Regarding Miats and other Notification add ons with update 17

Jade1986

Dorrino wrote: »

A_G_G_R_O wrote: »

@Dorrino please dm me a link to that PayPal,

It's on ESOUI on each of my addons pages:)

To All:

Zos doesn't reply with clarifications. As i said multiple times before i want either a straight answer from ZOS that delineates what is and what is not desired regarding the addon or a prompt removal. I'm fine with either. Over these years i've got a bit tired with the constant nonsense of 'It's cheating', 'No, it's not cheating' etc etc.

I did what i thought was awesome. And i still stand by my decision.

Zos didn't manage to issue any clear statements regarding the addon. In other words they themselves don't understand what they want to have in eso pvp. As a collateral it brings me a lot of controversial publicity. It's funny at times, but ultimately as probably any creator, i'd prefer to receive positive recognition of my work, instead of random bashing on the grounds that are being my control.

That's pretty much it:)

Criticizing the addon and scrutinizing you for making said add on, is not bashing. Name calling is, but people are rightly so angry because your add on specifically nullified any competitive ranged class built around ccharge up attacks. With no counter whatsoever.

And honestly, the patch notes were pretty clear as to what their goal was.

"Addons will now only know about attacks that target you after they hit you in PvP areas."

Its pretty cut and dry. So obviously they want that part of your add on disabled, without changing the TOS.

Jade1986

Wreuntzylla wrote: »

I have no problems with Miat using the heck out of a tool made available by ZoS themselves. You really have to consider that in some cases they actually meant for the effect to be in the game. Before Miat's, most die hard PvPers would turn the music and other useless audio effects down so you could hear different things. For example, you can hear an incoming snipe or the drums that indicate you have entered into combat. For the most part, what Miat did was to make it a visual effect that won't slip past you in the adrenaline rush of competition.

Not to say I think Miat is an upstanding citizen, his stance that he has never run into cheaters pops my fizzle. But he did not do anything beyond what ZoS not only allowed him to do, but purposefully exposed the API commands for it to be done. Yes, they can hide the ones that they don't want you to use while still getting the same effect, at least short of people hacking the client-server packets.

ZoS actually stated in beta that they did not want add ons like that in the game. Sometime down the road though the team changed and priorities too.

Dorrino

jaws343 wrote: »

Dorrino wrote: »

A_G_G_R_O wrote: »

@Dorrino please dm me a link to that PayPal,

It's on ESOUI on each of my addons pages:)

To All:

Zos doesn't reply with clarifications. As i said multiple times before i want either a straight answer from ZOS that delineates what is and what is not desired regarding the addon or a prompt removal. I'm fine with either. Over these years i've got a bit tired with the constant nonsense of 'It's cheating', 'No, it's not cheating' etc etc.

I did what i thought was awesome. And i still stand by my decision.

Zos didn't manage to issue any clear statements regarding the addon. In other words they themselves don't understand what they want to have in eso pvp. As a collateral it brings me a lot of controversial publicity. It's funny at times, but ultimately as probably any creator, i'd prefer to receive positive recognition of my work, instead of random bashing on the grounds that are being my control.

That's pretty much it:)

I don't understand how the following statement is not a clear indication of ZOS's intentions regarding combat:

"Addons will now only know about attacks that target you after they hit you in PvP areas."

It is impossible to read that statement and think that in-flight notifications are ok, or intended.

Personally i don't know what exactly they meant in that phrase.

There're multiple things reported to the UI (both ZOS and addons) that happen before the attack lands.

Example: you're getting slowed by a charge snare before a gap closer lands. This slow is applied to your character. As a debuff. Your character experiences it as a 0.5 sec reduce of his movement speed. This snare happens before a gap closer lands. And there's no way NOT to let addons know about this snare.

Other examples are various debuffs from projectiles. They also are applied before the damage part.

That's why ZOS could mean literally anything by that phrase, since taken literally this can't work in this game, regardless of ZOS desires. Without clear statement from ZOS even people knowledgeable enough in how the game and its interface works - can only guess what exactly they are going to change.

Wreuntzylla wrote: »

Not to say I think Miat is an upstanding citizen, his stance that he has never run into cheaters pops my fizzle.

The thing is i fought dozens of thousands of players over 2 years of eso pvp. None of them cheated. This is my experience.

rfennell_ESO

jaws343 wrote: »

Dorrino wrote: »

A_G_G_R_O wrote: »

@Dorrino please dm me a link to that PayPal,

It's on ESOUI on each of my addons pages:)

To All:

Zos doesn't reply with clarifications. As i said multiple times before i want either a straight answer from ZOS that delineates what is and what is not desired regarding the addon or a prompt removal. I'm fine with either. Over these years i've got a bit tired with the constant nonsense of 'It's cheating', 'No, it's not cheating' etc etc.

I did what i thought was awesome. And i still stand by my decision.

