How would an optional, official parser be toxic?

[Penthea]

Let me pivot to a real world example. Image if you were a people manager. You have an employee who does X amount of work in 8 hours. You have another employee who does the same X amount of work in 8 hours, but he requires a special chair to be comfortable.

Is he less efficient of a worker? In terms of productivity, no, but he did come with a slightly higher cost (requires special chair due to disability, etc.), but per volume he still produces the same amount of output.

That's what these tools are. They may handhold and help, but they still improve the playerbase. You cannot refute that, it's a flat out undeniable fact.

Wow. You try to argue that parsers can noticeably improve the playerbase because supposedly Blizzard said they did. I tell you that there are add-ons that can greatly assist in doing a rotation so such a statement should not be taken for gospel...and now you give me an example that basically says "doesn't matter if someone gets handholded with add-ons, better dps is still better dps".

So am I to take this as you are also advocating for an official handholding rotation helper too?

[Jijifli]

So am I to take this as you are also advocating for an official handholding rotation helper too?

Do it. I actually am 100% okay with this.

Because there are players that already can't do regular combo lines in Stormblood content. They desperately need it since we can't tell them what's wrong because that's toxic.

[Shurrikhan]

Wow. You try to argue that parsers can noticeably improve the playerbase because supposedly Blizzard said they did. I tell you that there are add-ons that can greatly assist in doing a rotation so such a statement should not be taken for gospel...and now you give me an example that basically says "doesn't matter if someone gets handholded with add-ons, better dps is still better dps".

So am I to take this as you are also advocating for an official handholding rotation helper too?

Read the analogy again. Several times if necessary. Their performance is unchanged. One simply requires a larger initial investment on the employer's part. There is no continuous intervening cost, however. The same is true of making information conveniently accessible. It has an initial development cost (much of which would simply be repealing previous conscious decisions to hide information) and perhaps a fair bit of revision to ensure that the "at a glance" information is relevant and accurate (to what may be distinct perspectives, due to differing goals), but nothing continuous.

The same can be said of providing proper job guides through in-game learning activities, improving off of where WoW's Proving Grounds and XIV's Guildhests left a lackluster shallow attempt at the same. That involves initial cost. It does not involve continuous hand-holding in the actual content, even if the initial learning activities may be very guided.

Our concern is how many players can participate -- without burdening their fellow players -- in most or all content. A bit of investment cost, its benefits plopped comfortably into the players' laps (targeted at some but useful to all), may be more than worthwhile.