The problem lies not in using them for competitive raiding, it lies in those same raiders then apply them to other in game activities to further polish their epeen. Leading to toxic behavior. By your own admission you are asking for a tool that has been proven countless times to cause salt and grief to satisfy a marginal group of leetist pricks, rather than removing the option for the greater majority so they may toil in blissful ignorance and play the abilities and augments they find fun, rather than fotm guide to raid videos that everyone will then require people to parrot cause "X crunched the numbers, and his video clearly shows this is best for optimal dps at phase 2 on boss #12, so respec or get outta our group!"
I've said it before, but games without parsers have FotM and leetist pricks every bit as much as games that do have parsers.
The parser is a scapegoat in this argument, not the center of it.
The games that have the biggest issue with this kind of thing are the games that have the most dicks - not the game with the highest use of parsers.
I firmly believe that people that want to play in blissful ignorance should be able to do so.
However, their wish to be ignorant should not impede the ability of those that want to be informed from being so informed. If both can not co-exist (which I believe they can) then it should be the freedom of information that wins out, not the hindrance of it.
People will find out what classes are "best" to bring with or without any tools.
I don't really like how so many people think everyone that wants to use a parser has to be a dick who only use it to bring other players down or something...
I like having a parser because it motivates me to improve myself and it becomes kind of a game within a game to do better. I have never called someone out for their numbers, and will never do in the future either. It's not just a tool to see if others meet the "criteria".
If they don't want it in the game, sure, I'll manage, but a lot of people enjoy it, it's not just a tiny portion.
I don't want any other more in-depth tools though, and most of all, nothing that affects the actual content in the game. So no tools that help you with what to do.
In the last game I played, the parser I used was created by the players themselves. It was allowed by the game as an 'add-on'.
Those who wanted to use it did so. Those who didn't want to use it saved themselves the trouble of downloading and installing the parser.
My previous point was that there are plenty of uses for a parser that have nothing to do with competitive Raiding, and I do not see why the behaviour of competitive Raiders should deny all other players a very useful tool.
Toxic players will be toxic players, regardless of whether or not they have access to a parser. The tried-and-true method of avoiding toxic Raiders is avoiding the toxic Raiding guilds in favour of more inclusive Raiding guilds.
Of course, Intrepid Studios can design the game in such a way as to discourage toxic behaviour as well. From what I've read of the PvP system, IS has done a good job of discouraging toxic behaviour (griefing, ganking, and preying on newbies/lowbies). Perhaps they will also do the same with Raiding by designing Raids in such a way that skill and mobility take precedence over pure DPS/HPS, thereby rendering parsers less controversial.
tl;dr: the parser is an amazingly useful tool, and I would hate to be denied access to it because of a toxic minority.
Of course, Intrepid Studios can design the game in such a way as to discourage toxic behaviour as well.
My thoughts on this was to have a "training dummy" in a freehold or guild hall (not sure if these are confirmed) that acts as an in game parser.
This allows players to at least test a new build or new item in a consistent environment, but also means that no player has access to any other players parsed numbers.
To me, this is a viable compromise where players can easily obtain data on their own builds and equipment, but no one is able to throw poor numbers in the face of someone not pulling their weight.
I want to be able to use A.C.T.
That is my parser of choice - even though it's 10 years old.
However, I will take what ever access to information I am given and make the most of it.
Noaani, I appreciate your idea for compromise, but it doesn't really satisfy me. That said, I do also appreciate that those speaking out against parsers are doing so with good cause, even if I disagree with them.
As such, I'll try to watch my tone as I do internet combat against my ideological opponents. I'll address the issue from another angle, perhaps with a hypothetical comparison.
Imagine two raid leaders, Bad Billy and Benevolent Bob.
Benevolent Bob is a benevolent raid leader. He is interested in creating the most competitive raid guild possible while still maintaining a pleasant atmosphere and mutual respect within the guild.
In order to improve his subordinates' performance, Bob uses a parser: - He identifies his top performers via the parse, and discusses their rotations, timing, and tactics; - If he judges that these players have a solid understanding of the mechanics behind their superior performance, he will task them (as the newly minted Mentors they are) with mentoring those who need guidance; - Using the data made available by the parse, Bob and his Mentors will analyze the parses of the weaker members of the group and identify problems with their play and ability choice; - Meanwhile, various members will experiment with new rotations and class/sub-class combinations and perhaps come up with unique and effective play styles (with the help of their parsers, of course).
Now, if we take the parser away from Benevolent Bob, he will still do his best to nurture a competitive-but-friendly raid guild. He will simply be moderately less effective in his ambition.
Bad Billy is a bad raid leader, so much so that some people would refer to him a toxic. he is interested in creating the most competitive raid guild he can while engaging in abusive behaviour and petty tyranny.
In order to improve his subordinates' performance, Billy uses a parser: - He identifies his top performers via the parse and demands that all other members bring themselves up to these new standards; - The top performers that manage to stroke Billy's ego are granted the rank of Officer; - Billy and his Officers force the weaker members of the guild to adopt the class/sub-class of these top performers, as well as their rotations, timing, and tactics; - Meanwhile, various members will bore themselves to tears practicing the mandated rotations of the very limited set of acceptable class/sub-class combinations.
