Encounter Logging

Flares

When casuals are shown to be more toxic and elitist than good players.

If you're casual this would not affect you anyway.

hedna123b14_ESO

idk wrote: »

hedna123b14_ESO wrote: »

After reading this forum post I'm not surprised ZoS ignores much of feedback from here...

So if we disagree we should just be quiet?

What is funny is it would require huge work to do what I suggested, add a field to the db. All aspects of skills have this field added to it. Default is set to No or 0. Buffs/debuffs would get a yes, or 1. Skills that do both damage and provide buffs/debuffs are already separated in the db. If someone opts out in game only the items set to a state of yes pass through.

Yes, it would take a moment to get every items set straight but it is pretty straight forward work and should not be complicated if the db that supports this game is arranged reasonably well.

This does not impact raid teams as they would require players to opt in just as they require sharing dps now. So there is no reason to object to this other than to object for the sake of it.

If you disagree you are insane, because your points have all been refuted.

LiquidPony

Alienoutlaw wrote: »

to futher again from the privacy T&Cs

Activity: We may store information about your use of the Service, such as your search activity, the pages you view, and the date and time of your visit. We also may store information that your computer or mobile device may provide to us in connection with your use of the Service, such as your browser type, type of computer or mobile device, browser language, IP address, WiFi information such as SSID, mobile carrier, phone number, unique device identifier, advertising identifier, location (including geolocation, beacon based location, and GPS location), and requested and referring URLs. You may be able to limit or disallow our use of certain location data through your device or browser settings, for example by adjusting the "Location Services" settings for our applications in iOS privacy settings.

as we are "forced" to create an account and use the tool to claim our user id we are in fact giving you "a 3rd party" way to much info than is needed for a simple "game log"

@Alienoutlaw this is boilerplate privacy policy verbiage as it relates to Google Analytics. The Google Analytics ToS requires a privacy policy.

What is your concern, exactly?

Alienoutlaw

LiquidPony wrote: »

Alienoutlaw wrote: »

to futher again from the privacy T&Cs

Activity: We may store information about your use of the Service, such as your search activity, the pages you view, and the date and time of your visit. We also may store information that your computer or mobile device may provide to us in connection with your use of the Service, such as your browser type, type of computer or mobile device, browser language, IP address, WiFi information such as SSID, mobile carrier, phone number, unique device identifier, advertising identifier, location (including geolocation, beacon based location, and GPS location), and requested and referring URLs. You may be able to limit or disallow our use of certain location data through your device or browser settings, for example by adjusting the "Location Services" settings for our applications in iOS privacy settings.

as we are "forced" to create an account and use the tool to claim our user id we are in fact giving you "a 3rd party" way to much info than is needed for a simple "game log"

@Alienoutlaw this is boilerplate privacy policy verbiage as it relates to Google Analytics. The Google Analytics ToS requires a privacy policy.

What is your concern, exactly?

i have stated my concerns repeatedly on several threads

VaranisArano

Flares wrote: »

When casuals are shown to be more toxic and elitist than good players.

If you're casual this would not affect you anyway.

If ESO Logs remains as its currently designed, it certainly has the potential to impact casuals.

Currently, by default, all character ids are attached to the combat data in any log that is uploaded. You must check a box to be anonymous.

Any encounter can be recorded by any player, uploaded, and shared with whoever that player wants or made public and your character id will be ranked on a leaderboard, by default. The casual players who pay attention will probably set themselves to anonymous, but because its not the default there is ample opportunity for people to miss that checkbox and have their data shared by default, assuming their consent.

Now if it changes so that everyone is anonymous by default...then yeah, players who don't want to worry about ESO Logs never have to do anything to make it so they aren't impacted by it (at least, any more than they are already impacted by a group member using CMX). Everyone who does want to use the tool with t heir character ids visible can still freely do so, as long as they consent by checking the box.

Suddwrath

I'm posting this here from the other thread for @ZOS_BobbyWeir to hopefully see it because the suggestion received support from people who both like the logger and those who are worried about their privacy:

SaltySudd wrote: »

If everyone would put their need to be right aside, I think there is one thing we can all agree upon: The logger, in itself, is not a negative thing. It would seem that everyone agrees that such a feature would prove beneficial to specific groups, such as trials guilds.

