Parsers add replayability for casual players

[SturmChurro]

Actually, are you sure about that?



That goes both ways and what I was talking about regarding complaints about "griefers." Not everyone is intentionally playing a certain way to grief someone else.

See, if you truly believe that, then you should stop saying that people should be silent in random group content. If you're giving constructive criticism and actually saying it in a neutral and constructive manner, then you shouldn't fear people reporting you for it, if they even do.

I think that goes back to individual experiences as I've seen plenty of people giving advice, and I doubt most of them, if any, were reported.

That has bothered me in terms of curation - but it is true according to people here. I tend to believe them. If it wasn't, I'd think it would actually be a punishable act - and that, frankly, doesn't seem to be the case.

I don't want to be silent in group content. I suggest users stay silent 'IN GAME', so they don't risk their account over some player they probably won't see ever again. Intentionally griefing or not. A warning even is a permanent mark on your account. It's just not worth it, and in not being able to speak up (EVER) due to everything being taken as a personal attack, it enables more of this sort of play.

Yeah, I'm not going to risk that, and I will never suggest anybody else risk their account over it. All it takes is one time for a GM to act on ANYTHING said, and that's a STRIKE on your account. Again, not worth it. It's better to keep chatter third party, and never risk having to deal with someone who thinks the whole world is out to get them, and you just popped on their radar after having the gall to suggest they use aoe or whatever.

[linayar]

That has bothered me in terms of curation - but it is true according to people here. I tend to believe them. If it wasn't, I'd think it would actually be a punishable act - and that, frankly, doesn't seem to be the case.

I think that's a matter of people not bothering to report potential misuse.

Either way, that goes back to what I say about how the community behaves when there is no enforcement in the game.

I don't want to be silent in group content. I suggest users stay silent 'IN GAME', so they don't risk their account over some player they probably won't see ever again. Intentionally griefing or not. A warning even is a permanent mark on your account. It's just not worth it, and in not being able to speak up (EVER) due to everything being taken as a personal attack, it enables more of this sort of play.

Yeah, I'm not going to risk that, and I will never suggest anybody else risk their account over it. All it takes is one time for a GM to act on ANYTHING said, and that's a STRIKE on your account. Again, not worth it. It's better to keep chatter third party, and never risk having to deal with someone who thinks the whole world is out to get them, and you just popped on their radar after having the gall to suggest they use aoe or whatever.

Fair enough, though I think, joking aside (because people have different sense of humor), you're still overblowing the potential risk. If everyone took your advice, this game would be dead as the community cannot live outside the game.

[Shurrikhan]

There was nothing I read in the original post mentioning why they were calling out a level 77 tank (was that you?) as an example for needing a parser.

In any case, if the behavior is observable without a parser, why does it necessitate a parser in-game, exactly?

Forgive the repetition, but I feel the previous answers left something to be desired and, as I've not yet expended so much energy in this thread as to be exhausted by such attempts, I would like to try once more to explain this.

First, though, some context -- namely, the original post you mentioned and those which contextualize it. Note that my views here don't entirely align with Roeshel's, but I believe I can at least fairly examine the contexts of his posts.

Calling someone, who is bad, bad is not verbal abuse. It is part of recognizing the problem. Players that play bad bring frustration, especially if they are unwilling to learn. Everything becomes difficult when they are around. I couldn't care one bit if you think that you are being attacked, harassed or insulted when someone tells the truth. The same way you don't care about your party members. A level 77 paladin that can't take the aggro of four mobs in casual content is just bad. Once he understands that simple truth, only then can he start improving.

This is why we won't get parsers. People who think like this ruin any chance of getting even private parsers built into the game. SE obviously doesn't want players pointing out each others bad parses.
And fyi, I'm not talking about giving advice on skill rotation, mechanics, or whatever because that can be beneficial. I'm talking parses - pure numbers. I'd personally like a parser, but I know some people won't shut up about other people's numbers.

?

If we had official parsers I wouldn't need to tell someone who is underperforming that they are underperforming. You are not making sense. As I already said, that recognizing the problem is the first step that needs to be taken if one wants to improve. If you by level 77 have not realized that you are utterly bad at your job as a tank then you need to be told that. Don't take it personally, maybe try talking with people to figure out how you can play your job better instead of hiding behind your screen, not responding to any question or advice given. I don't have to keep you in the dungeon, I did it because you were on your msq.