Now, if we take the parser away from Bad Billy, he will still do his best to toss his weight around while creating a competitive raid guild. He will simply be more arbitrary in his choice of officers due to a lack of objective data that a parser would provide.
A parser is nothing more than a tool. It can be used for positive purposes by the more benevolent members of the community, and it can be used for negative purposes by the more tyrannical members of the community. Parsers are not the cause for the toxic behaviour being discussed here, and taking the parser away will not eliminate this toxic behaviour in any way, shape, or form...
...but it will deny a useful tool for the rest of the community.
The argument seems to be freedom vs safety. I think most people that are against parsers take that opinion because parsers restrict freedom of choice because they tell us what are the most optimal ability set ups and rotations; And these people feel more safe from people who would stifle that freedom if parsers didn't exist. On the other hand, parsers provide safety and direction in that they are reliable in helping us improve dps or hps. Some people don't want their freedom restricted by people telling them what they should be playing, but some people absolutely love finding the best rotation and build to do the most dmg and to them taking away the ability to do that is a loss of freedom. To be honest, I don't really care for parsers (as most of my experience with them has come at the hands of Bad Billys), but I do understand that they are just a tool to be used and are not inherently evil. I think the best compromise is for people to play with people who play like they do.
Noaani, I appreciate your idea for compromise, but it doesn't really satisfy me. That said, I do also appreciate that those speaking out against parsers are doing so with good cause, even if I disagree with them.
As such, I'll try to watch my tone as I do internet combat against my ideological opponents. I'll address the issue from another angle, perhaps with a hypothetical comparison.
Imagine two raid leaders, Bad Billy and Benevolent Bob.
Benevolent Bob is a benevolent raid leader. He is interested in creating the most competitive raid guild possible while still maintaining a pleasant atmosphere and mutual respect within the guild.
In order to improve his subordinates' performance, Bob uses a parser: - He identifies his top performers via the parse, and discusses their rotations, timing, and tactics; - If he judges that these players have a solid understanding of the mechanics behind their superior performance, he will task them (as the newly minted Mentors they are) with mentoring those who need guidance; - Using the data made available by the parse, Bob and his Mentors will analyze the parses of the weaker members of the group and identify problems with their play and ability choice; - Meanwhile, various members will experiment with new rotations and class/sub-class combinations and perhaps come up with unique and effective play styles (with the help of their parsers, of course).
Now, if we take the parser away from Benevolent Bob, he will still do his best to nurture a competitive-but-friendly raid guild. He will simply be moderately less effective in his ambition.
Bad Billy is a bad raid leader, so much so that some people would refer to him a toxic. he is interested in creating the most competitive raid guild he can while engaging in abusive behaviour and petty tyranny.
In order to improve his subordinates' performance, Billy uses a parser: - He identifies his top performers via the parse and demands that all other members bring themselves up to these new standards; - The top performers that manage to stroke Billy's ego are granted the rank of Officer; - Billy and his Officers force the weaker members of the guild to adopt the class/sub-class of these top performers, as well as their rotations, timing, and tactics; - Meanwhile, various members will bore themselves to tears practicing the mandated rotations of the very limited set of acceptable class/sub-class combinations.
Now, if we take the parser away from Bad Billy, he will still do his best to toss his weight around while creating a competitive raid guild. He will simply be more arbitrary in his choice of officers due to a lack of objective data that a parser would provide.
A parser is nothing more than a tool. It can be used for positive purposes by the more benevolent members of the community, and it can be used for negative purposes by the more tyrannical members of the community. Parsers are not the cause for the toxic behaviour being discussed here, and taking the parser away will not eliminate this toxic behaviour in any way, shape, or form...
...but it will deny a useful tool for the rest of the community.
I agree that my suggestion doesn't really satisfy.
It is a compromise, and would be better than nothing, but can only be used to optimize your own character and has no utility in regards to raid troubleshooting and such.
However, if it came down to that suggestion or no parsing, I'd take that suggestion.
---
Your two scenarios above are only really relevant in games that expect to take along half a dozen or so of the same class. Games like WoW.
In Ashes, we have 64 classes and 40 raid spots.
Now, obviously I'd take along 4 or 5 of the same class if it was the best way to set my raid up - but I would be willing to bet that Intrepid will go out of their way to give each of the 64 classes in the game a raid wide buff or some form of utility (that doesn't stack with itself) that will see min/max raids wanting 40 different classes in their raid.
Even if a given class has a lower expected DPS than another class, the fact that taking two different classes gives the raid two different buffs makes it worth taking them over taking two of the same class, giving the raid only the one buff.
I spent years raiding as a Wizard in EQ2 (the game the plurality of the development team here seem to have come from). For most of that time, Wizards were either the highest expected DPS class in that game, or the second highest.
I can only count three raids that I went on where there was a second Wizard. There were almost always 7 or 8 total mages (mages were the Archetype, Wizard was a subclass of that), but the other 6 - 7 mages were providing utility in ways that compensated for the fact that they couldn't match my DPS.