Zos didn't manage to issue any clear statements regarding the addon. In other words they themselves don't understand what they want to have in eso pvp. As a collateral it brings me a lot of controversial publicity. It's funny at times, but ultimately as probably any creator, i'd prefer to receive positive recognition of my work, instead of random bashing on the grounds that are being my control.

That's pretty much it:)

I don't understand how the following statement is not a clear indication of ZOS's intentions regarding combat:

"Addons will now only know about attacks that target you after they hit you in PvP areas."

It is impossible to read that statement and think that in-flight notifications are ok, or intended.

They can make that statement, but if they don't actually correct it in the API it's a meaningless statement and also pretty much a totally laughable incident.

People need to keep in mind that "miat's" existed before Dorrino in some other form. He at least put it out there for everyone and it's the only reason this isn't being responded to with L2P nonsense as they continue to deny it's existence and call everyone saying it exists are farmed 1vx'ed scrubs.

Jade1986

rfennell_ESO wrote: »

jaws343 wrote: »

Dorrino wrote: »

A_G_G_R_O wrote: »

@Dorrino please dm me a link to that PayPal,

It's on ESOUI on each of my addons pages:)

To All:

Zos doesn't reply with clarifications. As i said multiple times before i want either a straight answer from ZOS that delineates what is and what is not desired regarding the addon or a prompt removal. I'm fine with either. Over these years i've got a bit tired with the constant nonsense of 'It's cheating', 'No, it's not cheating' etc etc.

I did what i thought was awesome. And i still stand by my decision.

Zos didn't manage to issue any clear statements regarding the addon. In other words they themselves don't understand what they want to have in eso pvp. As a collateral it brings me a lot of controversial publicity. It's funny at times, but ultimately as probably any creator, i'd prefer to receive positive recognition of my work, instead of random bashing on the grounds that are being my control.

That's pretty much it:)

I don't understand how the following statement is not a clear indication of ZOS's intentions regarding combat:

"Addons will now only know about attacks that target you after they hit you in PvP areas."

It is impossible to read that statement and think that in-flight notifications are ok, or intended.

They can make that statement, but if they don't actually correct it in the API it's a meaningless statement and also pretty much a totally laughable incident.

People need to keep in mind that "miat's" existed before Dorrino in some other form. He at least put it out there for everyone and it's the only reason this isn't being responded to with L2P nonsense as they continue to deny it's existence and call everyone saying it exists are farmed 1vx'ed scrubs.

The whole point of the fix is to get rid of all addons that do the same thing.

But I agree, saying what they said in the patch notes, and then doing something else is....not acceptable. Which is why I hope it is remedied before the patch goes live.

Morgul667

I hope they fix it once and for all

Nebbles

rfennell_ESO wrote: »

People need to keep in mind that "miat's" existed before Dorrino in some other form. He at least put it out there for everyone and it's the only reason this isn't being responded to with L2P nonsense as they continue to deny it's existence and call everyone saying it exists are farmed 1vx'ed scrubs.

A lot of people forget this. Before it came to the masses, I used to get really confused how some players seemed to have spider senses by dodging my attacks out of nowhere. I always suspected some sort of addon/3rd party software, but obviously couldn't be sure.

When this addon was released, it gave me a huge "ah ha" moment. And I wouldn't be surprised that there are other addons out there that most of us are unaware of.

Hurika

Don't confuse ZoS saying what they want regarding notification of attacks prior to landing vs their ability implement the fix correctly the first time. They still said what they want. The fact their patch wasn't complete or missed API calls doesn't change what they said.

I'm having a hard time following the logic here.....

• Zos states very clearly they do not want those notifications.
• Zos screws up the fix or it is not complete on their first iteration.
• (Therefore) Zos could literally mean anything by that phrase!

Would you use that argument in court?

• Police say it's illegal to steal someones car
• Polic can't catch every car theif
• (Therefore) Police could literally mean anything by the phrase! Grand Theft Auto for all!!! It's OK!!!

Their ability to deliver results may be at question here. Their intent is not.

Dorrino

Hurika wrote: »

Don't confuse ZoS saying what they want regarding notification of attacks prior to landing vs their ability implement the fix correctly the first time. They still said what they want. The fact their patch wasn't complete or missed API calls doesn't change what they said.

I'm having a hard time following the logic here.....

• Zos states very clearly they do not want those notifications.
• Zos screws up the fix or it is not complete on their first iteration.
• (Therefore) Zos could literally mean anything by that phrase!

Would you use that argument in court?

• Police say it's illegal to steal someones car
• Polic can't catch every car theif
• (Therefore) Police could literally mean anything by the phrase! Grand Theft Auto for all!!! It's OK!!!

Their ability to deliver results may be at question here. Their intent is not.

Their intent is not clear at all, that's why your analogy is is wrong.