However, where the differences of opinions and concerns arise is the scope of who is affected by the feature. Should it be everyone? Should it be for those who opt in?

With this in mind, I genuinely believe that the best compromise would be for the logger to require unanimous consent from the group to be activated. Similar to the way the Ready Check functions: A player initiates the Ready Check which then prompts a pop-up on everyone's UI and then players can then check whether or not they are ready. So the way the logging feature would be activated is someone in the group (most likely the trial leader) would initiate a "Logging Request" which would then prompt a pop-up on everyone's UI to ask if they wish to activate the logger. If the entire group consents, then the logger will be activated and the log will be saved on the hard drive of whoever initiated the Logging Request. If even a single person declines their consent, then the logger will not be activated. This would be benefit those who actually want to use the logger, and it would benefit those who wish to keep their combat data from being logged and shared.

"But what if I don't want to consent to the logger, but the rest of the group does? They will kick me!"
What if you don't want to activate Hard Mode in a dungeon/trial and the rest of the group does? Chances are they will ask you to leave so that they can find someone else who is willing, and then you can find a group who doesn't want to activate Hard Mode.

"But what if I'm in a guild which requires all trial runs to be logged? That isn't fair for me"
What if you are in a guild which requires all members to parse their DPS before being allowed into vet trials? This is no different. Guilds are allowed to set the requirements for their members, and if someone doesn't like or agree with a policy then they can leave and find another guild which doesn't require the trials runs to be logged.

"But what if I decline to consent to the logger, and someone puts me on a list on Reddit which is full of players who declined their consent to be logged? Then I would be targeted and wouldn't be able to join a guild!"
What if you decline to activate Hard Mode in a trial and someone puts you on a list on Reddit...wait, that doesn't happen. I fail to see the argument here.

Forcing the logger to only activate if the entire group consents would be the best middle ground. This would avoid the entire debate about who is anonymous and who opted out and what sort of data is logged for those who opt out. So it would be all or nothing.

LiquidPony

SaltySudd wrote: »

I'm posting this here from the other thread for @ZOS_BobbyWeir to hopefully see it because the suggestion received support from people who both like the logger and those who are worried about their privacy:

SaltySudd wrote: »

If everyone would put their need to be right aside, I think there is one thing we can all agree upon: The logger, in itself, is not a negative thing. It would seem that everyone agrees that such a feature would prove beneficial to specific groups, such as trials guilds.

However, where the differences of opinions and concerns arise is the scope of who is affected by the feature. Should it be everyone? Should it be for those who opt in?

With this in mind, I genuinely believe that the best compromise would be for the logger to require unanimous consent from the group to be activated. Similar to the way the Ready Check functions: A player initiates the Ready Check which then prompts a pop-up on everyone's UI and then players can then check whether or not they are ready. So the way the logging feature would be activated is someone in the group (most likely the trial leader) would initiate a "Logging Request" which would then prompt a pop-up on everyone's UI to ask if they wish to activate the logger. If the entire group consents, then the logger will be activated and the log will be saved on the hard drive of whoever initiated the Logging Request. If even a single person declines their consent, then the logger will not be activated. This would be benefit those who actually want to use the logger, and it would benefit those who wish to keep their combat data from being logged and shared.

"But what if I don't want to consent to the logger, but the rest of the group does? They will kick me!"
What if you don't want to activate Hard Mode in a dungeon/trial and the rest of the group does? Chances are they will ask you to leave so that they can find someone else who is willing, and then you can find a group who doesn't want to activate Hard Mode.

"But what if I'm in a guild which requires all trial runs to be logged? That isn't fair for me"
What if you are in a guild which requires all members to parse their DPS before being allowed into vet trials? This is no different. Guilds are allowed to set the requirements for their members, and if someone doesn't like or agree with a policy then they can leave and find another guild which doesn't require the trials runs to be logged.

