Would you like an in-game parser?

[Miste]

I've had such a difficult time getting in to the lower Savage floors to gear new jobs. I've had i320 gear on healers and tanks and no one is accepting me in even OS1! Meanwhile I have cleared whole Savage and am progressing in Ultimate on my main job. But whatevs, I guess I'm just not good enough for them.

I have the same problem on my alt xD

Her gear is a bit weak so I have a hard time getting into groups for stuff. I cleared Shinryu EX on her but all the farms ask for item level higher than I have, but I understand why, so I don't quibble. I was gonna try to get weapon from him, but eh she is just an alt so I don't care much. O1S and O2S same thing, usually the item level is set higher than I have on her, sometimes they let me join if I send a tell though.



Anyway time to go put up a PF for Susano EX i340.......

If people are putting up Susano parties with a minimum requirement of i340, they’re dumb. I’m sorry, not going to sugarcoat that.

Shoot.....

OH EM GEE Hyomin! Way to ruin my day! xD

Now what will I do! Gosh darnit.

[HyoMinPark]

Anyway time to go put up a PF for Susano EX i340.......

Shoot.....

OH EM GEE Hyomin! Way to ruin my day! xD

Now what will I do! Gosh darnit.

Now, now Miste. Play nice. ;p
If you wanna do it the right way, you gotta set a Susano Ex Farm for ilevel 400. That’s how it’s really done. Gonna get all the good deeps then. ;p

And on the same side of that coin you also can't disprove it either. You can say the burden of proof lies with the claimant; which is true, but when people claim there's not enough proof of harassment, it is also demonstrably false, as absence of proof does not equate proof of absence. The only side that can provide any sort of factual numbers for or against either case is the XIV team. But utilizing simple observations of complaints in the mistreatment of certain features; such as the Party Finder and Mentor channels, that turn up on the forums is justification for concern.

Contrary to what I think you’re thinking, I’m not trying to prove anything. All I am saying is that personal anecdotes can never be a solid basis for an objective argument. I have never pulled out any statistics from thin air to try and justify why I am “pro-parser”, but I see such behavior frequently from the opposite side, as well as using their own personal experiences (anecdotes) to cloud their judgment rather than looking at a situation objectively. That is what I take issue with: people making up statistics to further their own arguments (I’ve already touched on this in other posts in this thread); using the reasoning “parsers breed toxicity”, but then proceed in the same breath to demand SE “ban everyone who parses on the spot”, calls pro-parsers names (again, “parsetard” is now a personal favorite)...basically just combating toxicity with their own toxicity and trying to claim only the pro-parser crowd is the toxic crowd; or people that try to pass off their personal experiences as pervasive facts.

Those are feature's meant for making parties and people searching for help respectively. And yet seem to be points of contention, vitriol, and at times harassment if we follow some of the forum complaints. It's not much of a stretch to think or even make claims that a group wide parser will be mistreated. A good tool in the hands of those that know what it's for and how to handle the information, a weapon in the hands of others that don't, and it's not worth the chance of alienating parts of the community moreso than what it is.

Using this logic, though, you could simultaneously set up an argument against Party Finder the same way you would parsers:

Example
“Parsers breed toxicity and discrimination on the basis of a person’s DPS.”
—Party Finder is already full of parties with minimum ilevel requirements of i330/i335 for fights like Susano Ex or Lakshmi Ex, which need no where near that requirement to actually clear; those parties are discriminating against individuals that fail to meet those item levels, indirectly discriminating upon players’ DPS, since a lot of people assume higher item level = higher DPS (Tridus already touched on this).
—Party Finder is full of parties that have locked job slots to certain jobs or say “no doubles”, discriminating against other jobs or players that want to only play one job but can’t because they’re either locked out of the party or it would be a double job (though for Savage, I understand completely the “no doubles” for roles because DPS loot—tanks and heals aren’t so lucky, unfortunately).
—Party Finder is full of parties that have in the descriptions “Wipe on Phase 1 and disband”; one could say these are “potentially toxic” environments if one is following the whole “Skip Soar or disband” meme that was prevalent during 3.55 when ZurvanEx came out.