That's setting aside that nothing about notifications is 'illegal' nor ZOS never said what is and what is not 'illegal' here.

There're no 'these notifications'.

Are we talking about all notifications? Including those that use the debuffs on the player?

Are ZOS supposed to prevent addons from checking debuffs on the player? Of any kind? Of specific kind?

We have literally no information about that part.

There're many different notifications using different aspects of the API. They serve different purposes.

The only thing ZOS managed to clearly communicate is that they are doing 'something' with 'some notifications'.

What we know they said they stopped supplying ACTION_RESULT_BEGIN type of events. And they did.

Nothing is clear about the second sentence in question.

I asked Chip multiple times what exactly they intend to do and received no answer so far.

If you got a good guess, describe it and give me your source.

Jade1986

Dorrino wrote: »

Hurika wrote: »

Don't confuse ZoS saying what they want regarding notification of attacks prior to landing vs their ability implement the fix correctly the first time. They still said what they want. The fact their patch wasn't complete or missed API calls doesn't change what they said.

I'm having a hard time following the logic here.....

• Zos states very clearly they do not want those notifications.
• Zos screws up the fix or it is not complete on their first iteration.
• (Therefore) Zos could literally mean anything by that phrase!

Would you use that argument in court?

• Police say it's illegal to steal someones car
• Polic can't catch every car theif
• (Therefore) Police could literally mean anything by the phrase! Grand Theft Auto for all!!! It's OK!!!

Their ability to deliver results may be at question here. Their intent is not.

Their intent is not clear at all, that's why your analogy is is wrong.

That's setting aside that nothing about notifications is 'illegal' nor ZOS never said what is and what is not 'illegal' here.

There're no 'these notifications'.

Are we talking about all notifications? Including those that use the debuffs on the player?

Are ZOS supposed to prevent addons from checking debuffs on the player? Of any kind? Of specific kind?

We have literally no information about that part.

There're many different notifications using different aspects of the API. They serve different purposes.

The only thing ZOS managed to clearly communicate is that they are doing 'something' with 'some notifications'.

What we know they said they stopped supplying ACTION_RESULT_BEGIN type of events. And they did.

Nothing is clear about the second sentence in question.

I asked Chip multiple times what exactly they intend to do and received no answer so far.

If you got a good guess, describe it and give me your source.

In german we would say " du machst ne elephant aus ne mücke " , literally translated " you are making an elephant out of a mosquito ".

Their post in patch notes was clear as day, it corresponds 100% with their official stance a few months back. It is not ambiguous at all. And the fact that gina responded to this thread pretty quick solidifies their stance pretty much.

Just stop. Please. I appreciate your findings, but now its just getting silly. It says specifically they will not recieve notifications in PVP. So expect restrictions in the near future.

The notification part of the add on stomped all over builds that rely on charge up attacks, with no counter, you should have -seen- this coming. No responsible company would let that stand for an extended period of time. It is disheartening that it lasted THIS long.

Hurika

Lots of redirection, ambiguous questions, etc. Yet nothing in your post to address the simple fact (yes a fact - you can read their post yourself) they don't want players notified of attacks prior to them landing. Please provide a quote from ZoS to counter the quote from ZoS below.

"Addons will now only know about attacks that target you after they hit you in PvP areas."

That's what they said - it's pretty straight forward and a pretty short read. Argue or try to confuse the issue all you want but ZoS said what they said. They've also said they are reviewing how their patch did not cover all cases.

"Thanks for the additional info, all. Confirming we've seen this and are looking into it."

Again, that's the facts. No "implied" what does this "REALLY REALLY mean" obscurity.

Continue defending your side, but please quote Zos with some facts. Otherwise it's all just your opinion. It's not worth reading your responses if they are all speculation and opinion and not fact - just not worth the time.

Jade1986

Hurika wrote: »

Lots of redirection, ambiguous questions, etc. Yet nothing in your post to address the simple fact (yes a fact - you can read their post yourself) they don't want players notified of attacks prior to them landing. Please provide a quote from ZoS to counter the quote from ZoS below.

"Addons will now only know about attacks that target you after they hit you in PvP areas."

That's what they said - it's pretty straight forward and a pretty short read. Argue or try to confuse the issue all you want but ZoS said what they said. They've also said they are reviewing how their patch did not cover all cases.

"Thanks for the additional info, all. Confirming we've seen this and are looking into it."

Again, that's the facts. No "implied" what does this "REALLY REALLY mean" obscurity.

Continue defending your side, but please quote Zos with some facts. Otherwise it's all just your opinion. It's not worth reading your responses if they are all speculation and opinion and not fact - just not worth the time.

The highlighted part is especially clear. It pretty obviously states that channels and travel times will no longer be broadcasted by add ons, but debuffs and what not will AFTER you were hit . If you want to make it complicated.

Dorrino

Jade1986 wrote: »

In german we would say " du machst ne elephant aus ne mücke " , literally translated " you are making an elephant out of a mosquito ".

