Maintenance for the week of December 15:
· [COMPLETE] PC/Mac: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – December 15, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
· [COMPLETE] Xbox: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – December 15, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
· [COMPLETE] PlayStation®: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – December 15, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
· [COMPLETE] PC/Mac: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – December 15, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
· [COMPLETE] Xbox: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – December 15, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
· [COMPLETE] PlayStation®: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – December 15, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
XP Exploit Poll
-
Cpt_Teemo✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭As you notice not alot of companies do rollbacks unless something happens to the game itself where its virtually unplayable, games don't rollback just because of exploits they go ahead and flag down accounts that have participated or would be under suspicion of doing the exploit.
Rollbacks hurt games way to much to balance out banning people or pissing off the rest of the entire game.2 -
Peekachu99✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Some really salty people who got millions of XP/ minute and didn’t “realize” it. Let it go already. I’ve seen one debatably innocent player and that’s Emma Overload, who 1VXes and I’m sure has tunnel vision in IC when being attacked by 3-4 enemies. 99% of the two hundred and some odd exploiters can’t claim the same innocence.Edited by Peekachu99 on February 24, 2018 8:08PM2 -
altemriel✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭redspecter23 wrote: »It's an exploit because the definition of exploiting stated by ZOS says it is. Any given player may decide that something is or isn't an exploit according to them, but at the end of the day, that doesn't determine who receives action against their account.
this!!0 -
Emma_Overload✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Without discussing the exploit situation any further, I can confirm that the person who started this thread is an IC regular, just like me, except on a different faction. There are, in fact, SEVERAL players in EP and AD who I recognize both from the forums and the streets of Imperial City who have been unfairly swept up in this debacle. Ironically, I hardly know any DC players who were affected, because they aren't the ones I'm fighting every day
Whether anyone wants to believe it or not, it's a fact that there were plenty of players who went down to Imperial City on patch day for reasons that had nothing to do with exploiting or gaining XP or CP.
Edited by Emma_Overload on February 24, 2018 8:42PM#CAREBEARMASTERRACE0 -
DieAlteHexe✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Emma_Overload wrote: »Without discussing the exploit situation any further, I can confirm that the person who started this thread is an IC regular, just like me, except on a different faction. There are, in fact, SEVERAL players in EP and AD who I recognize both from the forums and the streets of Imperial City who have been unfairly swept up in this debacle. Ironically, I hardly know any DC players who were affected, because they aren't the ones I'm fighting every day
Whether anyone wants to believe it or not, it's a fact that there were plenty of players who went down to Imperial City on patch day for reasons that had nothing to do with exploiting or gaining XP or CP.
I don't think that the issue is with "....went down to Imperial City on patch day for reasons that had nothing to do with exploiting...".
It is the "staying" bit that I think is under suspicion. And that is something that only the logs can help sort.
Dirty, filthy casual aka Nancy, the Wallet Warrior Carebear Potato Whale Snowflake0 -
DoctorESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Perfect way to lose loyal customers who were just playing the game. There is a difference between these people and true exploiters.1 -
DieAlteHexe✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Perfect way to lose loyal customers who were just playing the game. There is a difference between these people and true exploiters.
Aye, there is and that's what the investigation is meant to sort out. It's a bit of a stretch to think that any company would intentionally want to get rid of customers.
Dirty, filthy casual aka Nancy, the Wallet Warrior Carebear Potato Whale Snowflake0 -
idk✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭It is interesting how some try to make using an exploit appear to be not a big deal. The comparison OP provides is incomparable that it is actually humorous that anyone would think there is a resemblance.,0 -
DoctorESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭DieAlteHexe wrote: »Perfect way to lose loyal customers who were just playing the game. There is a difference between these people and true exploiters.
Aye, there is and that's what the investigation is meant to sort out. It's a bit of a stretch to think that any company would intentionally want to get rid of customers.
Not intentionally. But perhaps they think it's easier/faster (and worth it) to lump some innocent people with the guilty instead of spending time to sort out the truth.0 -
DieAlteHexe✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭DieAlteHexe wrote: »Perfect way to lose loyal customers who were just playing the game. There is a difference between these people and true exploiters.
Aye, there is and that's what the investigation is meant to sort out. It's a bit of a stretch to think that any company would intentionally want to get rid of customers.
Not intentionally. But perhaps they think it's easier/faster (and worth it) to lump some innocent people with the guilty instead of spending time to sort out the truth.
Y'mean like the, what, 2 weeks they are working on sorting this out?