We have here (and in nearby posts, though for sake of brevity I've not copied them all) three larger claims that, while each individually complex, should not be conflated (nor taken as held by some monolithic "pro-parser" platform):

1. Basic qualitative evaluation (such as in doing "good" or "bad") should not be taken as attack against one's character; nor, therefore, should those evaluations be held to the level of scrutiny by which broader condemnation, scorn, or insult ought be held.

   This claim does not include whether calling someone "bad" insofar as their present performance in concerned is in fact insulting to their person, but merely that, in the context of group responsibilities, it ought not be treated as such. It's worth noting that in that context, so long as the content is of roughly appropriate difficulty for the party's lvl and ilvl, one's performance is inversely correlative with the remainder of the party's stress (of a sort few would ever look forward to), and most players wish to minimize unsought stress, whether directly or indirectly (e.g., altruism or via some vague idea of returns on what would otherwise be altruism).
   
   Note, though, many "pro-parsers" here have placed limitations upon this claim, such as by restricting it to only when the intent and likely consequence of that evaluation are themselves good (likely to produce a favorable outcome, not solely in the short-term, for the recipient or, at least, for one's party).
   * I, myself, am among that group, and consider tact a further factor. Though, I must admit that tact, to the extent it serves functions beyond reaching favorable outcome for the recipient, is largely self-serving; I merely think that stressors tends to affect us less when we feel better about one another and that, even while politeness can be facetious, practicing that politeness can often foster good feelings, if only incidentally.

2. When a party is failing to meet requirements or reasonable expectations (e.g., a level 77 tank failing to even hold aggro or a group failing Titania's DPS check), it is helpful for discussion not to be bogged down by the direct process itself of establishing the facts surrounding that failing. Parsers, even limited as they've been in the form of ACT or the like, significantly aid in this.

   It's worth noting here the larger goal to which a parser may adhere, such as in providing, ideally, as comprehensive a coverage among those bases or facets of fact as can be conveniently absorbed. (Convenience here does not prevent stress altogether; a very limited parser like ACT's, for instance, does demand attention to contexts, such as a tank screwing over its melee DPS through positioning or negatively synergetic pulls.) Yet, there is also some benefit to be gained from a basic, irrefutable starting point, from which those contexts can be discussed with accordant weight. For instance, if, clearly, none of the other melee DPS (who are presently far too homogenous to warrant further breakdown) were screwed over by the tank's actions, then the tank's movement, pulls, etc., such would make clear that the tank's pulling or positioning, itself, would not be a significant context, while cooldown desync from having died may loom large, especially on a job for which that impact is especially large. A parser cannot replace game knowledge; it is merely a table from/at which to situate discussion, having replaced and thereby abridged a process of guesswork to then more quickly, if needed, find lucrative threads.
   
   On this note, I think you'll find that many "pro-parser" posts here have phrased parsers' affordances in ways that open their position up to (sometimes unintended) strawmanning, mostly through the idea that parsers are somehow a cure-all. While an ideal parser can come very, very near such, the community's experience is limited primarily to ACT, or what they imagine ACT is like. Some of those posters will then correct this idea to indicate that, no, a parser does not occlude the need for context, but in fact provides a frame of reference by which those contexts themselves might be contextualized (which may be increasingly or decreasingly adhered to as fights become more throughput-centered or mechanics-centered), effectively finding what the biggest pain points are. Others, though, have not separated this from the social dimensions within parsing, which has, sadly, led much of this discussion in circles. (That is not to say the social dimensions do not themselves need to be discussed, only that conflating these areas has done us no favors.)

3. Players improve only after having acknowledged that they have a need and/or significant space to improve, and (the use of) parsers can stimulate that acknowledgement.