"But what if I decline to consent to the logger, and someone puts me on a list on Reddit which is full of players who declined their consent to be logged? Then I would be targeted and wouldn't be able to join a guild!"
What if you decline to activate Hard Mode in a trial and someone puts you on a list on Reddit...wait, that doesn't happen. I fail to see the argument here.

Forcing the logger to only activate if the entire group consents would be the best middle ground. This would avoid the entire debate about who is anonymous and who opted out and what sort of data is logged for those who opt out. So it would be all or nothing.

This "solution" isn't realistic, though.

I mean, sure, it could possibly work for dungeons and trials but ... what about open world content? What about Cyrodiil? What about BGs? A user can turn on the logger in any of those circumstances and log the relevant activities of other players.

And let's take this to its logical conclusion. If I'm streaming on Twitch, should ZOS implement a "unanimous consent" feature so that I can only stream if everyone captured in the stream gives consent? What if I'm just recording clips and uploading them to YouTube, should ZOS somehow prevent that from happening as well? Screenshots too? What about textual descriptions of in-game occurrences? Maybe we should all be under NDA by default and not allowed to describe, stream, capture, or record anything we see other people do in game unless they give us written permission.

It just doesn't make sense.

Nebthet78

Taking a look at Canadian Privacy Laws, ZOS must ensure there is Meaningful Consent to allow a third party site any access to any of our personal data.

This tracker allows for this Third Party site to have access to:
- What I do in game
- What date and time I do it
- Access to my character names and game username associated with those characters
- Access to each button press I do while playing in game.
- Do those logs also contain my IP address and Video Card ID? I won't know until someone gets a good look at them.
- This allows another player to post data about my character and playing habits.
- We have to claim our characters through the third party website if we realize at a later time, that this option is set on because we were not properly notified about the change upon coming back to the game at a later date. This will require giving this third party company more private information to confirm the account and character are ours.


To have Meaningful Consent under Canadian Privacy laws:
ZOS and the Company must disclose the following to the consumer Must:

- Make privacy information readily available in complete form, while giving emphasis or bringing attention to four key elements: - What personal information is being collected, with sufficient precision for individuals to meaningfully understand what they are consenting to.
- With which parties personal information is being shared
- For what purposes personal information is being collected, used or disclosed, in sufficient detail for individuals to meaningfully understand what they are consenting to.
- Risks of harm and other consequences

- Provide information in manageable and easily-accessible ways.

- Make available to individuals a clear and easily accessible choice for any collection, use or disclosure that is not necessary to provide the product or service.

- Consider the perspective of your consumers, to ensure consent processes are user-friendly and generally understandable.

- Obtain consent when making significant changes to privacy practices, including use of data for new purposes or disclosures to new third parties.

- Only collect, use or disclose personal information for purposes that a reasonable person would consider appropriate, under the circumstances.

- Allow individuals to withdraw consent (subject to legal or contractual restrictions).


ZOS must also provide us with Clear Option to agree or disagree with the sharing of our information.
Individuals cannot be required to consent to the collection, use or disclosure of personal information beyond what is necessary to provide the product or service – they must be given a choice.
These choices must be explained clearly and made easily accessible. Whether each choice is most appropriately ‘opt-in’ or ‘opt-out’ will depend on factors discussed in the “Form of Consent” section of this document.

(This tool is NOT a necessary product or service. We've played 5yrs without it. And consoles are not getting it. Players who don't want it can live without it!)

Collections, uses or disclosures of personal information over which the individual cannot assert any control (other than to not use a product or service) are called conditions of service. For a collection, use, or disclosure to be a valid condition of service, it must be integral to the provision of that product or service such that it is required to fulfill its explicitly specified and legitimate purpose. Organizations should be transparent and prepared to explain why any given collection, use or disclosure is a condition of service, particularly if it is not obvious.

Otherwise, for all other collections, uses and disclosures, individuals must be given a choice (unless an exception to the general consent requirement applies).

(You are trying to force this program on everyone, and record every players logs whether they want them recorded or not. Anonymizing the character name is not enough. If a player doesn't want to participate in any way, they should not be forced to.)