And I doubt it. They seem to have decided that enough is enough and good on 'em for doing so. Now if we could just see them knock the bejabbers out of these bots...
Dirty, filthy casual aka Nancy, the Wallet Warrior Carebear Potato Whale Snowflake0 -
idk✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭DieAlteHexe wrote: »Perfect way to lose loyal customers who were just playing the game. There is a difference between these people and true exploiters.
Aye, there is and that's what the investigation is meant to sort out. It's a bit of a stretch to think that any company would intentionally want to get rid of customers.
Not intentionally. But perhaps they think it's easier/faster (and worth it) to lump some innocent people with the guilty instead of spending time to sort out the truth.
It is making an assumption they did lump them together. Granted it is an assumption they did not as well. Clearly they had to chose some paradigm to work with.1 -
DoctorESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭DieAlteHexe wrote: »DieAlteHexe wrote: »Perfect way to lose loyal customers who were just playing the game. There is a difference between these people and true exploiters.
Aye, there is and that's what the investigation is meant to sort out. It's a bit of a stretch to think that any company would intentionally want to get rid of customers.
Not intentionally. But perhaps they think it's easier/faster (and worth it) to lump some innocent people with the guilty instead of spending time to sort out the truth.
Y'mean like the, what, 2 weeks they are working on sorting this out?
And I doubt it. They seem to have decided that enough is enough and good on 'em for doing so. Now if we could just see them knock the bejabbers out of these bots...
I think they closed the matter a few days after the exploit. "Query players who gained X threshold experience in Y threshold time. Ban for 30 days."0 -
DoctorESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭DieAlteHexe wrote: »Perfect way to lose loyal customers who were just playing the game. There is a difference between these people and true exploiters.
Aye, there is and that's what the investigation is meant to sort out. It's a bit of a stretch to think that any company would intentionally want to get rid of customers.
Not intentionally. But perhaps they think it's easier/faster (and worth it) to lump some innocent people with the guilty instead of spending time to sort out the truth.
It is making an assumption they did lump them together. Granted it is an assumption they did not as well. Clearly they had to chose some paradigm to work with.
People like the OP and Emma_Overload getting lumped in.Edited by DoctorESO on February 24, 2018 8:56PM1 -
DieAlteHexe✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭DieAlteHexe wrote: »Perfect way to lose loyal customers who were just playing the game. There is a difference between these people and true exploiters.
Aye, there is and that's what the investigation is meant to sort out. It's a bit of a stretch to think that any company would intentionally want to get rid of customers.
Not intentionally. But perhaps they think it's easier/faster (and worth it) to lump some innocent people with the guilty instead of spending time to sort out the truth.
It is making an assumption they did lump them together. Granted it is an assumption they did not as well. Clearly they had to chose some paradigm to work with.
People like the OP and Emma_Overload.
I mean no offense here but how often do people who get caught fess up? Rarely. In fact, they tend to shout and wail a lot.
Now I have NO idea if that's the case here or not.
Neither do you, realistically and only ZMax does.
Dirty, filthy casual aka Nancy, the Wallet Warrior Carebear Potato Whale Snowflake0 -
DoctorESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭DieAlteHexe wrote: »DieAlteHexe wrote: »Perfect way to lose loyal customers who were just playing the game. There is a difference between these people and true exploiters.
Aye, there is and that's what the investigation is meant to sort out. It's a bit of a stretch to think that any company would intentionally want to get rid of customers.
Not intentionally. But perhaps they think it's easier/faster (and worth it) to lump some innocent people with the guilty instead of spending time to sort out the truth.
It is making an assumption they did lump them together. Granted it is an assumption they did not as well. Clearly they had to chose some paradigm to work with.
People like the OP and Emma_Overload.
I mean no offense here but how often do people who get caught fess up? Rarely. In fact, they tend to shout and wail a lot.
Now I have NO idea if that's the case here or not.
Neither do you, realistically and only ZMax does.
ZMax does not, given how they lumped everyone together via a query without giving people a chance to explain.0 -
DieAlteHexe✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭DieAlteHexe wrote: »DieAlteHexe wrote: »Perfect way to lose loyal customers who were just playing the game. There is a difference between these people and true exploiters.
Aye, there is and that's what the investigation is meant to sort out. It's a bit of a stretch to think that any company would intentionally want to get rid of customers.
Not intentionally. But perhaps they think it's easier/faster (and worth it) to lump some innocent people with the guilty instead of spending time to sort out the truth.
