They Should Add An Official Damage Meter With One Condition

[Saraide]

Except that he never said that. In fact, he explicitly said:

That has nothing to do with harassment and everything to do with gatekeeping. WoW embraces it, and this game thankfully does not. That's why I'm playing this game and not WoW.

A dubious reasoning as ilvl gating already exists and it's not only not a problem but also entirely avoidable by just making your own party. The higher you set expectations, the slower your party can fill but setting clear expectations is a benefit to everyone involved if people can accurately grasp and live with their own performance.

Ilvl gating can be very gatekeepy. When endsinger ex came out you could just set the min ilvl for your pf to 600 and only people who did savage were able to join. Did that cause issues? No, not only will not everyone set it that high but also everyone who hasnt done savage could just create their own PF. This to me proves that this fear yoship has stated is not well founded.

[Thi]

A dubious reasoning as ilvl gating already exists and it's not only not a problem but also entirely avoidable by just making your own party. The higher you set expectations, the slower your party can fill but setting clear expectations is a benefit to everyone involved if people can accurately grasp and live with their own performance.

Ilvl gating can be very gatekeepy. When endsinger ex came out you could just set the min ilvl for your pf to 600 and only people who did savage were able to join. Did that cause issues? No, not only will not everyone set it that high but also everyone who hasnt done savage could just create their own PF. This to me proves that this fear yoship has stated is not well founded.

Exactly all of this. You already have a bunch of filters you can have in a PF listing that act as "gatekeeping". Having one more won't cause any issues.

If you want to limit your party to only people who provide x DPS, you should have that right but making that choice also makes your party fill up slower because the higher you go the smaller and smaller the pool gets.

Likewise anyone who doesn't care can make their own PF listing, there isn't a limited number of listings available so it's not like they can keep you from doing content and gatekeep you, just form your own party.

[Saraide]

Exactly all of this. You already have a bunch of filters you can have in a PF listing that act as "gatekeeping". Having one more won't cause any issues.

If you want to limit your party to only people who provide x DPS, you should have that right but making that choice also makes your party fill up slower because the higher you go the smaller and smaller the pool gets.

Likewise anyone who doesn't care can make their own PF listing, there isn't a limited number of listings available so it's not like they can keep you from doing content and gatekeep you, just form your own party.

The idea that people will then use explicit DPS numbers is a dubious one at best and imo speaks more to what the people fearmongering from that would do than anyone else (remember, the only thing we can do is projecting). Walk me through the logistics of it, are you going to set individual numbers for every single job? While job balance is definitely a strength of this game, it's not perfect either. Remember that the damage numbers ACT shows when active is not entirely reflective of your contribution because of group buffs (both from you and from others). DPS also depends on the specific encounter down to the kill time.
Do you want to account for all that in your PF description and make an essay out of it? No, you wont. You'll just set an ilvl gate, kick people who are not up to your expectations and be done with it. Exactly like you can do now.

This is also assuming that SE does a good job at making an official damage meter that can account for group buffs and the likes. There is no reason to assume they will do a good job at that. This is honestly the reason why I think they shouldnt. The community already has a better solution than SE is able and willing to provide. Do we seriously believe SE would make the sensible decision and strike things like P3S add phase from the records?

[Thi]

The idea that people will then use explicit DPS numbers is a dubious one at best and imo speaks more to what the people fearmongering from that would do than anyone else (remember, the only thing we can do is projecting). Walk me through the logistics of it, are you going to set individual numbers for every single job? While job balance is definitely a strength of this game, it's not perfect either. Remember that the damage numbers ACT shows when active is not entirely reflective of your contribution because of group buffs (both from you and from others). DPS also depends on the specific encounter down to the kill time.
Do you want to account for all that in your PF description and make an essay out of it? No, you wont. You'll just set an ilvl gate, kick people who are not up to your expectations and be done with it. Exactly like you can do now.

This is also assuming that SE does a good job at making an official damage meter that can account for group buffs and the likes. There is no reason to assume they will do a good job at that. This is honestly the reason why I think they shouldnt. The community already has a better solution than SE is able and willing to provide. Do we seriously believe SE would make the sensible decision and strike things like P3S add phase from the records?

I agree on all fronts about this, you can't really set it by a raw number.

What I want is just a simple filter of did they clear SSS for this fight on the job they are joining on yes/no.

The raw numbers are just going to create a new "Skip soar or disband" but it is now "group DPS above x or disband."

[Shurrikhan]

Exactly all of this. You already have a bunch of filters you can have in a PF listing that act as "gatekeeping". Having one more won't cause any issues.