ZOS must be accountable: Stand ready to demonstrate compliance
Organizations, when asked, should be in a position to demonstrate compliance, and in particular that the consent process they have implemented is sufficiently understandable from the general perspective of their target audience(s) as to allow for valid and meaningful consent.

In order for an organization to demonstrate that it has obtained valid consent, pointing to a line buried in a privacy policy will not suffice. Instead, organizations should be able to demonstrate – either in the case of a complaint from an individual or a proactive query from a privacy regulator – that they have a process in place to obtain consent from individuals, and that such process is compliant with the consent obligations set out in legislation. This is an integral part of not only the consent process, but of an effective accountability regime.

(Hiding permissions in the Terms of Service and then putting the option to ESO Logs by default automatically "ON" is not valid consent! We, the Player, MUST make the choice ourselves to turn it on.)

Reasonable expectations
In determining the appropriate form of consent, organizations should also consider the reasonable expectations of the individual in the circumstances. For example, if there is a use or disclosure a user would not reasonably expect to be occurring, such as certain sharing of information with a third party, the downloading of photos or contact lists, or the tracking of location, express consent would likely be required.

(I don't want a Third Party Company having any of my information without my permission, particularly if it is information that is non-essential to the general use of ESO. Example: ZOS needs my Credit card and Address and has to provide those to Third Party banks for processing, only because it is an essential business practice for them to get paid for the service they provide. ZOS needs my game logs on their end to track bugs and other issues within their algorithms to fix issues with the game. Having my game logs for a third party application for stats tracking is not essential to the game play of ESO. Therefore, you are not entitled to them, if I do not wish to give permission for you to use them.)

So, by Canadian Law, this Third Party Website and program are not essential to the every day operation and play of ESO. (The game has been without it for 5 years, and Consoles are not getting this). ZOS would be required to put a full opt-out option, allowing players to not have any of their data recorded without meaningful consent. (Turning it "ON" themselves).

Additionally, seeing the responses by Muh, I'm very concerned about third party site having access to any of my information, whether or not it is anonymized and what they are doing with it outside of the scope of this program. You are not entitled to my information!!!

There is no reason why this program should not exist for people who wish to use it. HOWEVER, ALL parties being recorded must consent, or no recording should be happening at all.

I think, until ZOS can implement it this way, it's within their best interest to keep it out of the game.

code65536

@Nebthet78 Information about what you do in the game is ALWAYS being sent to other players.

This is a fundamental basic necessity. If your character jumps, information about that jump is sent to every player around you, because without that information, how would their game be able to show your character jumping?

If your character hits an enemy and reduces its health by 10000, every other player around you must be informed of that, because how else would their game know that the enemy's health has gone down by 10000? How else would their game know to animate your dagger hitting the enemy?

This information is always being sent to other players, all the time, and it's a necessary part of the basic function of the game.

So now the only question is, what are other players allowed to do with this information? Not ZOS. But other players.

When someone screenshots your character as it is jumping, they are capturing and potentially transmitting that information. When someone streams and your character enters their field of view jumping, they are capturing and transmitting that information. When someone describes your jumping in a forum post, they are recording and transmitting that information.

It's all the same thing, with the only difference being the degree of detail. A description is not going to be as detailed as a screenshot, which in turn is not as detailed as a video recording. In some ways, a log will be more detailed than a video recording, but in some other ways, it will be less.

Third party websites are a red herring. When someone streams and you appear in that stream, does Twitch ask you for permission? Is Twitch violating your privacy? Why is there no expression of concern that Twitch or YouTube are third-party websites not affiliated with ZOS? Why is there no forum outrage over the privacy violations of appearing in someone's stream or video clip or screenshot?

code65536

One final thought: When a streamer kills a world boss, they are mainly recording themself. If you're also fighting that world boss, you get captured in the stream too. But they didn't set out to record you--they're recording themselves and you're just a part of the background. And their viewers don't care about you.

But you--and everyone else there--still need to appear in the video, even though you're not the focus and even though nobody actually cares. Why? Imagine if everyone else was invisible. Then you'll just have a video of someone appearing to solo a world boss. You'll see in the video one person doing damage, but the boss's health going down at the rate of four people doing damage.