The raid was worse off for dropping one of these other - lower DPS - mages to put in a second Wizard.
This is what I see happening in Ashes - they may take it on in a different manner, but I expect the end result to be the same.
Why this matters is because it means no one is looking at a parse and saying "hey, you need to match this persons DPS!", because everyone in the raid has a different expected level of DPS. A parser can point out a poor performer, but since you can't directly compare the DPS of one class to another, no one is able to directly compare the DPS of one player to another.
The argument seems to be freedom vs safety. I think most people that are against parsers take that opinion because parsers restrict freedom of choice because they tell us what are the most optimal ability set ups and rotations; And these people feel more safe from people who would stifle that freedom if parsers didn't exist. On the other hand, parsers provide safety and direction in that they are reliable in helping us improve dps or hps. Some people don't want their freedom restricted by people telling them what they should be playing, but some people absolutely love finding the best rotation and build to do the most dmg and to them taking away the ability to do that is a loss of freedom. To be honest, I don't really care for parsers (as most of my experience with them has come at the hands of Bad Billys), but I do understand that they are just a tool to be used and are not inherently evil. I think the best compromise is for people to play with people who play like they do.
No group accepts a player in a pickup group that just switches on auto-follow and does nothing. There is an expectation that players that opt to group with others perform.
This is something every MMO player agrees on.
Where some players disagree is at what level that minimum accepted contribution is. Some expect just basic competency of the class (ie, understanding that their class is a healer, not a DPS class). A very small number expect everyone to have mastered their class. Some, like myself, have expectations that fall somewhere in between these two extremes.
If someone is in a group and is performing well below what is expected of them, is it not right that they be told as much? While I admit many players go about this in the wrong way, that doesn't change the fact that the player should be told.
In my experience, there are many appropriate builds every class. The only exception to this truth that I can think of is WoW (a game dumbed down to the level of a children's game). In WoW, at best you have one or two minor choices - but in any other game almost all choices are viable in one way or another (though some choice combinations are not).
Archeage is a good example of this - every class was viable in large scale combat, and every class had multiple points that could be put where the player wanted after investing in the core skills of the class. While some classes excelled in 1v1 PvP more than others, some of the rarer classes were actually amazing in large scale PvP.
---
It's also worth pointing out that any experiences in games where there is a dungeon and/or raid finder are totally invalid in regards to a game where those "tools" don't exist.
A game with a dungeon finder is the equivalent of an anonymous forum - People don't tie your actions to your name much, and even if they do they won't remember next time you are put in the same group.
A game without one is like a forum with your Drivers License tied to it as proof of ID> Suddenly, everything you say or do is tied directly to you, and people will remember that it was you that said or did "that thing" you said or did.
No dungeon finder creates a much friendlier community. Having a dungeon finder is a license for players to be toxic.
The parser is a scapegoat in this argument, not the center of it....
I firmly believe that people that want to play in blissful ignorance should be able to do so.
However, their wish to be ignorant should not impede the ability of those that want to be informed from being so informed. If both can not co-exist (which I believe they can) then it should be the freedom of information that wins out, not the hindrance of it.
I must have missed this post when I first started commenting on the topic.
Regardless, I agree completely. There should be an element of player choice in whether or not they play with a parser. Either make an in-game parser that is optional (disabled by default, but can be activated in the settings), or allow community members to create one for download to those who enjoy playing with parsers.
Those who wish to play without the intrusion of a parser would be free to do so. Ultimately, I believe the majority of people would leave their parser disabled, and enjoy playing the game the way they want to without infringing upon the preferences of those who do enjoy playing with parsers.
I like having a parser because it motivates me to improve myself and it becomes kind of a game within a game to do better. I have never called someone out for their numbers, and will never do in the future either. It's not just a tool to see if others meet the "criteria".
Aside from what I've already mentioned, I like having a parser for a number of reasons.
First, it allows me to make better sense of PvP combat, as I'll be able to see how many people are healing as well as how many people are doing DPS. It also allows me to see how well the DPS or healers are performing so I can adjust my tactics accordingly. For instance, in one battle I may find that I am the only healer, in which case I would seek out the main group in order to maximize my impact and benefit from an element of protection. If the parser reveals that our team has a multitude of healers, I would instead focus on small-group skirmishes or objectives.
Secondly, parsers act as a useful visual for those watching my PvP videos. The raw numbers alongside the action on the screen come together to tell the story of the battle. I usually have three parse windows up to show total 'Damage Done' for each player, total 'Healing Done' for each player, and a 'Healing Done' breakdown by spell for my healing.
All of that info is useful for the audience, as they can discern for themselves who the top DPS threats are, who is doing the most impactful healing, and (for those few who want to learn to play Chloro in PvP) the top healing spells for my class.
Of course, AoC's PvP is likely to be difference. However, I am likely to find as many positive uses for a parser in AoC as I did in Rift.
Noaani, I appreciate your idea for compromise, but it doesn't really satisfy me. That said, I do also appreciate that those speaking out against parsers are doing so with good cause, even if I disagree with them.
As such, I'll try to watch my tone as I do internet combat against my ideological opponents. I'll address the issue from another angle, perhaps with a hypothetical comparison.
