Urgent Hotfix Required

Bloodvax · June 2014

leewells wrote: »

Bloodvax wrote: »

*Points out where they say its not an exploit* NO! It still is heres this quote! *points out how thats not relevant* Whatever man its still exploiting!!!
Makes sense.

Defends players that pulls up bases when the ball is hit and runs off with them. QQ's not to kick him out of the game. Says umpires didn't do anything so its legit.

From a technical standpoint if the people governing the rules didn't do anything, it is kinda legit

leewells · June 2014

Bloodvax wrote: »

leewells wrote: »

Bloodvax wrote: »

*Points out where they say its not an exploit* NO! It still is heres this quote! *points out how thats not relevant* Whatever man its still exploiting!!!
Makes sense.

Defends players that pulls up bases when the ball is hit and runs off with them. QQ's not to kick him out of the game. Says umpires didn't do anything so its legit.

From a technical standpoint if the people governing the rules didn't do anything, it is kinda legit

So, you're saying slavery was legit because the governing rules (The supreme court) said it was ok in Dred Scott v. Sandford? Are you trying imply that everyone should be devoid of all morale code and just let our so-called "leaders" make their moral choices for us?

So all sarcasm to the side, what we can deduce from what you have said is that you are as cool as eggs and bacon for breakfast with cheating in any shape, form, or fashion. I wonder, does your significant other (assuming you have one) share your moral code?

Teargrants · June 2014

<p>No, that's called bad enforcement, and I would pay actual money to see you try to explain otherwise in front of a judge. Not punishing wrongdoing doesn't legitimize it in any way, shape or form. Then again, obvious troll is obvious, it's almost as if you read off a script.</p>

Bloodvax · June 2014

leewells wrote: »

Bloodvax wrote: »

leewells wrote: »

Bloodvax wrote: »

*Points out where they say its not an exploit* NO! It still is heres this quote! *points out how thats not relevant* Whatever man its still exploiting!!!
Makes sense.

Defends players that pulls up bases when the ball is hit and runs off with them. QQ's not to kick him out of the game. Says umpires didn't do anything so its legit.

From a technical standpoint if the people governing the rules didn't do anything, it is kinda legit

So, you're saying stuff like slavery was legit because the governing rules (The supreme court) ruled it was ok in Dred Scott v. Sandford? Are you implying that no one shall use any morale code and let the "leaders" make their moral choices for them?

So, we we can deduce is you completely cool with cheating in any shape applied to anything. I wonder, does your significant other (assuming you have one) agree?

But it was legal for a couple hundred years.........history books

Your confusing the law with moral code. Not the same thing really

cisadanepajsuxrwb17_ESO · June 2014

You know, exploiting aside, I think this thing is REALLY REALLY cool. Remember the kill the ruler of Stormwind/Ironforge/Darnassus achievement? Boy that was such a rush! I would pay to have Grand Warlord Sorcalin killed (coz the b***h keeps sending me s**t loots)

cisadanepajsuxrwb17_ESO · June 2014

SwampRaider wrote: »

Anybody else notice that the DC mage guards at scrol lgates are missing?

On volendrung..its as if the mages on top of the gates have been deleted

In a perfect ES game, there would be an option/game mechanic to bribe the mage guards, albeit expensively, through a Thief's Guild agent so that they deliberately 'patrol away' on certain hours of the day

But alas, in this case its probably a bug

leewells · June 2014

Bloodvax wrote: »

leewells wrote: »

Bloodvax wrote: »

leewells wrote: »

Bloodvax wrote: »

*Points out where they say its not an exploit* NO! It still is heres this quote! *points out how thats not relevant* Whatever man its still exploiting!!!
Makes sense.

Defends players that pulls up bases when the ball is hit and runs off with them. QQ's not to kick him out of the game. Says umpires didn't do anything so its legit.

From a technical standpoint if the people governing the rules didn't do anything, it is kinda legit

So, you're saying stuff like slavery was legit because the governing rules (The supreme court) ruled it was ok in Dred Scott v. Sandford? Are you implying that no one shall use any morale code and let the "leaders" make their moral choices for them?

So, we we can deduce is you completely cool with cheating in any shape applied to anything. I wonder, does your significant other (assuming you have one) agree?

But it was legal for a couple hundred years.........history books

Your confusing the law with moral code. Not the same thing really

Troll or not, I believe that you got the point that because ZOS says or does nothing about it, neither makes ok, or legit.

