Tank dps harrasment

[SenorPatty]

It goes both ways those. My fun comes from large pulls and seeing just how much damage I can do during them. Comparatively, I'm bored out of my mind if a tank just one pack. If enough people feel the way I do in that particular party, why should we do one only one other person wants?

I suppose at this point its about how much all you can take from the tank. If you're all synchronized on wanting that mass pull, then you'll kick and hope the next one that arrives does. On the other hand, two of you may want to take it to the point of kicking but the third may not want to go that far at all. Your votes will still go through but now you have to deal with the 3rd person who was fine with a slow pulling tank.

At the end of the day, the only thing the majority can decide is how bad do you all want a new tank in the party. I can tell you right now most groups will just swallow it if the tank is not a bad player.

[Dualgunner]

FFLogs seems fairly reasonable I am sure if SE asked them to make it so their site was opt-in instead of out they would consider it. We do not have to view this only from extremes, I am trying my best to avoid extremes in my suggestions.

It doesn't matter how reasonable FFLogs is. Get the point: if Square Enix takes any action on FFLogs, they lose their neutral stance on parsers. They would then have to take a positive stance and ask them to go opt-in, or a negative stance and work to get the site shut down.

If you don't think them losing that neutrality would affect the playerbase, just look at every time a healer AI even touches stone; you see the forums erupt with "See? SE says healers should dps!"

I've presented my arguments to you; it looks like none of them have changed your mind. But to reiterate: I see more harm than good coming out of SE doing anything with FFLogs, and I see more harassment than not coming out of FFLogs being opt-in than opt-out.

[Awha]

Snip . . .

As I have said before this thread was bumped up, no one is going change the mind of anyone regarding this we are all firmly in our camps. You clearly think it will have a negative effect, and I think it may have a positive effect neither of us know what kind of effect such a change would have. Still enjoying the discussion.

Does SE really have a neutral stance on parsers, have they not openly said they do not support them, but know players use them, more of a don't ask don't tell sort thing (not sure which interview it was though). Following that stance, why should players have to opt-out of something that SE has mentioned they do not support? Just like all third party functions regarding video games from my knowledge they function on an opt-in system not opt-out, please correct me if I am wrong in this statement I do not play many online video games. As to where if you want the data to be gathered you link your account to the site in question and your data will be gathered. I still do not see why it is a reasonable expectation to place on the everyday player that does not wish for their data to be gathered or categorized to have to create a account on a third party site to hide their logs. I am of the position it should never be asked of a player to have to create an account on a third party site that has any effect on them whatever so in the base game. Especially if said feature / site is not supported by the first party company.

I get it will have an impact for FFLogs, but I am sure it will not destroy the tool or relationship they currently have.

[Dualgunner]

As I have said before this thread was bumped up, no one is going change the mind of anyone regarding this we are all firmly in our camps. You clearly think it will have a negative effect, and I think it may have a positive effect neither of us know what kind of effect such a change would have. Still enjoying the discussion.

It's not really a discussion at this point. "We don't know so we might as well try" and "It may hurt more people than it helps, but as long as 1 person is helped" aren't positions I consider strong.

Does SE really have a neutral stance on parsers, have they not openly said they do not support them, but know players use them, more of a don't ask don't tell sort thing (not sure which interview it was though).

That is their neutral stance, yes. They do not act on parsers outright, neither in support of or against them; they have their official position of no third-party tools.

Following that stance, why should players have to opt-out of something that SE has mentioned they do not support?

Because it's third party, not affiliated in any way with SE.

Just like all third party functions regarding video games from my knowledge they function on an opt-in system not opt-out, please correct me if I am wrong in this statement I do not play many online video games.

WarcraftLogs exists.

As to where if you want the data to be gathered you link your account to the site in question and your data will be gathered. I still do not see why it is a reasonable expectation to place on the everyday player that does not wish for their data to be gathered or categorized to have to create a account on a third party site to hide their logs.

It's not your data. It's data connected to a character you made, sure, but it is not *your* data. It is the uploader's data.

I am of the position it should never be asked of a player to have to create an account on a third party site that has any effect on them whatever so in the base game. Especially if said feature / site is not supported by the first party company.