Party Finder already has the potential to breed toxicity and discrimination, and already had the potential to alienate parts of the community, yet it is still in this game. Why should a parser be treated any different? Why treat one tool differently and prohibit it, but allow another to “pass”? They’re both tools, are they not? One can mistreat the Party Finder the same way one would mistreat a parser, just the execution of said mistreatment would be different. But the concept is the same.

[Kyuuen]

Contrary to what I think you’re thinking, I’m not trying to prove anything. All I am saying is that personal anecdotes can never be a solid basis for an objective argument. I have never pulled out any statistics from thin air to try and justify why I am “pro-parser”, but I see such behavior frequently from the opposite side, as well as using their own personal experiences (anecdotes) to cloud their judgment rather than looking at a situation objectively. That is what I take issue with: people making up statistics to further their own arguments (I’ve already touched on this in other posts in this thread); using the reasoning “parsers breed toxicity”, but then proceed in the same breath to demand SE “ban everyone who parses on the spot”, calls pro-parsers names (again, “parsetard” is now a personal favorite)...basically just combating toxicity with their own toxicity and trying to claim only the pro-parser crowd is the toxic crowd; or people that try to pass off their personal experiences as pervasive facts.

Fair enough, jumped into an argument I should have paid more attention to there.

Using this logic, though, you could simultaneously set up an argument against Party Finder the same way you would parsers:

Example
“Parsers breed toxicity and discrimination on the basis of a person’s DPS.”
—Party Finder is already full of parties with minimum ilevel requirements of i330/i335 for fights like Susano Ex or Lakshmi Ex, which need no where near that requirement to actually clear; those parties are discriminating against individuals that fail to meet those item levels, indirectly discriminating upon players’ DPS, since a lot of people assume higher item level = higher DPS (Tridus already touched on this).
—Party Finder is full of parties that have locked job slots to certain jobs or say “no doubles”, discriminating against other jobs or players that want to only play one job but can’t because they’re either locked out of the party or it would be a double job (though for Savage, I understand completely the “no doubles” for roles because DPS loot—tanks and heals aren’t so lucky, unfortunately).
—Party Finder is full of parties that have in the descriptions “Wipe on Phase 1 and disband”; one could say these are “potentially toxic” environments if one is following the whole “Skip Soar or disband” meme that was prevalent during 3.55 when ZurvanEx came out.

Party Finder already has the potential to breed toxicity and discrimination, and already had the potential to alienate parts of the community, yet it is still in this game. Why should a parser be treated any different? Why treat one tool differently and prohibit it, but allow another to “pass”? They’re both tools, are they not? One can mistreat the Party Finder the same way one would mistreat a parser, just the execution of said mistreatment would be different. But the concept is the same.

My only argument against this would be that one is already a part of the game and it's systems, the other is a wish list item. As I said there's metric that we; as the users, don't get to see and that's any and all complaints that get filtered to the XIV team from within the game, pertaining to the abuse of systems in game or lack thereof (as I said it's an unknown, and I have to concede that this is possibly just being blown out of proportion).

I dunno, there's some reason for their decision against it. I know Yoshi has expressed similar concerns in what's been stated throughout the thread thus far.

[Tridus]

I dunno, there's some reason for their decision against it. I know Yoshi has expressed similar concerns in what's been stated throughout the thread thus far.

Is it the same reason for their opposition to fixing the housing system before Shirogane launched? Because they were extremely stubborn about that for no discernible reason except stubbornness, and caved when it turned into a class III sh**storm.

I mean, as a software developer myself, there's lots of reasons why things don't happen. Sometimes it's a deeply held principled belief that said thing is a bad idea. Sometimes it's because it would have a performance impact that isn't readily apparent to players. Sometimes the game design makes it difficult to build. Sometimes it's complicated enough that only a few people on the staff can actually do it, and those people are always busy with something more important. And sometimes we just don't want to admit we were wrong.