It is making an assumption they did lump them together. Granted it is an assumption they did not as well. Clearly they had to chose some paradigm to work with.
People like the OP and Emma_Overload.
I mean no offense here but how often do people who get caught fess up? Rarely. In fact, they tend to shout and wail a lot.
Now I have NO idea if that's the case here or not.
Neither do you, realistically and only ZMax does.
ZMax does not, given how they lumped everyone together via a query without giving people a chance to explain.
They are giving people the chance to explain. It's in the very email that they received informing them of their suspensions.
I also suspect the "lumping" was based in metrics, not just some dood sitting around feeling pissy and deciding to hassle a bunch of players. Obviously, as well, not ALL the folk in IC that night got "lumped together".
Dirty, filthy casual aka Nancy, the Wallet Warrior Carebear Potato Whale Snowflake0 -
DoctorESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭DieAlteHexe wrote: »DieAlteHexe wrote: »DieAlteHexe wrote: »Perfect way to lose loyal customers who were just playing the game. There is a difference between these people and true exploiters.
Aye, there is and that's what the investigation is meant to sort out. It's a bit of a stretch to think that any company would intentionally want to get rid of customers.
Not intentionally. But perhaps they think it's easier/faster (and worth it) to lump some innocent people with the guilty instead of spending time to sort out the truth.
It is making an assumption they did lump them together. Granted it is an assumption they did not as well. Clearly they had to chose some paradigm to work with.
People like the OP and Emma_Overload.
I mean no offense here but how often do people who get caught fess up? Rarely. In fact, they tend to shout and wail a lot.
Now I have NO idea if that's the case here or not.
Neither do you, realistically and only ZMax does.
ZMax does not, given how they lumped everyone together via a query without giving people a chance to explain.
They are giving people the chance to explain. It's in the very email that they received informing them of their suspensions.
I also suspect the "lumping" was based in metrics, not just some dood sitting around feeling pissy and deciding to hassle a bunch of players. Obviously, as well, not ALL the folk in IC that night got "lumped together".
Oh, well it sounded from one of the posts here that the explanations go right to the circular file. Yes, lumping based on metrics is still lumping.0 -
VaranisArano✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭DieAlteHexe wrote: »Perfect way to lose loyal customers who were just playing the game. There is a difference between these people and true exploiters.
Aye, there is and that's what the investigation is meant to sort out. It's a bit of a stretch to think that any company would intentionally want to get rid of customers.
Not intentionally. But perhaps they think it's easier/faster (and worth it) to lump some innocent people with the guilty instead of spending time to sort out the truth.
If the method used to lump exploiters together is "How much EXP did they gain that is above the "oh-hey-I-just-popped-in-here-wow-that's-unusual" or "yeah-that's-a-bug-nope" or "so-ZOS-I-killed-a-couple-of-things-and-1.9-million-exp-um-fix-this" level?"
Then yes there is functionally no difference from someone who gained bugged exp because they:- Went "Ooh, extra exp! Nom, nom, nom, nom!"
- Thought "Eh, ZOS'll fix it so I'll just keep playing" - and didn't report the problem
- Had the UI altered so they didn't notice the bugged exp
- Were so engrossed in whatever they were doing that they didn't notice
- Were paying so little attention to what they were doing that they didn't notice
All of those could get you virtually identical amounts of bugged exp and look from the exp gain logs like exactly the same behavior.
What you want is for ZOS to have some way of divining player intent. You can't figure out player intent from looking at the exp gain logs (though you can eliminate some people by checking who reported the bugged exp and reading their reports). However, the appeal system lets player explain their intent. Someone who had those addons active can explain the situation and let ZOS check their story. Someone who plays in IC all the time can have ZOS check that this is normal playing behavior.
ZOS suspended people based on player behavior. As they stated, those accounts gained more exp than ZOS deemed to be accidental. With the exception of the people who reported the bug, there's no way for ZOS to divine player intent outside of the appeals process where those suspended players can make their case about intent to ZOS.
1 -
idk✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭DieAlteHexe wrote: »Perfect way to lose loyal customers who were just playing the game. There is a difference between these people and true exploiters.
Aye, there is and that's what the investigation is meant to sort out. It's a bit of a stretch to think that any company would intentionally want to get rid of customers.
Not intentionally. But perhaps they think it's easier/faster (and worth it) to lump some innocent people with the guilty instead of spending time to sort out the truth.
It is making an assumption they did lump them together. Granted it is an assumption they did not as well. Clearly they had to chose some paradigm to work with.