Halrloprillalar · June 2014

Tintinabula wrote: »

Brian Wheeler mentioned that a fix was coming tomorrow afternoon.That it was postponed due to something that "arose"...(don't say it!)

not gonna lie I am more irritated about silver shards than terrain exploits right now... pve is just so bland and horrible

leewells · June 2014

/unsubbed

Now, ZOS, give me a good reason to renew.

dcincali · June 2014

leewells wrote: »

/unsubbed

Now, ZOS, give me a good reason to renew.

Improved Interior Lighting

leewells · June 2014

dcincali wrote: »

leewells wrote: »

/unsubbed

Now, ZOS, give me a good reason to renew.

Improved Interior Lighting

I can play Skyrim without a sub and get more bling with ENB. Oh! And I don't have to worry about exploiters!

The only thing ESO offers more than any of the Elder Scrolls series is its community. The moment ZOS turned blind eyes to the exploiters of the vamp bat swarm stacking exploit, is the moment this community slid down a very slippery slope. When ZOS turned a blind eye to caltrops, the community digressed into full free-fall. One would expect a parachute at this point with the new terrain exploit, but what did ZOS do? They green-light exploiting by clearly labeling it "a very grey area".

Now we're close to the ground and I highly doubt there is anything that could be done at this point but a full reverse of ZOS's stance and a full ban of all participants of this past exploit with their AP set to 0, rank set to 0, and inventories & banks cleared. Even still, hitting the bottom at this much speed is going to severely damage the community.

Tonight and last night, I saw more DC players than I could count SPAWNING at the EP wayshrine in Cyrodiil. And then they would run off, and grab the scroll. No matter how many times tonight I ran after them to get the scroll and bring it back, they would rinse and repeat. And what is ZOS's response to this douchebaggery? "Its a very grey area", giving the GREEN LIGHT to every c**ksmuggling exploiter out there.

Zenzu · June 2014

Bloodvax wrote: »

leewells wrote: »

Bloodvax wrote: »

Wait a minute.........the EP on Bloodthorn werent burning the camps immediately. You guys were camping the people spawning at them, farming em if you will. THen when you got your teeth kicked in you started crying EXPLOITS HAX THIEVES BAN HAMMER. Hmmm interesting. If you didnt want people spawning in you would've burned the camp immediately

No, you wait a second, are we supposed to psychically know when a tent is bugged now or are we just supposed to go on faith that it is bugged? Regardless, the players weren't just using tents, they were using wall hacks. Yeah, tents get burned and enemy players get eradicated -- pretty standard procedure until you see them trying to rez each other which is a great indicator that they can't spawn at their tent.

You can burn down a bugged camp genius

Do you want to? Genius? ... no probably not.

ferzalrwb17_ESO · June 2014

.

Zenzu wrote: »

Bloodvax wrote: »

leewells wrote: »

Bloodvax wrote: »

Wait a minute.........the EP on Bloodthorn werent burning the camps immediately. You guys were camping the people spawning at them, farming em if you will. THen when you got your teeth kicked in you started crying EXPLOITS HAX THIEVES BAN HAMMER. Hmmm interesting. If you didnt want people spawning in you would've burned the camp immediately

No, you wait a second, are we supposed to psychically know when a tent is bugged now or are we just supposed to go on faith that it is bugged? Regardless, the players weren't just using tents, they were using wall hacks. Yeah, tents get burned and enemy players get eradicated -- pretty standard procedure until you see them trying to rez each other which is a great indicator that they can't spawn at their tent.

You can burn down a bugged camp genius

Do you want to? Genius? ... no probably not.

Yes you do. Because it's a game-breaking bug. You are exploiting a bug by not doing so and are, therefore, a cheat. But that's how this community works. That's very clear to me. I thought many, many people in Cyrodiil were cheats but the latest stuff seems to indicate that nearly everyone is. That's quite sad. I don't want to play with people like this - and Zeni is creating a safe harbour for exploiters here. There's really not much choice for the few fair players in the game.

I stopped playing pvp when the caltrops cheaters ruled the game. I'm not playing it now, again, and I'm not sure if I can stomach returning. That's bad news for most of you because I'm an easy kill. You want people like me in the game.