Imagine two raid leaders, Bad Billy and Benevolent Bob.
Benevolent Bob is a benevolent raid leader. He is interested in creating the most competitive raid guild possible while still maintaining a pleasant atmosphere and mutual respect within the guild.
In order to improve his subordinates' performance, Bob uses a parser: - He identifies his top performers via the parse, and discusses their rotations, timing, and tactics; - If he judges that these players have a solid understanding of the mechanics behind their superior performance, he will task them (as the newly minted Mentors they are) with mentoring those who need guidance; - Using the data made available by the parse, Bob and his Mentors will analyze the parses of the weaker members of the group and identify problems with their play and ability choice; - Meanwhile, various members will experiment with new rotations and class/sub-class combinations and perhaps come up with unique and effective play styles (with the help of their parsers, of course).
Now, if we take the parser away from Benevolent Bob, he will still do his best to nurture a competitive-but-friendly raid guild. He will simply be moderately less effective in his ambition.
Bad Billy is a bad raid leader, so much so that some people would refer to him a toxic. he is interested in creating the most competitive raid guild he can while engaging in abusive behaviour and petty tyranny.
In order to improve his subordinates' performance, Billy uses a parser: - He identifies his top performers via the parse and demands that all other members bring themselves up to these new standards; - The top performers that manage to stroke Billy's ego are granted the rank of Officer; - Billy and his Officers force the weaker members of the guild to adopt the class/sub-class of these top performers, as well as their rotations, timing, and tactics; - Meanwhile, various members will bore themselves to tears practicing the mandated rotations of the very limited set of acceptable class/sub-class combinations.
Now, if we take the parser away from Bad Billy, he will still do his best to toss his weight around while creating a competitive raid guild. He will simply be more arbitrary in his choice of officers due to a lack of objective data that a parser would provide.
A parser is nothing more than a tool. It can be used for positive purposes by the more benevolent members of the community, and it can be used for negative purposes by the more tyrannical members of the community. Parsers are not the cause for the toxic behaviour being discussed here, and taking the parser away will not eliminate this toxic behaviour in any way, shape, or form...
...but it will deny a useful tool for the rest of the community.
I agree that my suggestion doesn't really satisfy.
It is a compromise, and would be better than nothing, but can only be used to optimize your own character and has no utility in regards to raid troubleshooting and such.
However, if it came down to that suggestion or no parsing, I'd take that suggestion.
---
Your two scenarios above are only really relevant in games that expect to take along half a dozen or so of the same class. Games like WoW.
In Ashes, we have 64 classes and 40 raid spots.
Now, obviously I'd take along 4 or 5 of the same class if it was the best way to set my raid up - but I would be willing to bet that Intrepid will go out of their way to give each of the 64 classes in the game a raid wide buff or some form of utility (that doesn't stack with itself) that will see min/max raids wanting 40 different classes in their raid.
Even if a given class has a lower expected DPS than another class, the fact that taking two different classes gives the raid two different buffs makes it worth taking them over taking two of the same class, giving the raid only the one buff.
I spent years raiding as a Wizard in EQ2 (the game the plurality of the development team here seem to have come from). For most of that time, Wizards were either the highest expected DPS class in that game, or the second highest.
I can only count three raids that I went on where there was a second Wizard. There were almost always 7 or 8 total mages (mages were the Archetype, Wizard was a subclass of that), but the other 6 - 7 mages were providing utility in ways that compensated for the fact that they couldn't match my DPS.
The raid was worse off for dropping one of these other - lower DPS - mages to put in a second Wizard.
This is what I see happening in Ashes - they may take it on in a different manner, but I expect the end result to be the same.
Why this matters is because it means no one is looking at a parse and saying "hey, you need to match this persons DPS!", because everyone in the raid has a different expected level of DPS. A parser can point out a poor performer, but since you can't directly compare the DPS of one class to another, no one is able to directly compare the DPS of one player to another.
The argument seems to be freedom vs safety. I think most people that are against parsers take that opinion because parsers restrict freedom of choice because they tell us what are the most optimal ability set ups and rotations; And these people feel more safe from people who would stifle that freedom if parsers didn't exist. On the other hand, parsers provide safety and direction in that they are reliable in helping us improve dps or hps. Some people don't want their freedom restricted by people telling them what they should be playing, but some people absolutely love finding the best rotation and build to do the most dmg and to them taking away the ability to do that is a loss of freedom. To be honest, I don't really care for parsers (as most of my experience with them has come at the hands of Bad Billys), but I do understand that they are just a tool to be used and are not inherently evil. I think the best compromise is for people to play with people who play like they do.
No group accepts a player in a pickup group that just switches on auto-follow and does nothing. There is an expectation that players that opt to group with others perform.
This is something every MMO player agrees on.
Where some players disagree is at what level that minimum accepted contribution is. Some expect just basic competency of the class (ie, understanding that their class is a healer, not a DPS class). A very small number expect everyone to have mastered their class. Some, like myself, have expectations that fall somewhere in between these two extremes.
If someone is in a group and is performing well below what is expected of them, is it not right that they be told as much? While I admit many players go about this in the wrong way, that doesn't change the fact that the player should be told.