People like the OP and Emma_Overload getting lumped in.
Again, an assumption that someone was innocent yet was suspended. Refer to my last post for details. It would seem theparadigm that was used, those that were suspended met the criteria.Edited by idk on February 24, 2018 9:07PM0 -
Lucifers_Pain wrote: »If yes then how is it different from running through lava to bypass mobs and bosses in a dungeon?
Your doing something that reduces the amount of Exp and Loot you get in a Dungeon by bypassing mobs and bosses. So, how is that even remotely considered an exploit?
If your max cp why would you care about xp and the loot you get from any boss is trash compared to the last one. I don't think you know what farming is...0 -
DieAlteHexe✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭DieAlteHexe wrote: »DieAlteHexe wrote: »DieAlteHexe wrote: »Perfect way to lose loyal customers who were just playing the game. There is a difference between these people and true exploiters.
Aye, there is and that's what the investigation is meant to sort out. It's a bit of a stretch to think that any company would intentionally want to get rid of customers.
Not intentionally. But perhaps they think it's easier/faster (and worth it) to lump some innocent people with the guilty instead of spending time to sort out the truth.
It is making an assumption they did lump them together. Granted it is an assumption they did not as well. Clearly they had to chose some paradigm to work with.
People like the OP and Emma_Overload.
I mean no offense here but how often do people who get caught fess up? Rarely. In fact, they tend to shout and wail a lot.
Now I have NO idea if that's the case here or not.
Neither do you, realistically and only ZMax does.
ZMax does not, given how they lumped everyone together via a query without giving people a chance to explain.
They are giving people the chance to explain. It's in the very email that they received informing them of their suspensions.
I also suspect the "lumping" was based in metrics, not just some dood sitting around feeling pissy and deciding to hassle a bunch of players. Obviously, as well, not ALL the folk in IC that night got "lumped together".
Oh, well it sounded from one of the posts here that the explanations go right to the circular file. Yes, lumping based on metrics is still lumping.
And now we're back to "do you really think that most people who get caught out cheating will fess up to it"?
As for the last sentence, quit trying to argue semantics. If they snagged (lumped) a bunch of people and NOT ALL OF THEM, there was a reason. I highly doubt it's anything personal, something was triggered and/or reported. Now, if they'd nailed everyone who was in IC, THAT would be an issue to rise up about.
Dirty, filthy casual aka Nancy, the Wallet Warrior Carebear Potato Whale Snowflake0 -
DoctorESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭DieAlteHexe wrote: »Perfect way to lose loyal customers who were just playing the game. There is a difference between these people and true exploiters.
Aye, there is and that's what the investigation is meant to sort out. It's a bit of a stretch to think that any company would intentionally want to get rid of customers.
Not intentionally. But perhaps they think it's easier/faster (and worth it) to lump some innocent people with the guilty instead of spending time to sort out the truth.
It is making an assumption they did lump them together. Granted it is an assumption they did not as well. Clearly they had to chose some paradigm to work with.
People like the OP and Emma_Overload getting lumped in.
Again, an assumption that someone was innocent yet was suspended. Refer to my last post for details. It would seem theparadigm that was used, those that were suspended met the criteria.
Yes, but that is still lumping.0 -
DoctorESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭VaranisArano wrote: »DieAlteHexe wrote: »Perfect way to lose loyal customers who were just playing the game. There is a difference between these people and true exploiters.
Aye, there is and that's what the investigation is meant to sort out. It's a bit of a stretch to think that any company would intentionally want to get rid of customers.
Not intentionally. But perhaps they think it's easier/faster (and worth it) to lump some innocent people with the guilty instead of spending time to sort out the truth.
If the method used to lump exploiters together is "How much EXP did they gain that is above the "oh-hey-I-just-popped-in-here-wow-that's-unusual" or "yeah-that's-a-bug-nope" or "so-ZOS-I-killed-a-couple-of-things-and-1.9-million-exp-um-fix-this" level?"
Then yes there is functionally no difference from someone who gained bugged exp because they:- Went "Ooh, extra exp! Nom, nom, nom, nom!"
- Thought "Eh, ZOS'll fix it so I'll just keep playing" - and didn't report the problem
- Had the UI altered so they didn't notice the bugged exp
- Were so engrossed in whatever they were doing that they didn't notice
- Were paying so little attention to what they were doing that they didn't notice
All of those could get you virtually identical amounts of bugged exp and look from the exp gain logs like exactly the same behavior.