Their post in patch notes was clear as day, it corresponds 100% with their official stance a few months back. It is not ambiguous at all. And the fact that gina responded to this thread pretty quick solidifies their stance pretty much.

Just stop. Please. I appreciate your findings, but now its just getting silly. It says specifically they will not recieve notifications in PVP. So expect restrictions in the near future.

The notification part of the add on stomped all over builds that rely on charge up attacks, with no counter, you should have -seen- this coming. No responsible company would let that stand for an extended period of time. It is disheartening that it lasted THIS long.

I'm not trying to make anything out of anything.

This is how I understand the patch notes. Not how i want to understand. Nor how i'd like to understand.

This is how i understand them given all the knowledge that i have.

Now, the patch notes are not a declaration of intention. Patch notes are declaration of actions. Gina might mess them up, programmers might mess up their message, but in any case patch notes tell us what is done, instead of what is intended to be done.

To the second point - 'build relying on heavy attacks' are fine. You're advocating for the builds 'requiring your target to be unaware'. Why exactly did you expect these build to be effective in the first place?

Hurika wrote: »

Lots of redirection, ambiguous questions, etc.

Personal attack.

You see i can easily play on the same level and start with justifying my opinion about your intellectual level, will it make the discussion better? Think about it.

Hurika wrote: »

Yet nothing in your post to address the simple fact (yes a fact - you can read their post yourself) they don't want players notified of attacks prior to them landing. Please provide a quote from ZoS to counter the quote from ZoS below.

"Addons will now only know about attacks that target you after they hit you in PvP areas."

Again. Patch notes don't declare intentions. They declare actions. Since we didn't see the actions you assumed this phrase meant, it's safe to accept that this phrase might have been misinterpreted by you. Especially considering that factual way the API works hardly support the meaning you obtained out of that phrase.

You might be correct though, that's why i asked for clarifications. But claiming that this is the only way of interpreting the phrase can only lead to lack of understanding and probable personal insults.

Hurika wrote: »

That's what they said - it's pretty straight forward and a pretty short read. Argue or try to confuse the issue all you want but ZoS said what they said. They've also said they are reviewing how their patch did not cover all cases.

Unlike you, i'm not trying to confuse the issue and make it look one-sided.

Hurika wrote: »

"Thanks for the additional info, all. Confirming we've seen this and are looking into it."

Again, that's the facts. No "implied" what does this "REALLY REALLY mean" obscurity.

So you understood that phrase as they changing something else?:) What precisely in that phrase made you think like that?

Hurika wrote: »

Continue defending your side, but please quote Zos with some facts. Otherwise it's all just your opinion. It's not worth reading your responses if they are all speculation and opinion and not fact - just not worth the time.

I don't care about defending any sides. I'm expressing my understanding of the situation. Right now you're making this a conflict. It's a slippery slope that i don't really advise you to step on.

Jade1986

Dorrino wrote: »

Jade1986 wrote: »

In german we would say " du machst ne elephant aus ne mücke " , literally translated " you are making an elephant out of a mosquito ".

Their post in patch notes was clear as day, it corresponds 100% with their official stance a few months back. It is not ambiguous at all. And the fact that gina responded to this thread pretty quick solidifies their stance pretty much.

Just stop. Please. I appreciate your findings, but now its just getting silly. It says specifically they will not recieve notifications in PVP. So expect restrictions in the near future.

The notification part of the add on stomped all over builds that rely on charge up attacks, with no counter, you should have -seen- this coming. No responsible company would let that stand for an extended period of time. It is disheartening that it lasted THIS long.

I'm not trying to make anything out of anything.

This is how I understand the patch notes. Not how i want to understand. Nor how i'd like to understand.

This is how i understand them given all the knowledge that i have.

Now, the patch notes are not a declaration of intention. Patch notes are declaration of actions. Gina might mess them up, programmers might mess up their message, but in any case patch notes tell us what is done, instead of what is intended to be done.

To the second point - 'build relying on heavy attacks' are fine. You're advocating for the builds 'requiring your target to be unaware'. Why exactly did you expect these build to be effective in the first place?

Hurika wrote: »

Lots of redirection, ambiguous questions, etc.

Personal attack.

You see i can easily play on the same level and start with justifying my opinion about your intellectual level, will it make the discussion better? Think about it.

Hurika wrote: »

Yet nothing in your post to address the simple fact (yes a fact - you can read their post yourself) they don't want players notified of attacks prior to them landing. Please provide a quote from ZoS to counter the quote from ZoS below.

"Addons will now only know about attacks that target you after they hit you in PvP areas."

Again. Patch notes don't declare intentions. They declare actions. Since we didn't see the actions you assumed this phrase meant, it's safe to accept that this phrase might have been misinterpreted by you. Especially considering that factual way the API works hardly support the meaning you obtained out of that phrase.