In my experience, there are many appropriate builds every class. The only exception to this truth that I can think of is WoW (a game dumbed down to the level of a children's game). In WoW, at best you have one or two minor choices - but in any other game almost all choices are viable in one way or another (though some choice combinations are not).
Archeage is a good example of this - every class was viable in large scale combat, and every class had multiple points that could be put where the player wanted after investing in the core skills of the class. While some classes excelled in 1v1 PvP more than others, some of the rarer classes were actually amazing in large scale PvP.
---
It's also worth pointing out that any experiences in games where there is a dungeon and/or raid finder are totally invalid in regards to a game where those "tools" don't exist.
A game with a dungeon finder is the equivalent of an anonymous forum - People don't tie your actions to your name much, and even if they do they won't remember next time you are put in the same group.
A game without one is like a forum with your Drivers License tied to it as proof of ID> Suddenly, everything you say or do is tied directly to you, and people will remember that it was you that said or did "that thing" you said or did.
No dungeon finder creates a much friendlier community. Having a dungeon finder is a license for players to be toxic.
I agree with everything you said for the most part, but I think we weren't talking about the same thing exactly. I was just analyzing why people felt so deeply about this subject. I agree that when a person joins a group most people expect them to be competent enough to complete whatever task caused the group to form. And I also agree that Intrepid are planning to make every class viable by filling a niche and providing something no other class can. Hopefully that will cause more diversity and acceptance amongst the community, but different playstyles sometimes just don't mix.
Unless your going to be the top 1%of players (even that does not matter ) honestly just play what you like if you bother to much on whether this class statistics are better then this maybe that player is not on par with that player maybe they dont have the same equipment maybe one has better keybindings from playing mmos as long as i have i found the best thing to do in a system like this one is to play what you like there are 64 combos so some months your class is going be demigod like sometimes its going be bad so just do what you have the most fun doing that is the point of the game honestly if you play thinking well the shadowcaster does more dps then a predator cool is that combo fun for you no ok then stick to predator no point to worry about this. Cant we just play to play and have fun
but different playstyles sometimes just don't mix.
This may be the case, though I personally believe it is a personality thing more than anything - and we all know sometimes personalities clash.
I raid. Often.
However, I also participate in pick up groups on alts in most games that I have played. If I can see someone that has an issue with a class that I can help, I'll ask them if I can give them a tip. If they say that's OK, then I give them said tip, and almost always, the player immediately improves.
Some people, however, take immediate offense to the notion that they could improve. These people tend to think they are gods gift to their chose class, and the notion that they are not the best at it that ever was or ever will be is foreign to them.
These people are - I imagine - about as much a minority as the people that use parsers and such to be dicks.
Both of these types of people - gods gifts and dicks - simply shouldn't group up with anyone. If they are left out of groups, all groups will be better off because of it.
In games with dungeon finders and such tools, these players are in a position where they are able to thrive. Players don't usually know (or pay attention to) who they are in a group with until the group is under way. As such, these players are never short of groups.
In games without such tools, these players need to actively join groups. Their performance and behavior in previous groups and their general demeanor in chat suddenly plays a much larger part in their ability to find groups than it does in many other games.
As such, I believe that in Ashes, these people won't last long. There will be an excessive amount of them at the start of the game, but that will drop down rapidly when they realize that people don't want to group with them - and people get to chose who they group with.
TL:DR, I don't believe Ashes could have the issues many games have in relation to parsers. It is built better.
TL:DR, I don't believe Ashes could have the issues many games have in relation to parsers. It is built better.
I agree that the lack of a dungeon finder will make raiding/dungeons more personal and reduce the toxicity that is typical of being grouped with randoms. People who act like jerks will actually face repercussions in that they will no longer be invited to raid. It's a great thing, in my opinion.
I also agree that with or without parsers, DPS selection will occur. Even if this useful tool isn't provided, it doesn't mean it's impossible to gauge someone's DPS output by other means. All the parser does is measure more precisely. Competitive people usually want to make their raids more competitive, and will do so with or without the tool.
What I hope for Ashes is that Utility and CC will be necessary and useful in raids and that groups need to look for something more than just high numbers in its members.
I'm not a fan of parsers myself because I like to play more control type classes and builds that don't boil down into the modern "holy trinity" concept.
Enchanter and Bard in Everquest, Controllers in City of Heroes, Skalds in Dark Age, looking forward to Bards in AoC as they seem to fall into these kinds of classes.
So if we ever got parsers in AoC it would have to also include force multipliers and control counting as well since AoC group is going to be 8 to include your non-"holy trinity" classes.
So you would need to track buffs, debuffs, time controlled, number of enemies controlled, etc.
Which means its also going to get more complicated tracking groups and players that play these classes as they might seem like they aren't doing much if you are just looking at dps, hps, tank numbers and not how much that Wizard locked down that extra couple of adds or that Bard was debuffing the damage resistance or attack speed of the mobs so they weren't doing as much damage.
I'm not a fan of parsers myself because I like to play more control type classes and builds that don't boil down into the modern "holy trinity" concept.
