Invulnerability exploit.

bellanca6561n · September 2014

Glory and shame alone define online gaming as an unique entertainment medium. The balance between the two determines the quality of the game and the experience for people who play for the competitive multiplayer, community features.

A phrase like naming and shaming sounds catchy. It's cute. It's also flawed policy. Three strikes and you're out sounds cool too and is responsible for all manner of bizarre horrors....outside of baseball that is.

Name calling would be just dreadful here, however. But listing people, by name, who have been banned from the game for a range of offenses is sound policy. It also does wonders for both an online game and its community.

Having a leader board without a banned list is having half an online game. Well....unlike the leader board, I think you could make banned list notifications optional

Srugzal · September 2014

Columba wrote: »

That's why he used it with Gorbachev

That's not the point. The point is that most people think that those were Reagan's words, and they aren't. It doesn't matter how many people think something is true, that doesn't mean that it is true.

That applies very well to this thread.

Srugzal · September 2014

bellanca6561n wrote: »

Glory and shame alone define online gaming as an unique entertainment medium. The balance between the two determines the quality of the game and the experience for people who play for the competitive multiplayer, community features.

A phrase like naming and shaming sounds catchy. It's cute. It's also flawed policy. Three strikes and you're out sounds cool too and is responsible for all manner of bizarre horrors....outside of baseball that is.

Name calling would be just dreadful here, however. But listing people, by name, who have been banned from the game for a range of offenses is sound policy. It also does wonders for both an online game and its community.

Having a leader board without a banned list is having half an online game. Well....unlike the leader board, I think you could make banned list notifications optional

I've heard of some horrible ideas for this game, but this one sets the bar impossibly high. Isn't the atmosphere toxic enough, without adding a list of shame? I can't imagine a world where this idea would ever fly, especially from a legal standpoint.

"Glory and shame alone define online gaming as an unique entertainment medium."

This is a truly horrifying and perverted take on "entertainment." "Shame" isn't part of any mature person's entertainment universe.

Absinthe · September 2014

Broken game is broken.

Columba · September 2014

Srugzal wrote: »

Columba wrote: »

That's why he used it with Gorbachev

That's not the point. The point is that most people think that those were Reagan's words, and they aren't. It doesn't matter how many people think something is true, that doesn't mean that it is true.

That applies very well to this thread.

Reagan brought them to life and made them part of the English vernacular. I am not worried about who gets credit for the phrase, lol.

Srugzal · September 2014

Columba wrote: »

Srugzal wrote: »

Columba wrote: »

That's why he used it with Gorbachev

That's not the point. The point is that most people think that those were Reagan's words, and they aren't. It doesn't matter how many people think something is true, that doesn't mean that it is true.

That applies very well to this thread.

Reagan brought them to life and made them part of the English vernacular. I am not worried about who gets credit for the phrase, lol.

As you always seem to do, @Columba, you missed the point completely.

Lol indeed...

Erock25 · September 2014

Srugzal wrote: »

Columba wrote: »

Srugzal wrote: »

Columba wrote: »

That's why he used it with Gorbachev

That's not the point. The point is that most people think that those were Reagan's words, and they aren't. It doesn't matter how many people think something is true, that doesn't mean that it is true.

That applies very well to this thread.

Reagan brought them to life and made them part of the English vernacular. I am not worried about who gets credit for the phrase, lol.

As you always seem to do, @Columba, you missed the point completely.

Lol indeed...

Your point is the invulnerabilty exploit is in fact working intended mechanics right? Lol indeed .....

Srugzal · September 2014

Erock25 wrote: »

Srugzal wrote: »

Columba wrote: »

Srugzal wrote: »

Columba wrote: »

That's why he used it with Gorbachev

That's not the point. The point is that most people think that those were Reagan's words, and they aren't. It doesn't matter how many people think something is true, that doesn't mean that it is true.

That applies very well to this thread.

Reagan brought them to life and made them part of the English vernacular. I am not worried about who gets credit for the phrase, lol.

As you always seem to do, @Columba, you missed the point completely.

Lol indeed...

Your point is the invulnerabilty exploit is in fact working intended mechanics right? Lol indeed .....

Another knee-jerk reaction. How nice.

No, I have never said that. I am not on any "side" of this argument. But I don't believe that saying "it's an exploit" over and over makes it so. As many reasonable people have pointed out, the videos don't constitute proof.