What you want is for ZOS to have some way of divining player intent. You can't figure out player intent from looking at the exp gain logs (though you can eliminate some people by checking who reported the bugged exp and reading their reports). However, the appeal system lets player explain their intent. Someone who had those addons active can explain the situation and let ZOS check their story. Someone who plays in IC all the time can have ZOS check that this is normal playing behavior.
ZOS suspended people based on player behavior. As they stated, those accounts gained more exp than ZOS deemed to be accidental. With the exception of the people who reported the bug, there's no way for ZOS to divine player intent outside of the appeals process where those suspended players can make their case about intent to ZOS.
Yes, as long as they allow appeals and explanations. It sounded like they didn't from what some people said in this thread. Hopefully, they will be able to tell their story and the truth (whether it works for or against them) will prevail.0 -
Abysswarrior45✭✭✭✭redspecter23 wrote: »It's an exploit because the definition of exploiting stated by ZOS says it is. Any given player may decide that something is or isn't an exploit according to them, but at the end of the day, that doesn't determine who receives action against their account.
this!!
But not everyone reads the forums.Peekachu99 wrote: »Some really salty people who got millions of XP/ minute and didn’t “realize” it. Let it go already. I’ve seen one debatably innocent player and that’s Emma Overload, who 1VXes and I’m sure has tunnel vision in IC when being attacked by 3-4 enemies. 99% of the two hundred and some odd exploiters can’t claim the same innocence.
Correct. Emma isn't the only 1vXer down there I'm sure and when you're telvar farming bosses you're likely focused on the boss rather than the xp gains in the corner of the screen. I'm not saying there aren't exploiters, but to ban everyone over a mistake from the devs is so stupid.Edited by Abysswarrior45 on February 24, 2018 9:13PM1 -
DoctorESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Abysswarrior45 wrote: »redspecter23 wrote: »It's an exploit because the definition of exploiting stated by ZOS says it is. Any given player may decide that something is or isn't an exploit according to them, but at the end of the day, that doesn't determine who receives action against their account.
this!!
But not everyone reads the forums.Peekachu99 wrote: »Some really salty people who got millions of XP/ minute and didn’t “realize” it. Let it go already. I’ve seen one debatably innocent player and that’s Emma Overload, who 1VXes and I’m sure has tunnel vision in IC when being attacked by 3-4 enemies. 99% of the two hundred and some odd exploiters can’t claim the same innocence.
Correct. Emma isn't the only 1vXer down there I'm sure and when you're telvar farming bosses you're likely focused on the boss rather than the xp gains in the corner of the screen. I'm not saying there aren't exploiters, but to ban everyone over a mistake from the devs is so stupid.
Yes, and this is the danger with lumping without allowing for individual explanations and review (not saying this part isn't happening; I sure hope it is), no matter how "good" the criteria/metrics are.0 -
DieAlteHexe✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Abysswarrior45 wrote: »redspecter23 wrote: »It's an exploit because the definition of exploiting stated by ZOS says it is. Any given player may decide that something is or isn't an exploit according to them, but at the end of the day, that doesn't determine who receives action against their account.
this!!
But not everyone reads the forums.Peekachu99 wrote: »Some really salty people who got millions of XP/ minute and didn’t “realize” it. Let it go already. I’ve seen one debatably innocent player and that’s Emma Overload, who 1VXes and I’m sure has tunnel vision in IC when being attacked by 3-4 enemies. 99% of the two hundred and some odd exploiters can’t claim the same innocence.
Correct. Emma isn't the only 1vXer down there I'm sure and when you're telvar farming bosses you're likely focused on the boss rather than the xp gains in the corner of the screen. I'm not saying there aren't exploiters, but to ban everyone over a mistake from the devs is so stupid.
Yes, and this is the danger with lumping without allowing for individual explanations and review (not saying this part isn't happening; I sure hope it is), no matter how "good" the criteria/metrics are.
Ask yourself ... why?
Why would a company decide to single out some people and accuse them of exploiting?
I suppose if one leaned toward conspiracy it might be to deflect from the bot issue or just, in general, make them look better but I rather think they'd prefer to keep paying customers.
Now (gets out the tin foil) if ALL the folks suspended were non-subs, then...
Dirty, filthy casual aka Nancy, the Wallet Warrior Carebear Potato Whale Snowflake0 -
VaranisArano✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Abysswarrior45 wrote: »Correct. Emma isn't the only 1vXer down there I'm sure and when you're telvar farming bosses you're likely focused on the boss rather than the xp gains in the corner of the screen. I'm not saying there aren't exploiters, but to ban everyone over a mistake from the devs is so stupid.