You might be correct though, that's why i asked for clarifications. But claiming that this is the only way of interpreting the phrase can only lead to lack of understanding and probable personal insults.

Hurika wrote: »

That's what they said - it's pretty straight forward and a pretty short read. Argue or try to confuse the issue all you want but ZoS said what they said. They've also said they are reviewing how their patch did not cover all cases.

Unlike you, i'm not trying to confuse the issue and make it look one-sided.

Hurika wrote: »

"Thanks for the additional info, all. Confirming we've seen this and are looking into it."

Again, that's the facts. No "implied" what does this "REALLY REALLY mean" obscurity.

So you understood that phrase as they changing something else?:) What precisely in that phrase made you think like that?

Hurika wrote: »

Continue defending your side, but please quote Zos with some facts. Otherwise it's all just your opinion. It's not worth reading your responses if they are all speculation and opinion and not fact - just not worth the time.

I don't care about defending any sides. I'm expressing my understanding of the situation. Right now you're making this a conflict. It's a slippery slope that i don't really advise you to step on.

Literally nothing they said was a personal attack. Zip, nada , zilch.

You keep saying that its all about builds that were built around their targets being unaware. That is not true, that portion of the add on has neutered flare using templars, frag using sorcs, snipe using stealth and non stealth based builds, anyone using heavy attacks in any situation, wrecking blow using toons, any build using channeled ultimates, and in the past even told people how many stealthers there were in the vicinity.

The Patch notes tell us what the patch implemented. That is simple and unambigous. You yourself are making it ambiguous by trying to conolute the whole 2 sentences in the patch notes. Just stop.

As for the slippery slope, well, stop baiting people, maybe thatll help.

Dorrino

Jade1986 wrote: »

Literally nothing they said was a personal attack. Zip, nada , zilch.

It was though. When i make a post i try to sincerely and clearly express my understanding of the subject. Taking that into account, claming that i'm 'confusing, redirecting, intentionally being ambiguous etc' is a personal attack on me, because it doesn't discuss my message, it discusses my, assumingly bad, intentions.

Jade1986 wrote: »

You keep saying that its all about builds that were built around their targets being unaware. That is not true, that portion of the add on has neutered flare using templars, frag using sorcs, snipe using stealth and non stealth based builds, anyone using heavy attacks in any situation, wrecking blow using toons, any build using channeled ultimates, and in the past even told people how many stealthers there were in the vicinity.

But how does it do that if, as you said, 'targets being unaware is not important'? The addon only raises awareness of the target. Nothing else. Nada, as you'd say:)

So either the awareness is not a problem and my addon is not a problem as a consequence, or it is, and then your claim is false.

Jade1986 wrote: »

The Patch notes tell us what the patch implemented. That is simple and unambigous. You yourself are making it ambiguous by trying to conolute the whole 2 sentences in the patch notes. Just stop.

If it was simple and unambiguous then we would see it. We don't. Then we most likely misunderstood the patch notes (or patch notes were incorrect).

Additionally as i said multiple times, knowing how API works, this phrase in its 'simple unambiguous' meaning seems unrealistic.

I might be wrong, but at this point i don't see anything 'simple and unambiguous' there. That's why i ask questions.

Jade1986 wrote: »

As for the slippery slope, well, stop baiting people, maybe thatll help.

So now i'm baiting people. Awesome. Will any justifications follow or it's safe to assume this was another personal attack?

dennissomb16_ESO

Dorrino wrote: »

A_G_G_R_O wrote: »

@Dorrino please dm me a link to that PayPal,

It's on ESOUI on each of my addons pages:)

To All:

Zos doesn't reply with clarifications. As i said multiple times before i want either a straight answer from ZOS that delineates what is and what is not desired regarding the addon or a prompt removal. I'm fine with either. Over these years i've got a bit tired with the constant nonsense of 'It's cheating', 'No, it's not cheating' etc etc.

I did what i thought was awesome. And i still stand by my decision.

Zos didn't manage to issue any clear statements regarding the addon. In other words they themselves don't understand what they want to have in eso pvp. As a collateral it brings me a lot of controversial publicity. It's funny at times, but ultimately as probably any creator, i'd prefer to receive positive recognition of my work, instead of random bashing on the grounds that are being my control.

That's pretty much it:)

The issue has always resided with ZOS. They allowed addons to do what yours does in PvP. The fact that you are the one that created it is not really where people should be focusing their opinions of the addon. Issue has always been around ZOS inability to seperate PvE and PvP combined with what addons should be allowed to do

Honestly I would like to see addons gone from PvP period but to get angry at someone for creating an addon that people like is silly, they should be sending their views to ZOS about what their API is allowing

Dorrino

dennissomb16_ESO wrote: »

Dorrino wrote: »

A_G_G_R_O wrote: »

@Dorrino please dm me a link to that PayPal,

It's on ESOUI on each of my addons pages:)

To All:

Zos doesn't reply with clarifications. As i said multiple times before i want either a straight answer from ZOS that delineates what is and what is not desired regarding the addon or a prompt removal. I'm fine with either. Over these years i've got a bit tired with the constant nonsense of 'It's cheating', 'No, it's not cheating' etc etc.

