality, ask SE to stop being nice, because that's what the inequality stems from. And if you don't, please just stop using the argument.

Just because they can never be completely equal doesn't mean you don't try to bring them closer. Parsers are the main one people want and are the most useful. The other 3rd party stuff PC can use, while nice, is more preferential. It absolutely is still a valid argument.

Regardless though, my post was more than that and the rest still stands.

[Zojha]

The other 3rd party stuff PC can use, while nice, is more preferential.

Forgive me when I laugh. Do you even know what kinds of things you can do with the data from a parser? Simple DPS meter is just a tiny start, you can build entire boss mods with that (deadly boss mods ring any WoW bells?). How about a nice program that calculates and displays enemy LB availability and the most important cooldowns in PvP? Puuurely preferential. And don't forget the class helper that tells you exactly when to use which CD based on experiences and theorycrafting via a nifty little message. Just to name a few things SE would likely tolerate.

How about bots that do things automatically for you, like using an interrupt on a specific spell or going full on auto-pilot grinding? Still preferential? I can tell you those are immensely useful! And those sweet, sweet teleport hacks. And just as forbidden as a parser.

See where I'm getting at? Each of these programs provides a substantial advantage. They are all equally against the rules. And as long as SE lets this violation slide, there is inequality. Once SE enforces the rules, including parsers, there is equality. So again, if you want equality, ask SE to enforce the rules. Not incorporate single programs in a pool of dozens into the game. That is pointless without enforcement of the rules. And once rules are being enforced, there is no inequality anymore in the first place, so the reason falls flat. That's why it's an invalid argument.

And I know your post contained more. I just don't really care because I had my fair share of these kinds of debates. I just want people to repeat 'valid' arguments over and over again back and forth for 40+ pages with nothing to show for it.

[Kezy_Kaatapoh]

Forgive me when I laugh. Do you even know what kinds of things you can do with the data from a parser?

Yes. I'm fully aware of what a parser can and cannot do. All of those things you mentioned though don't involve information that you can't reasonably get otherwise, they just rearrange it or make it more prevalent. I can learn what a boss does, what the best CDs are to use at a given point in time, which CDs are available, which procs are up, etc. without the use of 3rd party tool. Those provide an edge, yes, but they just mean you have to spend less time working on your play.

A DPS meter, however, I cannot reasonably go into my battle log after every single pull and check what my DPS was. That's ridiculous, and that easily puts it far ahead of the other uses ACT provides. There's a reason we're talking about a DPS meter mainly here and not those other things.

So yes, I'd classify those things as preferential because all of the information it provides is readily available for me without the tool to know just as well as someone with the tool. What I can't do reasonably though is know my DPS, which makes it non preferential and more essential to high level play.

Again, just because there's always going to be inequality doesn't mean you don't try to close the gap. You seem to ignore that point.

Thanks for the condescending response though. You seem to be swell.

[Zojha]

Again, just because there's always going to be inequality doesn't mean you don't try to close the gap. You seem to ignore that point.

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!

[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.