Frenzypanda · June 2014

I did not enter the pvp zone since the patch because my guild and I refused to get involved in this crap. After hearing dev comments even more so. Pvp is something thst we enjoy and ZOS simply allows it to be taken away from us by griefers/exploiters.Till now non of us can believe that ZOS stand in this matter is a grey area. This is not fair to the legit players that adhere to TOS and EULA. They call this a bug and people utilizing the bug is known as? Simple answer.
I played alot of mmorpg and never have I seen a game that has this much gamebreaking exploits and lackadaisical attitude in enforcing the rules.
Whenever my wife and I read some critical review on how bad ESO is, I would say "naw, this game is fun, those are haters or rival companies" I think I just slapped myself in the face.

Yolokin_Swagonborn · June 2014

ferzalrwb17_ESO wrote: »

.
Yes you do. Because it's a game-breaking bug. You are exploiting a bug by not doing so and are, therefore, a cheat.

Hold on there. You are saying that everyone who doesn't burn down an enemy camp is a cheater and guilty of exploiting. Wow. Think about that one for a second.

So exploiting can be anything now. Something you do. Something you don't do.
You have some Kantian Moral Imperative to burn an enemy camp? Idiocy on stilts.

Let me clean up your definition a bit. Here are the three rules of being a Moralistic Crybaby.

Anything you do that I don't like is exploiting.
If I win the fight, the game is perfectly balanced.
If you win, then your build/skills/class is overpowered.

leewells · June 2014

jdnchaosb14a_ESO wrote: »

ferzalrwb17_ESO wrote: »

.
Yes you do. Because it's a game-breaking bug. You are exploiting a bug by not doing so and are, therefore, a cheat.

Hold on there. You are saying that everyone who doesn't burn down an enemy camp is a cheater and guilty of exploiting. Wow. Think about that one for a second.

So exploiting can be anything now. Something you do. Something you don't do.
You have some Kantian Moral Imperative to burn an enemy camp? Idiocy on stilts.

Let me clean up your definition a bit. Here are the three rules of being a Moralistic Crybaby.
Anything you do that I don't like is exploiting.

If I win the fight, the game is perfectly balanced.

If you win, then your build/skills/class is overpowered.

I'm a firm believer that no one can exploit through inaction. It was brought up before, but taking keeps to flip emp and then guesting elsewhere is not an exploit. Walking right past a bugged tent is not an exploit. Inaction IMO cannot be an exploit because forcing people to act to avoid exploiting is a very scary state of being. If doing nothing gives you an unfair advantage, this game needs to go back to the drawing board.

ferzalrwb17_ESO · June 2014

jdnchaosb14a_ESO wrote: »

ferzalrwb17_ESO wrote: »

.
Yes you do. Because it's a game-breaking bug. You are exploiting a bug by not doing so and are, therefore, a cheat.

Hold on there. You are saying that everyone who doesn't burn down an enemy camp is a cheater and guilty of exploiting. Wow. Think about that one for a second.

Thought about it and stand by it. Of course you have to include the part about choosing not to burn it where you otherwise would have. When you investigate a FC and decide to burn/not burn based on whether it's bugged you are a cheat. It's pretty simple. You're taking an unintended game bug and exploiting it. Exploiting 101. Sheesh.

Let me clean up your definition a bit. Here are the three rules of being a Moralistic Crybaby.
Anything you do that I don't like is exploiting.

If I win the fight, the game is perfectly balanced.

If you win, then your build/skills/class is overpowered.

That's some strawman you've built. Let me clean up your definition a bit.

Anything you do that is exploiting is exploiting
If I win the fight you're really bad
If you win, and you didn't cheat, you're in the top 80% of players.

This game is a blast when it's fair and I could not care less about dying. There's no huge penalty to it. Of course I'd prefer to kill you but as long as I'm not lagging, you're not cheating and I had my slim chance to win I'm happy. FC exploiting doesn't make me lose a fight but it's a battlefield cheat and so, amidst all the cries of "nub", I burn them down every time rather than cheat. I suggest everyone try to play by the rules. Just for a day. It's liberating. You'd be surprised.

Yolokin_Swagonborn · June 2014

leewells wrote: »

I'm a firm believer that no one can exploit through inaction.

And yet there is a least one person on here that firmly believes otherwise. And therein lies the problem. Everyone, including you, is applying their own subjective moral standard to this situation.