   This I must disagree with, and I feel many of the "pro-parsers" here would as well. While there is some vague, philosophical sense by which this may ring true (that one only actively seeks improvement after having comes to term with a need), one of the benefits I see as most unique to parsers is that it can solidify incidental improvement or "passive" experimentation (when one flubs an opener and just runs with it, for instance, and then sees the results and finds that the alternate opener might actually have some unique value to it). It gives some substance to one's experimentation, to when things "feel right" or "feel off", and around which one may find new ways to engage with their play at an additional derivative level, without being drawn out of game to charts, theorycrafting, guides, or the like.
   
   Parsers might signal needs to improve in a way that is uniquely concrete, convenient, and/or actionable, but they are not unique in being able to signal that need. Most situations that demand improvement are also visible to those with knowledge of the job in question without any need for a parser, so long as the content is easy enough to allow that kind of distraction (which may appear worth one's attention upon first incidentally noticing a mistake, upon the first wipe, or --with a parser-- at any given moment). Where the social environment allows, correction can occur almost identically with or without a parser; the parser only gives uniquely convenient means by which to tell players what to look out for, just as a mistake might guide one's eyes to the parser in the first place to see whether the mistake's likely to be trivial in the long run.

Again, these claims should not be taken as representative of the whole of a "pro-parser" platform. There is no such platform, after all, as there is no unified "pro-parser" group. Even the most basic reasons for wanting parsers vary greatly, from wanting to open up more of the game to others (in terms of means of engagement), to bridging to reducing player conflicts (e.g., by conveniencing and somewhat standardizing evaluations of performance as to have fewer cases of gross underpreparation or underengagement), to making the playing field more fair for PS players, so on and so forth. I have listed out these three to show how they are ultimately separate, even as seen within a single turn of discourse.

This is also partly why the request to show "why a parser is necessary" to solve the problem of the example level 77 tank who can't hold aggro is baffling to many here -- especially to those who have continued to state that a parser is not thus necessary to point out there mistakes, but instead simply gives more access to the kind of player who'd already want to try to pull themselves out of their (comparatively far less deep) hole. There's an intersection here between parsers and their affordances and the sort of social environment or situations we come across in group content that makes parsers feel especially relevant. That does not mean that parsers are meant to address every example therein. Far more of their intersections are less direct.

Or, in this particular case, the level 77 tank was never given as a example of what a parser could directly and uniquely solve, but merely a conflict which a parser could (A) get people out of more quickly and (B) help induce a change in social environment by which such conflicts more rarely occur.
______________________________

I'd like here to talk further about that "social environment" into which discussions of parsers so often intersects. I apologize if this comes off as ranting; I've not had times to organize my thoughts and need to type this out quickly before work.

I mentioned above that discussion of parsers often finds itself balanced against discussions of the social environment. To one side, it often (for no side here is monolithic) seems that much of what parsers could provide would seem less necessary if the social environment were more open to discourse surrounding improvement; after all, (in)convenience would be a smaller barrier to entry into that discourse if that discourse were already less alienated / more natural. To the other side, it would often seem that any increase in means by which players may butt heads (whatever the net positive may be) is inherently undesirable, especially or at least if those means follow a frame of reference that would seem to serve some small group (at the assumed expense of all others). I feel that latter fear has been attached to parsers unreasonably and to ultimately toxic and exclusive results.

Let us start with one of the ways in which the concept of parsing is most often interacted with in typical practice: DF run advice/requests. Somehow, there has formed an increasingly held myth that few if any mistakes could be noticed without a parser and that advice must therefore be consequent to parsing and therefore to whatever assumptions one holds about parsing (e.g., as despicably oligarchical, hierarchical, etc.). Yet, we rarely seem to question who actually loses out from those assumptions. Who, I wish we'd ask, are excluded as a result of stigmatizing information access and what all is associated with it? I think careful consideration of these potential actors can already show who, overall, does not benefit, so I will skip to the end: above all, this kind of stigmatization most hurts those players who want to engage in more of the game, not necessarily in terms of content, but the ways in which the game itself might be engaged with. We can ascribe this quality, by correlation, to the casual-midcore or not-quite-Savage or whatever other unfortunately stratified group, but my guess is that this describes a lot of people who (1) could get more enjoyment out of the game if its underlying systems of combat felt more pertinent or rewarding to them in their actual play and yet (2) are not so invested in doing any and all content (or, all upper-difficulty content) that they would seek out self-improvement for extrinsic ends. This is quite likely a group larger than your hardcore players, but whom are currently partly occluded.