Enchanter and Bard in Everquest, Controllers in City of Heroes, Skalds in Dark Age, looking forward to Bards in AoC as they seem to fall into these kinds of classes.
So if we ever got parsers in AoC it would have to also include force multipliers and control counting as well since AoC group is going to be 8 to include your non-"holy trinity" classes.
So you would need to track buffs, debuffs, time controlled, number of enemies controlled, etc.
Which means its also going to get more complicated tracking groups and players that play these classes as they might seem like they aren't doing much if you are just looking at dps, hps, tank numbers and not how much that Wizard locked down that extra couple of adds or that Bard was debuffing the damage resistance or attack speed of the mobs so they weren't doing as much damage.
Parsing crowd control would be dangerous, and ill advised.
Damage is something you want more of, all the time. It is totally open ended, and it is generally impossible to do too much damage.
Healing is something you want done as much as possible, so everyone is at full health. In terms of a large group or raid with multiple healers, topping the parse is often a case of being the fastest to react to damage so you heal your group or raid up to full before other heals take over. Over healing is inefficient, but does not generally hurt.
Crowd control is not something that is always desired. The best CC in any game is the one that knows when to *not* use any form of CC, not the one that CC's the most.
The only reason all of the above is needed is for e-peen waving. As far as I am concerned, if that is what a parser is being built for, don't build one.
A parser when used properly is a tool to find out what works and what is broken. The only thing needed to find this out are the absolutes of damage and healing.
Speaking from experience of such games, when you have classes that bring a lot to a group or raid in terms of buffs and CC, no one really cares where they parse as long as they use those buffs properly (and a parser showing damage and healing will show if they are or not).
Without dps calcs people will prefer friends and guildies they can rely on for content. Instead of x class you will have x person who performs well and u like to party with. I think its something to emphasize. Finally a game that will have social aspect close to its heart.
Comments
The parser is a scapegoat in this argument, not the center of it.
The games that have the biggest issue with this kind of thing are the games that have the most dicks - not the game with the highest use of parsers.
I firmly believe that people that want to play in blissful ignorance should be able to do so.
However, their wish to be ignorant should not impede the ability of those that want to be informed from being so informed. If both can not co-exist (which I believe they can) then it should be the freedom of information that wins out, not the hindrance of it.
I don't really like how so many people think everyone that wants to use a parser has to be a dick who only use it to bring other players down or something...
I like having a parser because it motivates me to improve myself and it becomes kind of a game within a game to do better. I have never called someone out for their numbers, and will never do in the future either. It's not just a tool to see if others meet the "criteria".
If they don't want it in the game, sure, I'll manage, but a lot of people enjoy it, it's not just a tiny portion.
I don't want any other more in-depth tools though, and most of all, nothing that affects the actual content in the game. So no tools that help you with what to do.
Those who wanted to use it did so. Those who didn't want to use it saved themselves the trouble of downloading and installing the parser.
My previous point was that there are plenty of uses for a parser that have nothing to do with competitive Raiding, and I do not see why the behaviour of competitive Raiders should deny all other players a very useful tool.
Toxic players will be toxic players, regardless of whether or not they have access to a parser. The tried-and-true method of avoiding toxic Raiders is avoiding the toxic Raiding guilds in favour of more inclusive Raiding guilds.
Of course, Intrepid Studios can design the game in such a way as to discourage toxic behaviour as well. From what I've read of the PvP system, IS has done a good job of discouraging toxic behaviour (griefing, ganking, and preying on newbies/lowbies). Perhaps they will also do the same with Raiding by designing Raids in such a way that skill and mobility take precedence over pure DPS/HPS, thereby rendering parsers less controversial.
tl;dr: the parser is an amazingly useful tool, and I would hate to be denied access to it because of a toxic minority.
This allows players to at least test a new build or new item in a consistent environment, but also means that no player has access to any other players parsed numbers.
To me, this is a viable compromise where players can easily obtain data on their own builds and equipment, but no one is able to throw poor numbers in the face of someone not pulling their weight.
I want to be able to use A.C.T.
That is my parser of choice - even though it's 10 years old.
However, I will take what ever access to information I am given and make the most of it.
As such, I'll try to watch my tone as I do internet combat against my ideological opponents. I'll address the issue from another angle, perhaps with a hypothetical comparison.
Imagine two raid leaders, Bad Billy and Benevolent Bob.
Benevolent Bob is a benevolent raid leader. He is interested in creating the most competitive raid guild possible while still maintaining a pleasant atmosphere and mutual respect within the guild.
In order to improve his subordinates' performance, Bob uses a parser:
- He identifies his top performers via the parse, and discusses their rotations, timing, and tactics;
- If he judges that these players have a solid understanding of the mechanics behind their superior performance, he will task them (as the newly minted Mentors they are) with mentoring those who need guidance;
- Using the data made available by the parse, Bob and his Mentors will analyze the parses of the weaker members of the group and identify problems with their play and ability choice;
- Meanwhile, various members will experiment with new rotations and class/sub-class combinations and perhaps come up with unique and effective play styles (with the help of their parsers, of course).