What people need to understand is that their own internal moral standards don't mean jack. Morality is subjective at best and stupefying at worst.

The only standard that matters is that of ZOS because we clicked "Agree" on the TOS when we purchased the game. So they get to define what counts as exploiting and what does not. Simple as that. End of discussion.

And just as a reminder. Jessica said it wasn't exploiting way back on page 6. The majority of this thread after that is people crying refusing to accept reality.

leewells · June 2014

ferzalrwb17_ESO wrote: »

FC exploiting doesn't make me lose a fight but it's a battlefield cheat and so, amidst all the cries of "nub", I burn them down every time rather than cheat. I suggest everyone try to play by the rules. Just for a day. It's liberating. You'd be surprised.

Telling someone they MUST do something to avoid exploiting doesn't jive in my book. While actively trying to take advantage of something that is bugged is something you'll always hear me campaign against, I could never tell someone that they're an exploiter because they failed to do something. It is just wrong, on so many levels and by that very logic anything could be used to even falsely label someone as an exploiter, such as "you didn't use executioner to finish tom, so you let him win and therefor you're an exploiter!"; no, just no. There is exploiting, and then there is just telling people how to play the game.

jdnchaosb14a_ESO wrote: »

leewells wrote: »

I'm a firm believer that no one can exploit through inaction.

And yet there is a least one person on here that firmly believes otherwise. And therein lies the problem. Everyone, including you, is applying their own subjective moral standard to this situation.

What people need to understand is that their own internal moral standards don't mean jack. Morality is subjective at best and stupefying at worst.

The only standard that matters is that of ZOS because we clicked "Agree" on the TOS when we purchased the game. So they get to define what counts as exploiting and what does not. Simple as that. End of discussion.

And just as a reminder. Jessica said it wasn't exploiting way back on page 6. The majority of this thread after that is people crying refusing to accept reality.

The problem is the definition of exploit. No matter what anyone here says, no matter what is in the EULA, this definition will remain the same and there isn't anything anyone here can do about that (unless your name is Webster, or you're the author of some other popular dictionary). Any time someone takes advantage of a bug to create an unfair advantage that would not exist otherwise, there is an exploit. Therein is the definition. Walking past a FC is not an exploit because if you were not there to burn it the advantage for your team would "still" exist.

To "take advantage" is an action statement, meaning that an action is required, not inaction. You can't take advantage of of something by merely standing around bird-watching unless you're taking advantage of the scenery of course.

Running up to a wall, mounting to tunnel through it so you can enter the enemy safe-area is taking advantage of a bug, and that is by definition, exploiting. Walking by an enemy FC that you may or may not have seen, is the epitome of retardation to classify as an exploit.

As for the EULA, yep, you're right, but you know what? If I disagree, I sure as hell don't have to pay them. And that's, that.

Yolokin_Swagonborn · June 2014

ferzalrwb17_ESO wrote: »

jdnchaosb14a_ESO wrote: »

ferzalrwb17_ESO wrote: »

.
Yes you do. Because it's a game-breaking bug. You are exploiting a bug by not doing so and are, therefore, a cheat.

Hold on there. You are saying that everyone who doesn't burn down an enemy camp is a cheater and guilty of exploiting. Wow. Think about that one for a second.

Thought about it and stand by it. Of course you have to include the part about choosing not to burn it where you otherwise would have. When you investigate a FC and decide to burn/not burn based on whether it's bugged you are a cheat. It's pretty simple. You're taking an unintended game bug and exploiting it. Exploiting 101. Sheesh.

Let me clean up your definition a bit. Here are the three rules of being a Moralistic Crybaby.
Anything you do that I don't like is exploiting.

If I win the fight, the game is perfectly balanced.

If you win, then your build/skills/class is overpowered.

That's some strawman you've built. Let me clean up your definition a bit.
Anything you do that is exploiting is exploiting

If I win the fight you're really bad

If you win, and you didn't cheat, you're in the top 80% of players.

FC exploiting doesn't make me lose a fight but it's a battlefield cheat and so, amidst all the cries of "nub", I burn them down every time rather than cheat.

Oooh fun! A logical fallacy Wikipedia warrior!

Now why would you accuse me of a strawman and respond with a circular definition? I linked the rest of the informal fallacies so you could check those out too. When ever you accuse someone of a logical fallacy it makes your point automagically correct!