Let me put it another way, returning to the sort of social impact this parser-hardcore conflation has on our more or less "daily" or "typical" interactions across battle content broadly. So long as the community maintains the myth that poor play is uniquely detectable by parsers (rather than parsers merely providing a longer-viewing counterpoint to our own attention), then the social environment will be held hostage to some extent by parser's legality. Often, this is due instead to some intentional conflation; I think we can be reasonably certain that many of those who, upon receiving even very tactful and specific advise, retort with a threatened report for suspicion of ToA infringement do not honestly think parsers uniquely caused their being given unwanted advice.

Nonetheless, however, that superstition (in the literal sense of a notion which, through its consequent procedures, maintains itself) has caused certain inertias that are, to my mind at least, fairly toxic. If the assumption is that one can only notice one another's mistakes because of a parser, even when the advice is far too specific to have come without careful attention well beyond an automated number-cruncher, and parsers are themselves seen as somewhere somewhere between icky grey, banned, and satanic, then even the idea of helping one another takes significant flak. Similarly, as parsing becomes increasingly conflated with elitism, and elitism as something which exists only from tautological reasons and to tautological ends (I am elitist because I am elite and I became elite only because I was elitist and so I could be elite), it reframes any forms of helping one another through increased engagement with their play, itself, as self-serving, cliquey, or otherwise nefariously agenda-based. That should not be the case. And, above all, it hurts those who want to engage with all the game has to offer, to the limits of their acceptable stress levels.

In part, that's because parsers and tools which can similarly convenience experimentation and, thereby, learning can reduce the stress of that engagement or give it a more symbolic and therefore investing experience (see friendly competition, setting new personal bests, etc). But it's also because there are areas separable between the very self-paced learning that occurs with parser usage over time and the more varied and far less player-paced anxieties that may go into Savage/Ultimate content, for instance. To limit a tool of use to, and means of engagement for, many just because its absolute need is only seen at the highest levels, for which only a smaller part of that "many" will have lasting interest, is unnecessarily exclusive.

People who come to enjoy hardcore content for the most part do so because they find that content at least as intrinsically enjoyable as the rest, likely because it satisfies a unique means of engagement (e.g. those means which are only felt when the tuning is such as to make your various tips and tricks acquired, and your attention to your play in any given moment, feel pertinent and rewarded). But note the "come to". Enjoying more difficult content is an acquired taste, not an irreconcilable one. It depends first on having enjoyed combat itself to the point of enjoying self-improvement. Not all, even then, who enjoy improving their performance will ultimately enjoy the further stressors of hardcore content. And that's totally fine. Scratching that gameplay-rewarded itch to the fullest degree requires specific content (Savage, Ultimate, etc.), but we don't need to scratch an itch we don't have to that extent. But at the same time, it's a bit ridiculous to think that the only ones who enjoy self-improvement or engaging with the finer systems of the game's combat are solely the "hardcore" players. And I hate that the costs to that whole potential group, just because they don't so neatly fit some sort of mythical "casual"-"hardcore" binary, goes totally uncared about -- let alone that binaries such as that, in defining themselves so often by their assumed opposition ("I am casual [because I'm sure as heck not one of those hardcore ****s]" or the inverse) just kind of creates a more sickly, more volatile playing field for everyone, eager to jump at (the throat of) any tools or artifacts that seem synecdochal of either side.

[/rant]

[Shurrikhan]

I don't want to be silent in group content. I suggest users stay silent 'IN GAME', so they don't risk their account over some player they probably won't see ever again. Intentionally griefing or not. A warning even is a permanent mark on your account. It's just not worth it, and in not being able to speak up (EVER) due to everything being taken as a personal attack, it enables more of this sort of play.

Yeah, I'm not going to risk that, and I will never suggest anybody else risk their account over it. All it takes is one time for a GM to act on ANYTHING said, and that's a STRIKE on your account. Again, not worth it. It's better to keep chatter third party, and never risk having to deal with someone who thinks the whole world is out to get them, and you just popped on their radar after having the gall to suggest they use aoe or whatever.