Now, if we take the parser away from Benevolent Bob, he will still do his best to nurture a competitive-but-friendly raid guild. He will simply be moderately less effective in his ambition.
Bad Billy is a bad raid leader, so much so that some people would refer to him a toxic. he is interested in creating the most competitive raid guild he can while engaging in abusive behaviour and petty tyranny.
In order to improve his subordinates' performance, Billy uses a parser:
- He identifies his top performers via the parse and demands that all other members bring themselves up to these new standards;
- The top performers that manage to stroke Billy's ego are granted the rank of Officer;
- Billy and his Officers force the weaker members of the guild to adopt the class/sub-class of these top performers, as well as their rotations, timing, and tactics;
- Meanwhile, various members will bore themselves to tears practicing the mandated rotations of the very limited set of acceptable class/sub-class combinations.
Now, if we take the parser away from Bad Billy, he will still do his best to toss his weight around while creating a competitive raid guild. He will simply be more arbitrary in his choice of officers due to a lack of objective data that a parser would provide.
A parser is nothing more than a tool. It can be used for positive purposes by the more benevolent members of the community, and it can be used for negative purposes by the more tyrannical members of the community. Parsers are not the cause for the toxic behaviour being discussed here, and taking the parser away will not eliminate this toxic behaviour in any way, shape, or form...
...but it will deny a useful tool for the rest of the community.
On the other hand, parsers provide safety and direction in that they are reliable in helping us improve dps or hps. Some people don't want their freedom restricted by people telling them what they should be playing, but some people absolutely love finding the best rotation and build to do the most dmg and to them taking away the ability to do that is a loss of freedom.
To be honest, I don't really care for parsers (as most of my experience with them has come at the hands of Bad Billys), but I do understand that they are just a tool to be used and are not inherently evil. I think the best compromise is for people to play with people who play like they do.
It is a compromise, and would be better than nothing, but can only be used to optimize your own character and has no utility in regards to raid troubleshooting and such.
However, if it came down to that suggestion or no parsing, I'd take that suggestion.
---
Your two scenarios above are only really relevant in games that expect to take along half a dozen or so of the same class. Games like WoW.
In Ashes, we have 64 classes and 40 raid spots.
Now, obviously I'd take along 4 or 5 of the same class if it was the best way to set my raid up - but I would be willing to bet that Intrepid will go out of their way to give each of the 64 classes in the game a raid wide buff or some form of utility (that doesn't stack with itself) that will see min/max raids wanting 40 different classes in their raid.
Even if a given class has a lower expected DPS than another class, the fact that taking two different classes gives the raid two different buffs makes it worth taking them over taking two of the same class, giving the raid only the one buff.
I spent years raiding as a Wizard in EQ2 (the game the plurality of the development team here seem to have come from). For most of that time, Wizards were either the highest expected DPS class in that game, or the second highest.
I can only count three raids that I went on where there was a second Wizard. There were almost always 7 or 8 total mages (mages were the Archetype, Wizard was a subclass of that), but the other 6 - 7 mages were providing utility in ways that compensated for the fact that they couldn't match my DPS.
The raid was worse off for dropping one of these other - lower DPS - mages to put in a second Wizard.
This is what I see happening in Ashes - they may take it on in a different manner, but I expect the end result to be the same.
Why this matters is because it means no one is looking at a parse and saying "hey, you need to match this persons DPS!", because everyone in the raid has a different expected level of DPS. A parser can point out a poor performer, but since you can't directly compare the DPS of one class to another, no one is able to directly compare the DPS of one player to another.
No group accepts a player in a pickup group that just switches on auto-follow and does nothing. There is an expectation that players that opt to group with others perform.
This is something every MMO player agrees on.
Where some players disagree is at what level that minimum accepted contribution is. Some expect just basic competency of the class (ie, understanding that their class is a healer, not a DPS class). A very small number expect everyone to have mastered their class. Some, like myself, have expectations that fall somewhere in between these two extremes.
If someone is in a group and is performing well below what is expected of them, is it not right that they be told as much? While I admit many players go about this in the wrong way, that doesn't change the fact that the player should be told.
In my experience, there are many appropriate builds every class. The only exception to this truth that I can think of is WoW (a game dumbed down to the level of a children's game). In WoW, at best you have one or two minor choices - but in any other game almost all choices are viable in one way or another (though some choice combinations are not).
Archeage is a good example of this - every class was viable in large scale combat, and every class had multiple points that could be put where the player wanted after investing in the core skills of the class. While some classes excelled in 1v1 PvP more than others, some of the rarer classes were actually amazing in large scale PvP.
---
It's also worth pointing out that any experiences in games where there is a dungeon and/or raid finder are totally invalid in regards to a game where those "tools" don't exist.
A game with a dungeon finder is the equivalent of an anonymous forum - People don't tie your actions to your name much, and even if they do they won't remember next time you are put in the same group.
A game without one is like a forum with your Drivers License tied to it as proof of ID> Suddenly, everything you say or do is tied directly to you, and people will remember that it was you that said or did "that thing" you said or did.
No dungeon finder creates a much friendlier community. Having a dungeon finder is a license for players to be toxic.