The problem with your point #1 is that you are equating external reality with your own opinion. Your subjective reality and the rest of the world are a little different trust me.

Btw feel free to burn all the camps you desire and "enforce the rules" by defeating unfairness manually, in game, bug after programming bug. Wouldn't it be easier if you just applied for a Software QA job and caught the bugs before they escaped?

Its easier to fix bugs with lines of code than with moral crusaders. We have unlimited lines of code. Hopefully we have a very limited supply of moral crusaders.

ferzalrwb17_ESO · June 2014

leewells wrote: »

I'm a firm believer that no one can exploit through inaction.

I agree. However, choosing to not do something you would normally do for the sole purpose of exploiting a bug or yelling at others to not do something in order to exploit said bug is not inaction. Making a choice, here, is the action.

Clearly it's about intent. That can get very murky but most of the cases of exploiting in Cyrodiil are pretty clear. Unless you're Zenimax.

If you walk by a bugged camp oblivious or, simply, without care then, of course, it's fine. That's pure inaction. If you shout at someone who's about to burn a camp because you know it's bugged then you've acted.

There's absolutely no way to enforce something like that. You can't prove someone's intent but let's be real: we all know what's going on. In the case of the exploits that this thread is centred on - it's crystal clear. No one is innocently ending up in the enemy spawn through inaction.

Yolokin_Swagonborn · June 2014

leewells wrote: »

As for the EULA, yep, you're right, but you know what? If I disagree, I sure as hell don't have to pay them. And that's, that.

Well if you ragequit the game over this, that is one less moralist playing this game which will be good for the overall community.

However, I would much rather have the other guy, the Kantian Moralist ragequit than you. You're not that bad. His omission based morality (that he believes in as strongly as you believe in yours) is a much more repugnant version of the same disease.

Both of you seem to think that Morality (and thus the definition of exploitation) is so purely objective that there is no argument as to whether something is exploiting or not. Well, at 11 pages deep into this I think you are wrong.

Even Jessica said that this is a gray area. Gray, as in subjective. BAM. Time to click that unsubscribe button, the show will go on without you.

leewells · June 2014

ferzalrwb17_ESO wrote: »

leewells wrote: »

I'm a firm believer that no one can exploit through inaction.

I agree. However, choosing to not do something you would normally do for the sole purpose of exploiting a bug or yelling at others to not do something in order to exploit said bug is not inaction. Making a choice, here, is the action.

Clearly it's about intent. That can get very murky but most of the cases of exploiting in Cyrodiil are pretty clear. Unless you're Zenimax.

If you walk by a bugged camp oblivious or, simply, without care then, of course, it's fine. That's pure inaction. If you shout at someone who's about to burn a camp because you know it's bugged then you've acted.

There's absolutely no way to enforce something like that. You can't prove someone's intent but let's be real: we all know what's going on. In the case of the exploits that this thread is centred on - it's crystal clear. No one is innocently ending up in the enemy spawn through inaction.

I'm not buying what you're selling here. If shouting at someone is an exploit, then who decides what content is the exploit? You? ZOS? Telling folks its ok to walk past a tent or explaining "hey, its bugged, you can leave it alone because they do the same for us" is not exploiting and is not acting on an exploit. It is simply instructing someone that they don't have to act. Telling someone to actively exploit, also cannot be an exploit because the only thing you're taking advantage of is the chat system (although, it is serious effed up to tell someone that).

Its not about intent or moral code, its about the definition and how the English language works. You cannot "take advantage" without acting. Therefor you cannot exploit without acting. Telling someone not to do something is not taking advantage of anything other than the chat system itself.

Following your logic, everyone using these forums to demonstrate bugs is effectively telling people how to exploit. Therefor if telling people not to act is an exploit, then instructing them on how to exploit must also be an exploit. I'm not buying into this logic.

Moral codes are a bit different which is where I believe you missed the mark. For instance, if ZOS doesn't ban people for using bonafied exploits, moral code dictates that it is still wrong to exploit. But that doesn't mean that because a player does something you believe is against a morale code that it is an exploit. This goes back to tree logic, because all trees are plants, doesn't make all plants, trees.

leewells · June 2014

jdnchaosb14a_ESO wrote: »

leewells wrote: »

As for the EULA, yep, you're right, but you know what? If I disagree, I sure as hell don't have to pay them. And that's, that.