You see why excluding people doesn't make sense? It doesn't make sense to exclude other people in a stream because even though you don't care about them, it's context. It shows that the fight isn't solo. It explains why the boss's health is going down as if four people were attacking it. It explains why some of the boss's attacks are not hitting the player in focus. If there are mechanics that involve multiple players (e.g., the tether mechanic in FG2), even if you don't care about other players, you need to see them and see what they are doing for mechanics like that to even make sense.

Even if you don't care about the other people in the video, they still need to appear in order for the video to make sense.

It's the exact same thing here with the log. Unless it's an organized run, people aren't there to log what you do. They're there to log what they are doing. You, esp. if you make yourself anonymous, are just the backdrop that frankly, nobody cares about. You're the scenery. But still necessary, because without it, things won't make sense.

Nebthet78

code65536 wrote: »

@Nebthet78 Information about what you do in the game is ALWAYS being sent to other players.

This is a fundamental basic necessity. If your character jumps, information about that jump is sent to every player around you, because without that information, how would their game be able to show your character jumping?

If your character hits an enemy and reduces its health by 10000, every other player around you must be informed of that, because how else would their game know that the enemy's health has gone down by 10000? How else would their game know to animate your dagger hitting the enemy?

This information is always being sent to other players, all the time, and it's a necessary part of the basic function of the game.

So now the only question is, what are other players allowed to do with this information? Not ZOS. But other players.

When someone screenshots your character as it is jumping, they are capturing and potentially transmitting that information. When someone streams and your character enters their field of view jumping, they are capturing and transmitting that information. When someone describes your jumping in a forum post, they are recording and transmitting that information.

It's all the same thing, with the only difference being the degree of detail. A description is not going to be as detailed as a screenshot, which in turn is not as detailed as a video recording. In some ways, a log will be more detailed than a video recording, but in some other ways, it will be less.

Third party websites are a red herring. When someone streams and you appear in that stream, does Twitch ask you for permission? Is Twitch violating your privacy? Why is there no expression of concern that Twitch or YouTube are third-party websites not affiliated with ZOS? Why is there no forum outrage over the privacy violations of appearing in someone's stream or video clip or screenshot?

But it is ZOS' software that is interpreting my data, and then displaying what is needed for the other party to play the game. That information is all in house through ZOS' game servers. It is not being recorded, saved and then sent OUTSIDE THE GAME SERVERS into the hands of a Third Party company without my permission and for their own monitization.

For Add-ons, while the information is there, I can choose whether or not to install and use that Add-on. ZOS isn't forcing me to use it, or forcing me to a Third Party website to get anonymized should I fail to turn it off.

Actually, if people wanted to, there are ways for them to petition these companies to have the video removed if a person really didn't want to be on there. There are tonnes of Youtube videos removed because of this on a daily basis. It's just a pain in the rear end for a lot of people to do it, so they don't bother. The thing that is a factor in it though is whether or not you are the "active subject" of the video. IE.. doing a dungeon run with 4 other people. Most Steamers will let the other members know they are streaming and ask permission first, so a person can decide if they stay in group or not. Or, if you are what's regarded as a member of the crowd. Ie.. Cyrodiil Zerg groups.

idk

Bluepitbull13 wrote: »

LiquidPony wrote: »

Bluepitbull13 wrote: »

T3hasiangod wrote: »

majulook wrote: »

Bluepitbull13 wrote: »

@majulook
ah ok schrodinger's cat, the i "think" it would look like what was shown in the ESO live that it was previewed on but now it's something super personal that goes beyond the game.

@Bluepitbull13

I did not see the ESO Live stream. Even if I did see it, I would look at a log that I created to see what was in it.

There is literally no personal data in the logs. They displayed it on ESO Live. It is a text file with variable names and numbers corresponding to abilities, buffs, debuffs, and character names.

but schrodinger's, it can be my light attack rotation in there or a HIPAA violation with my health information
/s

I'm going to be a bit pedantic here, but to be clear, silly as it sounds (because GDPR is silly in a lot of ways), your character name (or even a random identifier) + combat data logs is almost certainly considered "personal data". The GDPR definition of personal data is anything that can be linked to an identifiable person, even if indirectly. See: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2016.119.01.0001.01.ENG#d1e1489-1-1

‘personal data’ means any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person (‘data subject’); an identifiable natural person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data, an online identifier or to one or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of that natural person;

For instance, at my company, if we transmit a GUID + clickstream over the wire to a third-party, that is considered "personal data" because in our system that GUID can be associated with an IP address or email address or other PII.