While I'd never try to push people towards danger of a strike against their accounts just to try to make the game a generally more friendly place (though I'd hope they'd consider that a benefit worth their consideration), I'm kind of the opposite in that I can't wholly forgo giving advice when it seems lucrative and the friendly, pleasant, sociable thing to do.

It feels bad enough that tactful, cheerful, or otherwise polite and well-intentioned advice is much more often met with hostility here than in the other MMOs I play, but to let that sort of letter-of-the-law (over its spirit) or conflations regarding player engagement to blanket any and all attempts to help others with something you've found engaging (and the excitement of which you have, many times past, successfully conveyed to others to their benefit)... that just seems too ominous, too pacifying, to continue playing. So, for me, it's either 'take the risk and shrug off the occasional disproportionate backlash' or just hop back to WoW where, oddly enough, my average experience in group content has been at least a bit more friendly and the occasional friendship formed from random matchmaking.



:: To be clear, my advice is still met with hostility at most a third of the time; it's not as if the whole game has gone sour. It's more a matter of comparison, as the same quality of advice (or even that which is less tactful), tends to be more readily absorbed in other MMOs I play; in WoW, for instance, other players seem more willing to give me advice (though perhaps that has much to do with how much Details, WoW's most frequently used parser addon, facilitates that process), and less than a tenth the time am I likely to encounter any hostility when giving advice or making a reasonable request (even as each of those tend to be more complex, as WoW's 'light party'-equivalent content simply tends to have a fair bit more going on).

[ForteNightshade]

And what would change in the experience? You'd still kick someone, right? You'd still not be able to say anything to them.

What does it matter if they can see? The key element there is that they have to give a damn about what they see. So what is really going to change?

Not necessarily. It also allows the group to actually discuss a DPS issue in say Savage PF. What you'll often seen nowadays is people leaving after a couple pulls because they know they can't comment on someone having low DPS.

It would also be a massive help to jobs like Astro whose entire gimmick is reliant on how other people perform. In fact, one could argue the dislike towards Astro's new card system is because people can't actually see the impact their cards have. You could directly feel a 10% defensive buff on a tank; see your MP ticking up, and etc. You can't really see if that extra 5% is better on the Samurai, Dragoon or Red Mage.

Actually, are you sure about that?

Yes.

[Shurrikhan]

(Above)

I can offer a counter-example to this, by way of personal anecdote.

Back in ARR (WP HM, iirc), I was running an Expert Roulette with a group of 3 German-queued players. There was a brief moment of confusion when I said hello and such in German only to get mute response, followed by "we only speak English", but the run went in quick and friendly fashion. That is, until just before the final boss, at which point they said something along the lines of "Sorry, but our friend needs his daily bonus." Dense as I am, I first thought they meant they had to leave just short of completion, which kinda sucked as it'd take a while to find both a tank and healer. Then, remembering that they were all queued as German only despite being English-only speakers and on a NA server, I thought one who'd already gotten their bonus was dropping to make room for a buddy who'd swap queues to German and in-progress join them. 5 seconds or so later, I knew better once they kicked me.

Given that it was a 20-or-so-minute queue to get in as DPS, I was pretty ticked and actually reported them, providing all that context in fair detail. I was assured that they would look over the party chat and, while I was told what would ultimately happen to that party was confidential (only that they took provable abuse of the kick feature seriously), I never received any word that this option, on their part, was secured by the categorical "different playstyles" clause.

So, more simply put: There appear to be real limits to that otherwise all-powerful leniency in kick categories.

But, yes, for the purposes by which any kick is likely to occur in a typical DF run... the kicker is pretty much immune to redress.

[linayar]

Yes.

How old is that message and would it hold for all GMs considering even that GM admitted to the limited/wrong text being used in the interface?

Regardless, it's an interesting wording there:

"...not constitute a breach of our rules, since they did not act with the sole purpose of disrupting your gameplay."

If being prevented from playing and clearing a duty because you were kicked is not a problem because it does not necessarily mean the ones who kicked you acted with the sole purpose of disrupting your gameplay, that reasoning could potentially be applied to other situations.

[SturmChurro]

While I'd never try to push people towards danger of a strike against their accounts, I'm kind of the opposite in that I can't wholly forgo giving advice when it seems lucrative.