Well if you ragequit the game over this, that is one less moralist playing this game which will be good for the overall community.

However, I would much rather have the other guy, the Kantian Moralist ragequit than you. You're not that bad. His omission based morality (that he believes in as strongly as you believe in yours) is a much more repugnant version of the same disease.

Both of you seem to think that Morality (and thus the definition of exploitation) is so purely objective that there is no argument as to whether something is exploiting or not. Well, at 11 pages deep into this I think you are wrong.

Even Jessica said that this is a gray area. Gray, as in subjective. BAM. Time to click that unsubscribe button, the show will go on without you.

A moralist with a dictionary. I never thought I'd ever be called a moralist. But what ever floats your boat there. I personally go after text-book definitions and logic. But if that sounds moray to you, I guess your boat is afloat.

Actually, the moment Jessica made that statement, I can count 83 unsubs in my guild alone (we usually have about 150 to login per day, 50'ish that are week-end warriors, and another 50 that are just erratic, so I assume that number will double over the next 24 hours when the guild finds out ZOS effectively gave the green-light to exploiting by naming it a "grey area"). Lets just hope that my guild is an isolated incident shall we? Was it moray that causes this? Or ZOS taking liberties with the English dictionary to grease their palms?

The real problem here is the haven that ZOS just created for exploiters alike. You see, the response "grey area" green-lights exploiters but still gives compliant players hesitation which is the best of both worlds for an exploiter -- they get all the unchallenged AP they could ask for knowing they are in the minority, and official confirmation that they keep their AP and accounts.

ferzalrwb17_ESO · June 2014

jdnchaosb14a_ESO wrote: »

Its easier to fix bugs with lines of code than with moral crusaders. We have unlimited lines of code. Hopefully we have a very limited supply of moral crusaders.

Directly to the quoted point: some of these bugs need fixing regardless of intent. A lot of them, however, only need fixing because of the insistence of players on cheating. Some of them, like terrain exploiting, will not be easy fixes actually.

The best solution is always a compromise. Any battleground, be it a sporting field or a video game, will always benefit from participants' sportsmanship; specifically, a willingness to adhere to the rules of the game.

I guess that's not going to be the case here.

Sorry for skipping the rest of your post but I'd prefer to avoid a flamewar and didn't actually read it. I'm sure the points were valid and witty :P. I can live with the moral crusader tag since I've thrown out the cheater judgement but let's stop it there if possible.

Yolokin_Swagonborn · June 2014

leewells wrote: »

Actually, the moment Jessica made that statement, I can count 83 (we usually have about 200 to login per day, so I assume that number will double over the next 24 hours) unsubs in my guild alone.

BUAHAHAHAHAHAH you are killing me man. 83 people quit over THIS bug? After all the other bugs we have had since "alpha" and this extended console beta test that we pay money to participate in? After invisible walls, skills that won't fire, gold dupes, bots everywhere, infinite loading screens, unkillable vampires etc. etc.

And a little spawn camping is what finally does it?

After every nerf or bug I hear people claim 1000s unsubscribe. When ZOS, shot the API in the kneecap days before launch everyone claimed that "100s of people are unsubbing."

Yet we are still here. The Cyrodiil War just got more interesting! There are enemy infiltrators in the base camps! Their tunneling through the walls! It reads like a good action novel and you just can see it. Vampires used to terrorize cyrodill but now a new crossbow bolt is dropping them like flies!

Cyrodiil just got more interesting and fun and now you choose to leave.

leewells · June 2014

jdnchaosb14a_ESO wrote: »

leewells wrote: »

Actually, the moment Jessica made that statement, I can count 83 (we usually have about 200 to login per day, so I assume that number will double over the next 24 hours) unsubs in my guild alone.

BUAHAHAHAHAHAH you are killing me man. 83 people quit over THIS bug? After all the other bugs we have had since "alpha" and this extended console beta test that we pay money to participate in? After invisible walls, skills that won't fire, gold dupes, bots everywhere, infinite loading screens, unkillable vampires etc. etc.

And a little spawn camping is what finally does it?

After every nerf or bug I hear people claim 1000s unsubscribe. When ZOS, shot the API in the kneecap days before launch everyone claimed that "100s of people are unsubbing."