I get it will have an impact for FFLogs, but I am sure it will not destroy the tool or relationship they currently have.

"Logs open or kick"
"Lol why are your logs closed loser"
In the situations FFLogs would affect you, they will affect you anyway regardless of opt-in or opt-out. I'm opposed to change for the sake of change, and I'm opposed to change because "well it could make life easier maybe for at least one person" disregarding all the possible people who it makes life harder on.

[Awha]

Snip . . .

Nor do I personally feel doing nothing since you personally feel the tools in place are enough or to maintain the status quo since we are unable to determine what effect if any it would have the issue in question, a valid reason to not further look into an issue a strong position either.

Wouldn't a neutral stance be not taking a side either way, and I do recall mentioning they do not support the use of a parser but know of their use. They have a stance do not use them, and if you do don't say anything. Seems far from neutral, though I will agree they are in state of equilibrium, and if they took action towards FFLogs said state would suffer, I do not see how it will impact FFLogs should fail into the equation as to why the assumed mass of players should be expected to create an account on a third party site to hide information. I would not say SE does not have a stance regarding the use of a parser.

Would be interesting to see if SE made their own in-game parser and made it so through your account you can toggle if you wanted you combat data gathered, and if you do toggle this option on your data is not recorded on the in-game parser for anyone. Would people still use FFLogs or would people respect the choice of those to hide their info and simply make open logs are requirement.

Making FFLogs opt-in would also make looking for a group that fits a desired play style easier and minimize the requests from players some would deem as sub-par. For example if a player did not want their fflogs shown and saw the requirement to joining said group was open logs, it stands to reason they would not even bother to try and join said group though we do not know if it will make life harder or easier or what sort of impact it would have. You feel it will make things harder, and I am not sure i could see it go either way, though more so towards making things easier. I agree it would have an the impact, though in my opinion it would be minimal, which is subjective what I view as minimal may not be what you would consider minimal.

Our positions at the core are based around a theoretical situation that neither of us truly know what lasting effect such a change would have, all we can do is talk about it or ignore it.

I do understand FFLogs is a third party site, though I will never understand why people feel it is reasonable to expatiation to place the burden of keeping their numbers hidden on from what I could only assume is the larger mass of players instead of the smaller subset that wish to use the tool. Though maybe those that do not wish to use FFLogs are in the minority, I do not know.

[s3ystic]

Elitism grows everywhere, for whatever reason. Its just human nature. You cant stop it.
However you CAN counter it, as history has already shown you CAN fight fire with fire. Don't like a movement? Make one of your own.
Seriously... if people kicked other people for using parsers what do you think the reaction would be? Stop giving people power over you.

Personally i don't give a crud. If a DPS wants to kick me for tanking, then they can sit and wait 30 more minutes to an hour for a PUG to pop, I really could care less, its their loss in the end.
I wont even raise my hand to tank (after they have forgotten me,) and sit in DPS role when these same jerks start complaining there are no tanks around.
I honestly don't believe the majority of people care about the "meta" or play this way. Only people who think they are more special than they actually are. Don't feed their egos.
I have only encountered this ONCE in a year of gameplay. I just think someone has bad luck, or needs better situational awareness.

[Alael]

80% of my dungeon tanking is sword oath / dps stance i stay in the tank one only when dmg reduction is necessary or when i need to build enmity rest is dps stance that how tank are supposed to be played.

[Ayer2015]

80% of my dungeon tanking is sword oath / dps stance i stay in the tank one only when dmg reduction is necessary or when i need to build enmity rest is dps stance that how tank are supposed to be played.

I don't recall SE putting out a "how to tank" manual. That is how you tank.,,,,

[akaneakki]

I don't recall SE putting out a "how to tank" manual. That is how you tank.,,,,

Do ultimate and it rings another bell.

[winsock]

I drop tank stance, but don't really care what a pug tank does so long as they hold threat and use appropriate cooldowns.

Honestly, the tank not dropping tank stance is least of worries. If the average party had a tank that could hold threat and use cooldowns, DPS who knew their rotations and when to aoe, plus a healer that didn't idle excessively... then I'd start caring more about a tank's stance in a 4man