Regardless, I agree completely. There should be an element of player choice in whether or not they play with a parser. Either make an in-game parser that is optional (disabled by default, but can be activated in the settings), or allow community members to create one for download to those who enjoy playing with parsers.
Those who wish to play without the intrusion of a parser would be free to do so. Ultimately, I believe the majority of people would leave their parser disabled, and enjoy playing the game the way they want to without infringing upon the preferences of those who do enjoy playing with parsers.
Aside from what I've already mentioned, I like having a parser for a number of reasons.
First, it allows me to make better sense of PvP combat, as I'll be able to see how many people are healing as well as how many people are doing DPS. It also allows me to see how well the DPS or healers are performing so I can adjust my tactics accordingly. For instance, in one battle I may find that I am the only healer, in which case I would seek out the main group in order to maximize my impact and benefit from an element of protection. If the parser reveals that our team has a multitude of healers, I would instead focus on small-group skirmishes or objectives.
Secondly, parsers act as a useful visual for those watching my PvP videos. The raw numbers alongside the action on the screen come together to tell the story of the battle. I usually have three parse windows up to show total 'Damage Done' for each player, total 'Healing Done' for each player, and a 'Healing Done' breakdown by spell for my healing.
All of that info is useful for the audience, as they can discern for themselves who the top DPS threats are, who is doing the most impactful healing, and (for those few who want to learn to play Chloro in PvP) the top healing spells for my class.
Of course, AoC's PvP is likely to be difference. However, I am likely to find as many positive uses for a parser in AoC as I did in Rift.
I agree that when a person joins a group most people expect them to be competent enough to complete whatever task caused the group to form. And I also agree that Intrepid are planning to make every class viable by filling a niche and providing something no other class can. Hopefully that will cause more diversity and acceptance amongst the community, but different playstyles sometimes just don't mix.
I raid. Often.
However, I also participate in pick up groups on alts in most games that I have played. If I can see someone that has an issue with a class that I can help, I'll ask them if I can give them a tip. If they say that's OK, then I give them said tip, and almost always, the player immediately improves.
Some people, however, take immediate offense to the notion that they could improve. These people tend to think they are gods gift to their chose class, and the notion that they are not the best at it that ever was or ever will be is foreign to them.
These people are - I imagine - about as much a minority as the people that use parsers and such to be dicks.
Both of these types of people - gods gifts and dicks - simply shouldn't group up with anyone. If they are left out of groups, all groups will be better off because of it.
In games with dungeon finders and such tools, these players are in a position where they are able to thrive. Players don't usually know (or pay attention to) who they are in a group with until the group is under way. As such, these players are never short of groups.
In games without such tools, these players need to actively join groups. Their performance and behavior in previous groups and their general demeanor in chat suddenly plays a much larger part in their ability to find groups than it does in many other games.
As such, I believe that in Ashes, these people won't last long. There will be an excessive amount of them at the start of the game, but that will drop down rapidly when they realize that people don't want to group with them - and people get to chose who they group with.
TL:DR, I don't believe Ashes could have the issues many games have in relation to parsers. It is built better.
I also agree that with or without parsers, DPS selection will occur. Even if this useful tool isn't provided, it doesn't mean it's impossible to gauge someone's DPS output by other means. All the parser does is measure more precisely. Competitive people usually want to make their raids more competitive, and will do so with or without the tool.
What I hope for Ashes is that Utility and CC will be necessary and useful in raids and that groups need to look for something more than just high numbers in its members.
Enchanter and Bard in Everquest, Controllers in City of Heroes, Skalds in Dark Age, looking forward to Bards in AoC as they seem to fall into these kinds of classes.
So if we ever got parsers in AoC it would have to also include force multipliers and control counting as well since AoC group is going to be 8 to include your non-"holy trinity" classes.
So you would need to track buffs, debuffs, time controlled, number of enemies controlled, etc.
Which means its also going to get more complicated tracking groups and players that play these classes as they might seem like they aren't doing much if you are just looking at dps, hps, tank numbers and not how much that Wizard locked down that extra couple of adds or that Bard was debuffing the damage resistance or attack speed of the mobs so they weren't doing as much damage.
Damage is something you want more of, all the time. It is totally open ended, and it is generally impossible to do too much damage.
Healing is something you want done as much as possible, so everyone is at full health. In terms of a large group or raid with multiple healers, topping the parse is often a case of being the fastest to react to damage so you heal your group or raid up to full before other heals take over. Over healing is inefficient, but does not generally hurt.
Crowd control is not something that is always desired. The best CC in any game is the one that knows when to *not* use any form of CC, not the one that CC's the most.
The only reason all of the above is needed is for e-peen waving. As far as I am concerned, if that is what a parser is being built for, don't build one.
A parser when used properly is a tool to find out what works and what is broken. The only thing needed to find this out are the absolutes of damage and healing.
Speaking from experience of such games, when you have classes that bring a lot to a group or raid in terms of buffs and CC, no one really cares where they parse as long as they use those buffs properly (and a parser showing damage and healing will show if they are or not).
Instead of x class you will have x person who performs well and u like to party with.
I think its something to emphasize.
Finally a game that will have social aspect close to its heart.