This argument is basically "I'm not paying attention to a part of the game UI that should have alerted me that something was funky, so I can't possibly be blamed for not noticing that something was funky."
Which, like, I'm sympathetic to this argument. I mean, goodness knows I've got enough practice filtering out various damage effects while trying to tank dungeons. There's some things I just don't pay attention to anymore.
But seriously, how do you expect ZOS to tell that someone is so engrossed in what they are doing that they didn't see the UI indicate CP gain and EXP gain? ZOS isn't tracking my eyeball movement. ZOS is tracking EXP gains. Someone not paying attention to exp gains is playing pretty much the same as someone grinding exp because of the bug. So if someone really wasn't paying attention to EXP gains, they've got to explain that to ZOS, who might accept it or might go, "look, you were farming for X minutes with X amount of EXP, at some point, an average player would have noticed and we aren't accepting that excuse because of the length of time/amount of exp."1 -
idk✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭DieAlteHexe wrote: »Perfect way to lose loyal customers who were just playing the game. There is a difference between these people and true exploiters.
Aye, there is and that's what the investigation is meant to sort out. It's a bit of a stretch to think that any company would intentionally want to get rid of customers.
Not intentionally. But perhaps they think it's easier/faster (and worth it) to lump some innocent people with the guilty instead of spending time to sort out the truth.
It is making an assumption they did lump them together. Granted it is an assumption they did not as well. Clearly they had to chose some paradigm to work with.
People like the OP and Emma_Overload getting lumped in.
Again, an assumption that someone was innocent yet was suspended. Refer to my last post for details. It would seem theparadigm that was used, those that were suspended met the criteria.
Yes, but that is still lumping.
Yes, lumping the likely cheaters into one group. At that, we cannot really verify OP's claims about his own character or account concerning this issue. He should consider himself lucky this is merely a vacation from ESO vs a full true ban.
He, like everyone else, has the option to appeal to Zos. Coming to the forums does not benefit him at all. Attempting to get public opinion about being banned due to an exploit is about the most useless action he could take. The poll demonstrates that very clearly. I find it humorous he actually created a poll on this subject as it is obvious how it would go.1 -
VaranisArano✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Abysswarrior45 wrote: »redspecter23 wrote: »It's an exploit because the definition of exploiting stated by ZOS says it is. Any given player may decide that something is or isn't an exploit according to them, but at the end of the day, that doesn't determine who receives action against their account.
this!!
But not everyone reads the forums.Peekachu99 wrote: »Some really salty people who got millions of XP/ minute and didn’t “realize” it. Let it go already. I’ve seen one debatably innocent player and that’s Emma Overload, who 1VXes and I’m sure has tunnel vision in IC when being attacked by 3-4 enemies. 99% of the two hundred and some odd exploiters can’t claim the same innocence.
Correct. Emma isn't the only 1vXer down there I'm sure and when you're telvar farming bosses you're likely focused on the boss rather than the xp gains in the corner of the screen. I'm not saying there aren't exploiters, but to ban everyone over a mistake from the devs is so stupid.
Yes, and this is the danger with lumping without allowing for individual explanations and review (not saying this part isn't happening; I sure hope it is), no matter how "good" the criteria/metrics are.
Given that a previous thread on this subject was closed with the instructions to continue talking about it with ZOS in an appeal, I'm going to assume that players are able to appeal.
Instructions here: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/396731/suspensions-for-update-17-xp-exploit/p13
"ZOS_MikaS
mod
Since this thread has run its course we have decided to close it down. We appreciate that this topic is of interest to the community, but this thread has begun to repeat itself and become a bit combative.
As we close this thread, we would like to remind you that discussion of specific, disciplinary action on an individual level is against the forum rules. If you have a concern about a disciplinary action that has been taken on your account, you should respond to the email that our team has sent to you regarding that specific action. Thank you for your understanding."
and here: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/396776/suspended-i-play-in-the-imperial-city-all-the-time-this-is-outrageous#latest
ZOS_AntonioP
mod
Hello everyone,
This post is to let you know that we've gone ahead and closed this thread. The reason being that discussing action on one's account is against the Forum Rules. If you wish to appeal a decision made on your account feel free to submit and appeal, a forum post will not help in reversing a disciplinary action. Be sure to mention an appeal in your ticket to ensure it is routed to the proper team.
Thank you for understanding.
1