However, that does not mean that the data can't be stored, processed, analyzed, sent to other parties, etc. It just means that the user has to give explicit consent and that the data is being collected/stored/processed for a legitimate reason. You give consent when you click that obnoxious "OK" button that pops up on the cookie/data disclaimer on every website these days.

In the case of ESO, we all agree to the Privacy Policy when we first start the game or whenever said Privacy Policy changes.

That Privacy Policy specifies the types of "personal data" collected, in this case the relevant section would be:

2. The Personal Data We Collect
...
G. Your Activities, Stats, Friends and Preferences. We collect usage and preference details related to your use of the Services, such as language, in-game purchases, game-play statistics, scores, persona, characters, achievements, rankings, time spent playing, click paths, game profile, preferences, friends (including friend relationships through, for example, the creation of clans) and other data that you provide to us as part of your account.

Additionally, it specifies how that data can be used and shared. Where exactly "Encounter Logging" fits into that scheme is open to interpretation but I don't think ZOS would have any trouble at all here. Of course, IANAL.

3. How We Use Personal Data
...
For the performance of our agreement with you. The personal data referred to under Section 2. A, B, C, D, E, F, G and I above may be used to provide our Services to you, including to run contests, sweepstakes or other events or activities in which you participate; improve your gameplay experience; provide tailored customer services and support; matching; for billing and payment purposes; and to handle your enquiries.
...
For our legitimate commercial interests. The personal data referred to under Section 2. D, E, F, G, H and I above may be used to improve and develop our products and services; analyse the use of our Services and generate aggregate statistics about our User community; personalize your experiences (e.g., for your geographic area); send or display targeted marketing; facilitate software updates; assist in security and fraud prevention; for system integrity (preventing hacking, cheats, spamming, etc.); facilitate our business operations and maintain appropriate business records; operate company policies and procedures; facilitate our response to legal process (e.g., a court order, warrant or subpoena); enable us to merge, sell, acquire, or transfer assets; and for other legitimate business purposes permitted by applicable law.

4. How ZeniMax Shares Personal Data

ZeniMax may disclose your personal data as follows, and we will obtain your consent to do so where required by applicable law:

Service Providers and Processor. We may engage vendors, agents, service providers, and affiliated entities to provide services to us or to Users on our behalf, such as support for the internal operations of our websites, online stores (including payment processors), products (such as our games) and services (e.g., message board operations, and technical support processing), as well as related offline product support services, data storage and other services. In providing their services, they may access, receive, maintain or otherwise process personal data on our behalf. Our contracts with these service providers do not permit use of your personal data for their own marketing and other purposes.

I'll repeat, I am not a lawyer. However, my opinion is that ZOS is 100% covered in this use-case by the Privacy Policy that we all agree to based on the language therein. They are using/sharing this data to improve the gameplay experience.

Let me draw an analogy from my world. One of our lines of business involves site usage analytics. That is, you're on some website, and as you're navigating around, the site is transmitting to us (a third party) a stream of data describing your usage of the site (what links you click, how long you spend on each page, etc.). It is basically a GUID + event data (very similar what what is present in these Encounter Logs). That is considered "personal data" according to our DPO. It is also 100% fine for us to process it because the user explicitly consents to this when they agree to the Cookie Policy.

I truly believe from what I saw and will find out further when this tool hits the PTS is only game data being shared with this website, but wow some people pages back start bringing up social security numbers, bank pins, first and last name, date of birth and can't help but face palm a bit. I cant help but think that a judge would believe it's a frivolous litigation over how many deaths/dps in a dungeon/trial is being shared to a 3rd party that has agreements with zos

Yes, they say when the setting is to anonymous the only data shared is game data. Names are not.