Laughing out loud at reasonable doubt doesn't exactly serve your case, either. Since the only argument you have left in your favor is to mock anyone who appears to disagree with you, perhaps you should examine your motives.

Columba · September 2014

Srugzal wrote: »

Columba wrote: »

Srugzal wrote: »

Columba wrote: »

That's why he used it with Gorbachev

That's not the point. The point is that most people think that those were Reagan's words, and they aren't. It doesn't matter how many people think something is true, that doesn't mean that it is true.

That applies very well to this thread.

Reagan brought them to life and made them part of the English vernacular. I am not worried about who gets credit for the phrase, lol.

As you always seem to do, @Columba, you missed the point completely.

Lol indeed...

I know my history, friend. I got the point. I didnt consider it relevant. My point stands: we can trust zenimax to do the right thing here, but we will verify and speak up if the right things aren't done.

Columba · September 2014

If the videos don't constitute proof that something is wrong, eg. a broken mechanic, then I don't know what will. Exploit in the original meaning of the term is a verb that implies taking advantage of something. It doesn't necessarily imply illicit behavior. There's a broken mechanic, people are certainly taking advantage of it.

Srugzal · September 2014

Columba wrote: »

Srugzal wrote: »

Columba wrote: »

Srugzal wrote: »

Columba wrote: »

That's why he used it with Gorbachev

That's not the point. The point is that most people think that those were Reagan's words, and they aren't. It doesn't matter how many people think something is true, that doesn't mean that it is true.

That applies very well to this thread.

Reagan brought them to life and made them part of the English vernacular. I am not worried about who gets credit for the phrase, lol.

As you always seem to do, @Columba, you missed the point completely.

Lol indeed...

I know my history, friend. I got the point. I didnt consider it relevant. My point stands: we can trust zenimax to do the right thing here, but we will verify and speak up if the right things aren't done.

Nope, missed again.

Columba · September 2014

Srugzal wrote: »

Columba wrote: »

Srugzal wrote: »

Columba wrote: »

Srugzal wrote: »

Columba wrote: »

That's why he used it with Gorbachev

That's not the point. The point is that most people think that those were Reagan's words, and they aren't. It doesn't matter how many people think something is true, that doesn't mean that it is true.

That applies very well to this thread.

Reagan brought them to life and made them part of the English vernacular. I am not worried about who gets credit for the phrase, lol.

As you always seem to do, @Columba, you missed the point completely.

Lol indeed...

I know my history, friend. I got the point. I didnt consider it relevant. My point stands: we can trust zenimax to do the right thing here, but we will verify and speak up if the right things aren't done.

Nope, missed again.

I think you've missed the point of the entire thread. It's ok, some people think perma invulnerability is balanced. Lol

Srugzal · September 2014

Deleted in favor of this:

http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/comment/1291002/#Comment_1291002

Srugzal · September 2014

Columba wrote: »

If the videos don't constitute proof that something is wrong, eg. a broken mechanic, then I don't know what will. Exploit in the original meaning of the term is a verb that implies taking advantage of something. It doesn't necessarily imply illicit behavior. There's a broken mechanic, people are certainly taking advantage of it.

...and doing so is a bannable offense, and you know it. You can't use a reductio ad absurdum argument to deflate the word "exploit" to suit the moment.

The videos are suggestive, but not proof. The proof lies in the hands of the in-game moderators, and in those who are working to identify what mechanic, if any, is actually broken, by reliably reproducing it. That would be proof.

This is another of those cases in which the phrase "broken mechanic" is used to describe something that seems OP. Sometimes the mechanic has been shown to have underlying bugs (batswarm, for one) but many other things have been subjected to this description. Bash. Simple blocking. Sneaking. Even impulse zergballs. The so-called "animation cancelling." "Shield stacking" is another. And now, perhaps, mist form. Or maybe not. The list goes on and on. I'm not suggesting that we re-litigate all of those, far from it. I'm just pointing out that it's part of a pattern.

Only a fool would contend that ALL or NONE of these are "broken mechanics." However, the claim is not the proof. Sometimes the proof is difficult to come by.

I'm glad you're content to let the investigations going on behind the scenes run their course. ZOS doesn't have the best track record when it comes to fixing bugs, assuming there are any, so of course you we all will be standing by ready to verify.

Srugzal · September 2014

Columba wrote: »

I think you've missed the point of the entire thread. It's ok, some people think perma invulnerability is balanced. Lol

That is not my view, as I've explained before. It's possible to disagree with you about what constitutes "proof" without coming to the absurd conclusion you're suggesting in the comment above.