I did what i thought was awesome. And i still stand by my decision.

Zos didn't manage to issue any clear statements regarding the addon. In other words they themselves don't understand what they want to have in eso pvp. As a collateral it brings me a lot of controversial publicity. It's funny at times, but ultimately as probably any creator, i'd prefer to receive positive recognition of my work, instead of random bashing on the grounds that are being my control.

That's pretty much it:)

The issue has always resided with ZOS. They allowed addons to do what yours does in PvP. The fact that you are the one that created it is not really where people should be focusing their opinions of the addon. Issue has always been around ZOS inability to seperate PvE and PvP combined with what addons should be allowed to do

Honestly I would like to see addons gone from PvP period but to get angry at someone for creating an addon that people like is silly, they should be sending their views to ZOS about what their API is allowing

It still feels weird to thank for a reasonable attitude, but it seems that the nature of gaming forums:)

I can only respect you stance on addons in pvp, even though mine is different.

About ZOS, it feels that they don't have a consistent vision about pvp at all. It's not about the addon, it's about the lack of any clear stance regarding addons. Any will do. We got none.

kyle.wilson

Dorrino wrote: »

jaws343 wrote: »

Dorrino wrote: »

A_G_G_R_O wrote: »

@Dorrino please dm me a link to that PayPal,

It's on ESOUI on each of my addons pages:)

To All:

Zos doesn't reply with clarifications. As i said multiple times before i want either a straight answer from ZOS that delineates what is and what is not desired regarding the addon or a prompt removal. I'm fine with either. Over these years i've got a bit tired with the constant nonsense of 'It's cheating', 'No, it's not cheating' etc etc.

I did what i thought was awesome. And i still stand by my decision.

Zos didn't manage to issue any clear statements regarding the addon. In other words they themselves don't understand what they want to have in eso pvp. As a collateral it brings me a lot of controversial publicity. It's funny at times, but ultimately as probably any creator, i'd prefer to receive positive recognition of my work, instead of random bashing on the grounds that are being my control.

That's pretty much it:)

I don't understand how the following statement is not a clear indication of ZOS's intentions regarding combat:

"Addons will now only know about attacks that target you after they hit you in PvP areas."

It is impossible to read that statement and think that in-flight notifications are ok, or intended.

Personally i don't know what exactly they meant in that phrase.

There're multiple things reported to the UI (both ZOS and addons) that happen before the attack lands.

Example: you're getting slowed by a charge snare before a gap closer lands. This slow is applied to your character. As a debuff. Your character experiences it as a 0.5 sec reduce of his movement speed. This snare happens before a gap closer lands. And there's no way NOT to let addons know about this snare.

Other examples are various debuffs from projectiles. They also are applied before the damage part.

That's why ZOS could mean literally anything by that phrase, since taken literally this can't work in this game, regardless of ZOS desires. Without clear statement from ZOS even people knowledgeable enough in how the game and its interface works - can only guess what exactly they are going to change.

Wreuntzylla wrote: »

Not to say I think Miat is an upstanding citizen, his stance that he has never run into cheaters pops my fizzle.

The thing is i fought dozens of thousands of players over 2 years of eso pvp. None of them cheated. This is my experience.

Never? You were very active during the unlimited ultimate CE fiasco.

badmojo

@Jade1986 What exactly did you want from Dorrino? It seems like you want him to respond to the patch notes by modifying his addon to remove all notifications of attacks. Do you not see why that would be bad for ESO? His addon needs to be prevented from working by ZOS modifying the API, otherwise private addons will continue to exploit any weakness in the system.

The guy is nice enough to come into this thread and show ZOS where their weaknesses are and why the changes are not adaquate, and insted of a thank you, you guys continue to attack him like he is the enemy.

You get so emotional you forget to be rational.

Dorrino

kyle.wilson wrote: »

Never? You were very active during the unlimited ultimate CE fiasco.

I watched exactly 2 videos about that infamous weekend. Haven't seen anybody in person.

Haven't even seen a video after. For years.

badmojo wrote: »

You get so emotional you forget to be rational.

Yep:)

The live version of the addon throws lua errors on PTS. If i didn't provide the details, this guy wouldn't even know what's going on there. This thread exists purely because i informed everybody about the PTS changes:)

Hurika

"Addons will now only know about attacks that target you after they hit you in PvP areas."

Facts to prove this isn't their intent? Facts/quotes from ZoS..... any? It's really that simple.