I exaggerate. I do actually chat in-game, on occasion (usually completely silent in DF though). Sometimes a lot. Depends on my mood. However, not using the chat function (at all) is a sure way to never get banned in this game. I will offer advice or thoughts - if asked - or if the conversation is leading in that direction. Never unsolicited however.

There's a real reason why many in this community are so passive-aggressive, and a lot of it is due to enforcement, I'd say. I took a good long look at the ToS after getting banned here on the forums a couple times, and that certainly straightened me out quick - and I was already more reserved in this game than others beforehand. I obsessively edit my posts (for more than just grammar), especially if I am in an argument with someone. I learned quickly, that their enforcement here is so broad, many things can be misconstrued as "slander", in just a general conversation - and yes, when you get forum banned, the post in question gets sent to you - unlike in-game, apparently. If the GMs in-game ban players like how the forum mods have banned users here, then I will not take that chance, I have spent WAY TOO MUCH time and money on this game, to risk my account. No way.

Now, to keep this relevant to the thread, the, in my opinion, heavy-handed approach to ToS enforcement certainly means that even if there was to be an official parser, I don't think players would have to worry about harassment. The policies wouldn't change. The difference here is: players would be able to talk about their own numbers openly, without fear of account action taken for the admission of using a third party program. Actual harassment? Nothing would change. Players who don't understand this will be banned, and the players who do won't. Underperforming players are even now already getting kicked out of duties - silently - for that matter.

Anyway, If someone really has to chat in this game, they should keep it G rated, PG at worst.

[Shurrikhan]

I exaggerate. I do actually chat in-game, on occasion (usually completely silent in DF though). Sometimes a lot. Depends on my mood. However, not using the chat function at all is a sure way to never get banned in this game. I will offer advice or thoughts - if asked - or if the conversation is leading in that direction. Never unsolicited however.

There's a real reason why many in this community are so passive-aggressive, and a lot of it is due to enforcement, I'd say. I took a good long look at the ToS after getting banned here on the forums a couple times, and that certainly straightened me out quick - and I was already more reserved in this game than others beforehand. I obsessively edit my posts (for more than just grammar), especially if I am in an argument with someone. I learned quickly, that their enforcement here is so broad, many things can be misconstrued as "slander", in just a general conversation - and yes, when you get forum banned, the post in question gets sent to you - unlike in-game, apparently. If the GMs in-game ban players, like how the forum mods have banned users here, then I will not take that chance, I have spent WAY TOO MUCH time and money on this game, to risk my account. No way.

Anyway, If someone really has to chat in this game, keep it G rated, PG at worst.

The only strike I've ever had against me was following an entirely silent (aside from opening "hellos" and my "good run, all" at the end), entirely normal Expert Roulette (that Ixali dungeon in Heavensward). Rather, it was the only time I'd had to log in that week (finals), so I'm 99% sure it was that run, but I can't technically be certain, as the GM never said. As for the actual reason for complaint, I'll never even be able to guess, let alone know why. So, at least it's nice to know that forum vacations at least give you pointers as to where you'd be coming back from.

That said, that still seems so absurd to me that socializing would ever be bottlenecked by some sort of absolute need. If someone really "has to" chat? It's a friggin' MMO. Why should we be afraid to speak to one another? Is the treadmill-grind concept so intrinsically attractive that we make due with the unfortunate presence of others known not yet known to us?

And while we should certainly keep ourselves in check, there's an opposite extreme to that, too. Surely we shouldn't we be so intolerant, in a social setting, as to blow up over the first dubious word or inadvertently sensitive topic, removing it from whatever context or humanity is behind it? If it's something that'd be fine at the kind of workplace or cohort environment we'd like for yourselves (and that's not to say people can't prefer a workplace where they are wholly isolated or perfectly reserved with one another), why should we draw a more stringent standard for a place of play?


(Sorry if this comes off as directed at you specifically, Sturm. It's not. I'm merely venting.)

[Imora]

Huh. I don't ever remember getting a message about which post got me banned before. Maybe wasn't a thing all those years ago.

Then again, I don't go out of my way to get forum vacations.