Darthryan · September 2014

So after a thoro search, this is the only site that this has been posted on. I looked at video on youtube and the guy was getting healed by another from the lower level of the keep. Is this really a real problem? If so give some links to other videos. Message me or mail me ingame.@mriguy1981. Kinda want to see what's this is all about. I only see dks with their op ness not taking very much damage but that's just them.

bellanca6561n · September 2014

Srugzal wrote: »

bellanca6561n wrote: »

Glory and shame alone define online gaming as an unique entertainment medium. The balance between the two determines the quality of the game and the experience for people who play for the competitive multiplayer, community features.

A phrase like naming and shaming sounds catchy. It's cute. It's also flawed policy. Three strikes and you're out sounds cool too and is responsible for all manner of bizarre horrors....outside of baseball that is.

Name calling would be just dreadful here, however. But listing people, by name, who have been banned from the game for a range of offenses is sound policy. It also does wonders for both an online game and its community.

Having a leader board without a banned list is having half an online game. Well....unlike the leader board, I think you could make banned list notifications optional

I've heard of some horrible ideas for this game, but this one sets the bar impossibly high. Isn't the atmosphere toxic enough, without adding a list of shame? I can't imagine a world where this idea would ever fly, especially from a legal standpoint.

"Glory and shame alone define online gaming as an unique entertainment medium."

This is a truly horrifying and perverted take on "entertainment." "Shame" isn't part of any mature person's entertainment universe.

Actually this has been done and done successfully. It may well have saved Ultima Online. It was the mass bannings, and not just the bannings of offenders but the banning of everyone in guilds of offenders under the legitimate assumption that people shared their knowledge of exploits with their guildmates, that brought players back in droves.

I refer you to this.

And to the fact the shame is the glue holding together the most civilized societies today and in human history. It's abuses are horrifying of course. But it remains sine qua non in the proper dosage.

Removing shame from most online games was a mistake and a rather cowardly one I'm afraid. And it is, in part, responsible for the shift of these games to solo focus and near complete obsession with achievement.

bellanca6561n · September 2014

Oh, and I should add that shame works very well today in the kill mails in Eve Online. I don't think I, personally, would have gone that far but I can't argue that they've been effective.

Srugzal · September 2014

bellanca6561n wrote: »

Oh, and I should add that shame works very well today in the kill mails in Eve Online. I don't think I, personally, would have gone that far but I can't argue that they've been effective.

Interesting. How is what is essentially a combat log, if I understand the description I read here, about shame? And what is it they've been effective in doing? It looks like just transparency to me; that word "shame" is problematic.

I have, by the way, mentioned in this thread or elsewhere, that this is a case where the original addon API would have been very helpful, since we would indeed have a complete combat log of every buff, ability, DoT, etc, that's involved in these encounters. We would have the equivalent of your killmail, which would be real evidence, and would not have to rely on an essentially non-communicative ZOS or anecdotal descriptions (like the OP you linked to) to settle the issue.

More transparency would be a great help here. If this is the kind of thing that you're suggesting, I'm all for it.

frozywozy · September 2014

If getting a 70% permanent reduced damage is acceptable and "very skilled", the player damage itself should be significantly reduced like in any other game. If you wanna be tanky, then you deal less damage, pure common sense. This is not the case right now though. I still get hit by 700-900dmg flame lash by any vamp one hand shield Dk soloing a 20men army.

Columba · September 2014

frozywozy wrote: »

If getting a 70% permanent reduced damage is acceptable and "very skilled", the player damage itself should be significantly reduced like in any other game. If you wanna be tanky, then you deal less damage, pure common sense. This is not the case right now though. I still get hit by 700-900dmg flame lash by any vamp one hand shield Dk soloing a 20men army.

This is what the apologists for the status quo refuse to address. They get all tangled up with whether it's technically an exploit or not and thus miss the forest for the trees. Perma invulnerability while being able to put out extreme dps is laughably flawed. It's driving people away from the game. Silence on this problem is creating suspicions.

ZOS_MichaelServotte · September 2014

Hey folks,

Due to the complexity of this situation, we needed a little bit more time than usual to investigate. We wanted to make sure we had a complete understanding of the reported issue, with a good view of what was reported; this helped us better define what is functioning as intended from what needed to be addressed.