Yet we are still here. The Cyrodiil War just got more interesting! There are enemy infiltrators in the base camps! Their tunneling through the walls! It reads like a good action novel and you just can see it. Vampires used to terrorize cyrodill but now a new crossbow bolt is dropping them like flies!

Cyrodiil just got more interesting and fun and now you choose to leave.

You are obviously not getting it. Bugs are expected in alpha. They're expected in beta, hell we even expect them after the fact. But we also expect that players whom are intentionally exploiting the game in PVP to have some, if ANY disciplinary action taken against them to deter further exploiting.

This, is the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak. First of was the inaction of bat-swarm stacking. Then the inaction of caltrops, and now this. ZOS has proven to each and every one of us that they will NOT take any action against exploiting PVPers, in fact, by labeling it a "grey area" they have effectively given exploiting the green-light. Our guild does not exploit. We won't even toe the line, we stay far, far from that line so when its naturally blurred by ZOS employees, we need to find another game to play.

Gaettusk · June 2014

Might as well call in the script-kiddies. ZoS won't ban them either because it's probably a "grey area".

ferzalrwb17_ESO · June 2014

leewells wrote: »

I'm not buying what you're selling here. If shouting at someone is an exploit, then who decides what content is the exploit? You? ZOS?

The answer to that is: you. I'm not talking about enforcing that kind of stuff in any way. The point I'm trying to make, and I'll say it again, is about intent. Not action against - just a wish, a pipedream.

Just as I get called a nub for burning a FC because it's bugged, it's just as preposterous to consider enforcing or reporting someone who doesn't burn them deliberately. I'm a symbolic moral crusader you see.

I take no action and have no real power.

I merely wish people would play fair - according to their own definitions. At the moment I simply cannot buy the crap that people believe these actions are fair and within the spirit of the game.

Moral codes are a bit different which is where I believe you missed the mark. For instance, if ZOS doesn't ban people for using bonafied exploits, moral code dictates that it is still wrong to exploit. But that doesn't mean that because a player does something you believe is against a morale code that it is an exploit. This goes back to tree logic, because all trees are plants, doesn't make all plants, trees.

Again, I agree with you and I hope my position is a little clearer now. In the case of the exploit that this thread centres on I strongly believe ZOS should be taking action. The other stuff - absolutely not, no way. I simply dream of a little sportsmanship out there. Sometimes I see glimmers of it... then it fades.

leewells · June 2014

ferzalrwb17_ESO wrote: »

leewells wrote: »

I'm not buying what you're selling here. If shouting at someone is an exploit, then who decides what content is the exploit? You? ZOS?

The answer to that is: you. I'm not talking about enforcing that kind of stuff in any way. The point I'm trying to make, and I'll say it again, is about intent. Not action against - just a wish, a pipedream.

Just as I get called a nub for burning a FC because it's bugged, it's just as preposterous to consider enforcing or reporting someone who doesn't burn them deliberately. I'm a symbolic moral crusader you see. I take no action and have no real power.

I merely wish people would play fair - according to their own definitions. At the moment I simply cannot buy the crap that people believe these actions are fair and within the spirit of the game.

Moral codes are a bit different which is where I believe you missed the mark. For instance, if ZOS doesn't ban people for using bonafied exploits, moral code dictates that it is still wrong to exploit. But that doesn't mean that because a player does something you believe is against a morale code that it is an exploit. This goes back to tree logic, because all trees are plants, doesn't make all plants, trees.

Again, I agree with you and I hope my position is a little clearer now. In the case of the exploit that this thread centres on I strongly believe ZOS should be taking action. The other stuff - absolutely not, no way. I simply dream of a little sportsmanship out there. Sometimes I see glimmers of it... then it fades.

I can respect the dire sense of sportsmanship you have. But do keep in mind that it does indeed have its limitations. Take football for instance. Is it unsportsmanlike to "take a knee" while the ball is in play to keep the clock running and take the ball out of play to prevent the other team from having a chance to intercept from a real play? Nope. I also don't believe its unsportsmanlike to run or throw the ball out of bounds intentionally to stop the clock either. This is tactical thinking that could make or break the game and within the well-defined rules of the game.

My dream is a little different -- clear boundaries where you can be as crafty and tactical as you want within those boundaries and clear consequences for crossing those boundaries. When ZOS does this, I'm pretty sure they'll pick up the subs again from most in my guild and even more that quit over caltrops inaction, and I'm pretty sure they pick up a lot more.