ezareth_ESO wrote: »ZOS_MichaelServotte wrote: »
Siliconhobbit_ESO wrote: »I find it interesting that out of of 16 pages of comments concerning this issue, not one player that benefits from these combinations of skills and or abilities has set foot in this thread to explain what they do and how they do it. There is no defense expressed regarding this.
This pretty much says that despite the creative combination of skills provided in the game, to get the desired result of 'invulnerability', those USING it know full well it's an unintended effect and quite possibly an exploit.
It also speaks volumes about they type of person they are and just how unskilled they are as a player. Knowing such a combination will grant you this effect and then using it is telling everyone that you do not care that you are exploiting. you do not care that others know you are exploiting, and that you are doing it because you cannot compete otherwise, fairly.
Rather pathetic if you ask me, and I do hope that those who are doing it, find themselves at the end of the ban-stick, permanently.
Siliconhobbit_ESO wrote: »I find it interesting that out of of 16 pages of comments concerning this issue, not one player that benefits from these combinations of skills and or abilities has set foot in this thread to explain what they do and how they do it. There is no defense expressed regarding this.
This pretty much says that despite the creative combination of skills provided in the game, to get the desired result of 'invulnerability', those USING it know full well it's an unintended effect and quite possibly an exploit.
It also speaks volumes about they type of person they are and just how unskilled they are as a player. Knowing such a combination will grant you this effect and then using it is telling everyone that you do not care that you are exploiting. you do not care that others know you are exploiting, and that you are doing it because you cannot compete otherwise, fairly.
Rather pathetic if you ask me, and I do hope that those who are doing it, find themselves at the end of the ban-stick, permanently.
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.
themizario wrote: »With the fix I imagine a change to a PvP set coming...look for it in patch notes. Sadly I imagine they will only make it slightly less damage reduction (95%) and not 100% fixed.
themizario wrote: »With the fix I imagine a change to a PvP set coming...look for it in patch notes. Sadly I imagine they will only make it slightly less damage reduction (95%) and not 100% fixed.
Do you mean Light of Cyrodiil set..?
c.gregoryb14_ESO 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!
themizario wrote: »themizario wrote: »With the fix I imagine a change to a PvP set coming...look for it in patch notes. Sadly I imagine they will only make it slightly less damage reduction (95%) and not 100% fixed.
Do you mean Light of Cyrodiil set..?
Yup
Luvsfuzzybunnies wrote: »c.gregoryb14_ESO 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!
Will be interesting to see ya last as long as you previously did now. If so kudos to you if not we will have our answer. Have fun in game bro look forward to some legit pvp.
Luvsfuzzybunnies wrote: »c.gregoryb14_ESO 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!
Will be interesting to see ya last as long as you previously did now. If so kudos to you if not we will have our answer. Have fun in game bro look forward to some legit pvp.
We already have our answer on this. see my comments above, lol. level 45's ganking players who became afraid of the banhammer and stopped employing god mode.
Luvsfuzzybunnies wrote: »Will be interesting to see ya last as long as you previously did now. If so kudos to you if not we will have our answer. Have fun in game bro look forward to some legit pvp.
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!
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.
c.gregoryb14_ESO wrote: »Siliconhobbit_ESO wrote: »I find it interesting that out of of 16 pages of comments concerning this issue, not one player that benefits from these combinations of skills and or abilities has set foot in this thread to explain what they do and how they do it. There is no defense expressed regarding this.
This pretty much says that despite the creative combination of skills provided in the game, to get the desired result of 'invulnerability', those USING it know full well it's an unintended effect and quite possibly an exploit.
It also speaks volumes about they type of person they are and just how unskilled they are as a player. Knowing such a combination will grant you this effect and then using it is telling everyone that you do not care that you are exploiting. you do not care that others know you are exploiting, and that you are doing it because you cannot compete otherwise, fairly.
Rather pathetic if you ask me, and I do hope that those who are doing it, find themselves at the end of the ban-stick, permanently.
There was no exploit indicated, as I been saying. "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." No more shield stacking is coming, can't wait...will be able to burn down those pesky DK's.
By shame, I'm taking you also mean locking them away from the general public.bellanca6561n wrote: »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.
I'm okay with ZOS shaming proven offenders, but you cannot shame suspected offenders. And, I'm definitely against players doing the shaming. We have some posters on this forum who rode the short bus to school. What's to keep them from shaming a perceived offense or someone they just don't like?bellanca6561n wrote: »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.
c.gregoryb14_ESO wrote: »Siliconhobbit_ESO wrote: »I find it interesting that out of of 16 pages of comments concerning this issue, not one player that benefits from these combinations of skills and or abilities has set foot in this thread to explain what they do and how they do it. There is no defense expressed regarding this.
This pretty much says that despite the creative combination of skills provided in the game, to get the desired result of 'invulnerability', those USING it know full well it's an unintended effect and quite possibly an exploit.
It also speaks volumes about they type of person they are and just how unskilled they are as a player. Knowing such a combination will grant you this effect and then using it is telling everyone that you do not care that you are exploiting. you do not care that others know you are exploiting, and that you are doing it because you cannot compete otherwise, fairly.
Rather pathetic if you ask me, and I do hope that those who are doing it, find themselves at the end of the ban-stick, permanently.
There was no exploit indicated, as I been saying. "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." No more shield stacking is coming, can't wait...will be able to burn down those pesky DK's.
You really belive that they can fix that? or better... they want to fix that?