Thanks to all the reports, data, explanations, and videos you shared with us in this thread, our team is able to have a complete picture of the situation. While we have seen some situations being a normal combination of abilities (defensive and offensive ones), we also identified some areas where some changes could be applied. We are now in the process of making those changes (which will appear in the patch notes when pushed to live) and getting the changes approved/verified by our QA team, so that we can see when we will be able to push it to the live servers.

Once again, the situation discussed here involves a lot of moving parts and we prefer to move carefully, not wanting to break anything else in the process of addressing game balance. We will keep you updated as those changes are done.

Thank you for your diligent reporting and patience on this matter!

Dleatherus · September 2014

we also identified some areas where some changes could be applied

lol - it's called exploiting game mechanics to produce an unintended result that gives the exploiter an unfair advantage over other players - in this case almost god like invulnerability

it's not that difficult to say - try it some time

kudos for finally communicating about it!!!

D.

Ezareth · September 2014

ZOS_MichaelServotte wrote: »

Hey folks,

Due to the complexity of this situation, we needed a little bit more time than usual to investigate. We wanted to make sure we had a complete understanding of the reported issue, with a good view of what was reported; this helped us better define what is functioning as intended from what needed to be addressed.

Thanks to all the reports, data, explanations, and videos you shared with us in this thread, our team is able to have a complete picture of the situation. While we have seen some situations being a normal combination of abilities (defensive and offensive ones), we also identified some areas where some changes could be applied. We are now in the process of making those changes (which will appear in the patch notes when pushed to live) and getting the changes approved/verified by our QA team, so that we can see when we will be able to push it to the live servers.

Once again, the situation discussed here involves a lot of moving parts and we prefer to move carefully, not wanting to break anything else in the process of addressing game balance. We will keep you updated as those changes are done.

Thank you for your diligent reporting and patience on this matter!

Thank you @ZOS_MichaelServotte‌

I only wish you could identify which things are being patched but perhaps that would identify the manner of the exploit and cause more people to use this until it is patched.

Still, it will be nice to actually be able to kill certain players in the game again without needing a mob of people.

Columba · September 2014

Thank you. Given the inherent complexity and a history of some patches opening up new issues, please ensure full testing. Also, you must have a design principle or outcome against which you are evaluating your improvements. It would be helpful for us to know what is or isn't considered an acceptable outcome so that we can provide feedback. For example, what is the longest any player should get invulnerability?

Further, with said parameters, I would warn players that anyone caught intentionally abusing mechanics to evade these principles will be subject to a warning and further disciplinary actions. Not intended is a reasonableness check for players to think twice before they decide to go into god mode.

Monsoon · September 2014

So it took 15 days and 15 pages to get an acknowledgment...that s progress

Uncensored1 · September 2014

Why doesn't someone post how to use the exploit in detail? At least it would even the playing field!

Drazhar14 · September 2014

Haven't read through this whole thing, but I just want to confirm enemies not being damaged by sneak attacks in PvE. This has happened to me a few times using Lethal Arrow from stealth - it would hit, the enemy would become alerted to me, but no damage would be done.

Bezilar · September 2014

Columba wrote: »

Thank you. Given the inherent complexity and a history of some patches opening up new issues, please ensure full testing. Also, you must have a design principle or outcome against which you are evaluating your improvements. It would be helpful for us to know what is or isn't considered an acceptable outcome so that we can provide feedback. For example, what is the longest any player should get invulnerability?

Further, with said parameters, I would warn players that anyone caught intentionally abusing mechanics to evade these principles will be subject to a warning and further disciplinary actions. Not intended is a reasonableness check for players to think twice before they decide to go into god mode.

"with said parameters" ...lmfao!

Columba · September 2014

c.gregoryb14_ESO wrote: »

Columba wrote: »

Thank you. Given the inherent complexity and a history of some patches opening up new issues, please ensure full testing. Also, you must have a design principle or outcome against which you are evaluating your improvements. It would be helpful for us to know what is or isn't considered an acceptable outcome so that we can provide feedback. For example, what is the longest any player should get invulnerability?

Further, with said parameters, I would warn players that anyone caught intentionally abusing mechanics to evade these principles will be subject to a warning and further disciplinary actions. Not intended is a reasonableness check for players to think twice before they decide to go into god mode.

"with said parameters" ...lmfao!

too difficult for you to comprehend? please clarify. I understand life in pvp has been a little bit rougher for you lately. my condolences.