Also no personal attacks - just pointing out the tactics used when there are lack of facts so diversion, ambiguity, arguing semantics are used. Not person, just pointing out how some people debate an issue. I'm not saying you're a "bad person" but rather those are what are used. Anything beyond that is an assumption on your part. Just that simple.

Dorrino

Hurika wrote: »

"Addons will now only know about attacks that target you after they hit you in PvP areas."

Facts to prove this isn't their intent? Facts/quotes from ZoS..... any? It's really that simple.

Also no personal attacks - just pointing out the tactics used when there are lack of facts so diversion, ambiguity, arguing semantics are used. Not person, just pointing out how some people debate an issue. I'm not saying you're a "bad person" but rather those are what are used. Anything beyond that is an assumption on your part. Just that simple.

*sighs*

I don't need to use any tactics. Tactics are needed if the goal is obscure.

My goal is really simple, i'll reiterate:

I want ZOS to make a clear statement. Redarding addons in pvp and my addon specifically.

I don't care what would be in that statement. They might remove all the addons. It doesn't matter to me (besides less enjoyable game experience).

There's literally nothing to hide, no agenda to push.

I want a clear statement.

And instead we get: "Addons will now only know about attacks that target you after they hit you in PvP areas."

Which won't work without redesigning parts of base ui and disabling many many types of other addons, like buff trackers.

So out of 2 main interpretations currently i stick with 'they mess up with the patch notes' as more feasible.

This might be wrong. I don't have enough information to make a better judgement.

Speaking of ZOS intent, ZOS never made a statement with a clear intent regarding addons and pvp, besides 'we're not comfortable with some features of miat's addon' and that personal opinion of Chip which were not supposed to be ZOS official stance.

If you can find anything else i'd be grateful.

Minno

Dorrino wrote: »

Hurika wrote: »

"Addons will now only know about attacks that target you after they hit you in PvP areas."

Facts to prove this isn't their intent? Facts/quotes from ZoS..... any? It's really that simple.

Also no personal attacks - just pointing out the tactics used when there are lack of facts so diversion, ambiguity, arguing semantics are used. Not person, just pointing out how some people debate an issue. I'm not saying you're a "bad person" but rather those are what are used. Anything beyond that is an assumption on your part. Just that simple.

*sighs*

I don't need to use any tactics. Tactics are needed if the goal is obscure.

My goal is really simple, i'll reiterate:

I want ZOS to make a clear statement. Redarding addons in pvp and my addon specifically.

I don't care what would be in that statement. They might remove all the addons. It don't matter to me (besides less enjoyable game experience).

There's literally nothing to hide, no agenda to push.

I want a clear statement.

And instead we get: "Addons will now only know about attacks that target you after they hit you in PvP areas."

Which won't work without redesigning parts of base ui and disabling many many types of other addons, like buff trackers.

So out of 2 main interpretations currently i stick with 'they mess up with the patch notes' as more feasible.

This might be wrong. I don't have enough information to make a better judgement.

Speaking of ZOS intent, ZOS never made a statement with a clear intent regarding addons and pvp, besides 'we're not comfortable with some features of miat's addon' and that personal opinion of Chip which were not supposed to be ZOS official stance.

If you can find anything else i'd be grateful.

They have, Sage said they intend for animations and audio cues to dictate a majority of your cyro combat reactions. And following their lock of certain API functions they mentioned add-ons shouldn't give you insight into your targets information (though it was resorce pools at the time.).

But then they said they will be reviewing each add on as it gets issued and sent into the wild.

Given their recent statement, intent is clear and which functions they think shouldn't happen.

From what I've been seeing, it's an issue between them taking pvp balance seriously versus their intent for add-ons. Though till they say otherwise, it's probably best to make an add-on, then send Gina a link with a video telling them you don't think the API should allow those functions.

Dorrino

Minno wrote: »

They have, Sage said they intend for animations and audio cues to dictate a majority of your cyro combat reactions. And following their lock of certain API functions they mentioned add-ons shouldn't give you insight into your targets information (though it was resorce pools at the time.).

But then they said they will be reviewing each add on as it gets issued and sent into the wild.

Paul Sage stopped developing the game years ago.

Since then the game changed its design direction quite drastically in many areas.

We need a new up-to-date statement of the current design team with their current vision of the game.

Minno wrote: »

Given their recent statement, intent is clear and which functions they think shouldn't happen.

They didn't produce any kind of precise statement.

Minno wrote: »

From what I've been seeing, it's an issue between them taking pvp balance seriously versus their intent for add-ons. Though till they say otherwise, it's probably best to make an add-on, then send Gina a link with a video telling them you don't think the API should allow those functions.

This won't work. They don't communicate to us regarding their design decisions and API. Chip does awesome job actually talking to the community about API, but he almost never discusses the intention.

This exactly is the problem that i'm trying to solve here. To obtain a statement.