If you want to limit your party to only people who provide x DPS, you should have that right but making that choice also makes your party fill up slower because the higher you go the smaller and smaller the pool gets.

Likewise anyone who doesn't care can make their own PF listing, there isn't a limited number of listings available so it's not like they can keep you from doing content and gatekeep you, just form your own party.

I'd far rather have people filter for something that more directly correlates with performance than that they ask for the absolute maximum ilvl available for a given week such that alt jobs, or even any players who didn't get lucky with Savage drops, are effectively barred.

(Granted, logistically, that probably wouldn't be all that feasible unless the devs added a sharable high score system to one's SSS or the like. An in-game parser, useful as it is for learning and problem-solving once in the given content, does not in itself provide a shareable history/indicator of success useful to forming a group.)

[Klytania]

I'd far rather have people filter for something that more directly correlates with performance than asking for the absolute maximum ilvl available for a given week such that alt jobs, or even any players who didn't get lucky with Savage drops, are effectively barred.

I agree. It's kind of annoying when people lock stuff to 600iL

[Ronduwil]

A dubious reasoning as ilvl gating already exists and it's not only not a problem but also entirely avoidable by just making your own party.

Ilevel gating is not gatekeeping. Just like ilevel syncing, its purpose is to ensure that you are equipped to tackle the content at the intended difficulty. It's also an obstacle that's easily overcome in a matter of seconds with a trip to the market board. I have yet to see an ilevel requirement in the game that even required me to do as much as that. A bare minimum baseline for gear is very different from excluding you because you either haven't practiced enough with your current class or you're coming back from an extended break. Most players enjoy learning to play their class better through trial and error in group content. That's impossible to do when hardcore players who delusionally fancy themselves midcore players are complaining non-stop that someone queued for group content with them before having spent hours perusing discord, downloading addons, and/or beating on target dummies until their rotation became muscle memory. Just today I saw a toxic thread posted by someone complaining at a black mage in a level 30 dungeon was using an inefficient rotation. I'm willing to bet that if they weren't using ACT they wouldn't even know that. Yoshi-P is absolutely correct when he says that DPS meters are the root of in-game bullying.

[MintnHoney]

Ilevel gating is not gatekeeping.

I believe they're referring to parties that will not take players without meeting a certain ilevel requirement that's different from the minimum ilevel required for taking part in the encounter.

Yoshi-P is absolutely correct when he says that DPS meters are the root of in-game bullying.

DPS meters don't hurt people, people hurt people. It's why harassment is a punishable offense in general, but it still requires a report to be submitted in-game with details for such behavior to be punished.

[Saraide]

Ilevel gating is not gatekeeping. Just like ilevel syncing, its purpose is to ensure that you are equipped to tackle the content at the intended difficulty. It's also an obstacle that's easily overcome in a matter of seconds with a trip to the market board. I have yet to see an ilevel requirement in the game that even required me to do as much as that. A bare minimum baseline for gear is very different from excluding you because you either haven't practiced enough with your current class or you're coming back from an extended break. Most players enjoy learning to play their class better through trial and error in group content. That's impossible to do when hardcore players who delusionally fancy themselves midcore players are complaining non-stop that someone queued for group content with them before having spent hours perusing discord, downloading addons, and/or beating on target dummies until their rotation became muscle memory. Just today I saw a toxic thread posted by someone complaining at a black mage in a level 30 dungeon was using an inefficient rotation. I'm willing to bet that if they weren't using ACT they wouldn't even know that. Yoshi-P is absolutely correct when he says that DPS meters are the root of in-game bullying.

Ilvl gating is absolutely gatekeeping and you wont be able to circumvent it with the market board when it comes up. If I set the ilvl to the bis level of the current savage gear you simply can not enter if you havent cleared that tier. I know because I've used it myself many times. By time you have the stuff together through alliance raids, my PF is long gone.

I can guarantee you that someone paying attention to a lvl 30 black mage does absolutely not need ACT to see a fcked up rotation. You literally just need to read the cast bars at that point.

I'm going to quote myself here because I already talked about that in here:

Walk me through the logistics of it, are you going to set individual numbers for every single job? While job balance is definitely a strength of this game, it's not perfect either. Remember that the damage numbers ACT shows when active is not entirely reflective of your contribution because of group buffs (both from you and from others). DPS also depends on the specific encounter down to the kill time.
Do you want to account for all that in your PF description and make an essay out of it? No, you wont. You'll just set an ilvl gate, kick people who are not up to your expectations and be done with it. Exactly like you can do now.

Thi put it well:

The raw numbers are just going to create a new "Skip soar or disband" but it is now "group DPS above x or disband."

I appreciate it when people make fools of themselves publicly because that cuts the finding out part super short.