Minno

Dorrino wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

They have, Sage said they intend for animations and audio cues to dictate a majority of your cyro combat reactions. And following their lock of certain API functions they mentioned add-ons shouldn't give you insight into your targets information (though it was resorce pools at the time.).

But then they said they will be reviewing each add on as it gets issued and sent into the wild.

Paul Sage stopped developing the game years ago.

Since then the game changed its design direction quite drastically in many areas.

We need a new up-to-date statement of the current design team with their current vision of the game.

Minno wrote: »

Given their recent statement, intent is clear and which functions they think shouldn't happen.

They didn't produce any kind of precise statement.

Minno wrote: »

From what I've been seeing, it's an issue between them taking pvp balance seriously versus their intent for add-ons. Though till they say otherwise, it's probably best to make an add-on, then send Gina a link with a video telling them you don't think the API should allow those functions.

This won't work. They don't communicate to us regarding their design decisions and API. Chip does awesome job actually talking to the community about API, but he almost never discusses the intention.

This exactly is the problem that i'm trying to solve here. To obtain a statement.

Does "pve content is more important because it makes money" good enough? Lol

That's probably the only intent left on the table. Besides their intention to make all classes have tank/DPS/healer trees similar to how warden is setup.

And wether sage stopped developing or not, did the game change that drastically that the skyrim-esqe combat system is no longer applied? Sage , in his statement, mentioned that the elder scrolls camera combat was so unique it requires audio/visual ques to avoid clunky cast times/cooldowns/ui clutter to be efficient.

Unless I'm mistaken, audio/visual ques are still important to the balance of the game.

Dorrino

Minno wrote: »

Does "pve content is more important because it makes money" good enough? Lol

For some reason they don't try to monetize pvp content at all (besides Morrowind gating of bgs and wardens). This is quite a mistake in my opinion.

Minno wrote: »

And wether sage stopped developing or not, did the game change that drastically that the skyrim-esqe combat system is no longer applied? Sage , in his statement, mentioned that the elder scrolls camera combat was so unique it requires audio/visual ques to avoid clunky cast times/cooldowns/ui clutter to be efficient.

Unless I'm mistaken, audio/visual ques are still important to the balance of the game.

As i said elsewhere this design goal is awesome. There're 2 problems:

1. It's extremely hard to make informative.

2. ZOS failed at it.

The original design was indeed like that. Minimum UI - maximum immersion.

And it all stopped being conformable at any competitive level, being pve or pvp.

I'd love for this or any other game to figure out a UI scheme that accommodates dozens of buffs, debuffs and combat situations in a 'in-the-world' ui without lacking clarity.

Trust me this is really exciting and over-the-top hard UI/UIX problem.

This might work in a simplistic combat system in a single player game.

But fails to work in an competitive mmo with ever increasing number of things to display.

Each new proc set adds a new thing that needs to have a distinct visual/audial cue. Added to dozens and dozens previous things.

Try to play first person mode and figure out your buffs and debuffs just from the visual cues around the edges of the screen:)

That's exactly what addons can and do solve. Rearranging audio-visual cues in a humanly digestible manner. And that's the main intent behind pvpalerts as a whole. To make important things stand out out of the bright mess on the screen:)

Skullstachio

And this is why consoles will always be a master race of their own caliber, if PC is too much for "Fair Gamers" then simply move to console where the going gets good. (Most of the time.)

Vapirko

Why do people continue arguing with Dorrino? Or anyone that supports his addon? He’s going off the simple fact that ZOS has released NO official statement on what is allowed in addons. But this is a big mistake and they really need to do this. Because it leads to this kind of thing happening.

On the other hand, it’s very clear that they are trying to restrict the most prominent function of Miats, and there’s really no arguing that.

But until ZOS releases an official statement on what is and isn’t allowed via addons, Dorrino and others will continue to put forward arguments in a gray area which anyone with common sense should clearly be able to see is taking advantage of the situation, but that nonetheless exist because of ZOS’ silence on the matter.

Publius_Scipio

Once again I post this in these types of threads

https://www.reddit.com/r/elderscrollsonline/comments/21cgkf/zos_paulsage_followup_recent_changes_to_api/

Publius_Scipio

Vapirko wrote: »

Why do people continue arguing with Dorrino? Or anyone that supports his addon? He’s going off the simple fact that ZOS has released NO official statement on what is allowed in addons. But this is a big mistake and they really need to do this. Because it leads to this kind of thing happening.

On the other hand, it’s very clear that they are trying to restrict the most prominent function of Miats, and there’s really no arguing that.

But until ZOS releases an official statement on what is and isn’t allowed via addons, Dorrino and others will continue to put forward arguments in a gray area which anyone with common sense should clearly be able to see is taking advantage of the situation, but that nonetheless exist because of ZOS’ silence on the matter.

Paul Sage answered Miat’s questions regarding the matter back in 2014. But forces unknown to us subverted and ultimately did away with Sage’s decision.