However, names can be surmised and associated with that data in certain cases. If you have 12 players and only one DD is anonymous then you know who that is so the data is not truly anonymous regardless of what anyone says.

Of course this is irrelevant with a core team since they will require everyone to be opted in regardless. It is par for the course as we are used to sharing our DPS and sometimes even our CMX when we tank or heal.

idk

hedna123b14_ESO wrote: »

idk wrote: »

hedna123b14_ESO wrote: »

After reading this forum post I'm not surprised ZoS ignores much of feedback from here...

So if we disagree we should just be quiet?

What is funny is it would require huge work to do what I suggested, add a field to the db. All aspects of skills have this field added to it. Default is set to No or 0. Buffs/debuffs would get a yes, or 1. Skills that do both damage and provide buffs/debuffs are already separated in the db. If someone opts out in game only the items set to a state of yes pass through.

Yes, it would take a moment to get every items set straight but it is pretty straight forward work and should not be complicated if the db that supports this game is arranged reasonably well.

This does not impact raid teams as they would require players to opt in just as they require sharing dps now. So there is no reason to object to this other than to object for the sake of it.

If you disagree you are insane, because your points have all been refuted.

My points have not been refuted. You are crazy to think so.

It is a fact that in certain situations the player who is anonymous can be surmised. This point is obvious and has not been many who disagree that Zos should create a truly anonymous setting have agreed this is the case.

Further, no one has refuted that Zos could create a true opt out system. The only people who would refute this do not understand the first thing about db and the foundation of this game is a db.

Last, this true opt out would not affect core and progression teams as any serious core team would require their players to opt in. You know this as it is already the case with serious core teams. I cannot remember the last time I raided on a serous team that did not require sharing information.

People have disagreed, but no one has refuted any of those points as they are all factually very, very possible. Just as samba is Brazillian a true opt out system can be added to the game that would not harm core raid teams. The only reason the game does not have one is Zos chose to not make it so.

The only reason that would make this challenging to do is if the db for ESO is an utter mess. If the development and continued design of this game has been poorly managed this could be the case, but even then it would still be very doable.

hedna123b14_ESO

idk wrote: »

hedna123b14_ESO wrote: »

idk wrote: »

hedna123b14_ESO wrote: »

After reading this forum post I'm not surprised ZoS ignores much of feedback from here...

So if we disagree we should just be quiet?

What is funny is it would require huge work to do what I suggested, add a field to the db. All aspects of skills have this field added to it. Default is set to No or 0. Buffs/debuffs would get a yes, or 1. Skills that do both damage and provide buffs/debuffs are already separated in the db. If someone opts out in game only the items set to a state of yes pass through.

Yes, it would take a moment to get every items set straight but it is pretty straight forward work and should not be complicated if the db that supports this game is arranged reasonably well.

This does not impact raid teams as they would require players to opt in just as they require sharing dps now. So there is no reason to object to this other than to object for the sake of it.

If you disagree you are insane, because your points have all been refuted.

My points have not been refuted. You are crazy to think so.

It is a fact that in certain situations the player who is anonymous can be surmised. This point is obvious and has not been many who disagree that Zos should create a truly anonymous setting have agreed this is the case.

Further, no one has refuted that Zos could create a true opt out system. The only people who would refute this do not understand the first thing about db and the foundation of this game is a db.

Last, this true opt out would not affect core and progression teams as any serious core team would require their players to opt in. You know this as it is already the case with serious core teams. I cannot remember the last time I raided on a serous team that did not require sharing information.

People have disagreed, but no one has refuted any of those points as they are all factually very, very possible. Just as samba is Brazillian a true opt out system can be added to the game that would not harm core raid teams. The only reason the game does not have one is Zos chose to not make it so.

The only reason that would make this challenging to do is if the db for ESO is an utter mess. If the development and continued design of this game has been poorly managed this could be the case, but even then it would still be very doable.

I hope to God they proceed with this feature as is and ignore all the naysayers...so that they can all be proven wrong...

idk

hedna123b14_ESO wrote: »

idk wrote: »

hedna123b14_ESO wrote: »

idk wrote: »

hedna123b14_ESO wrote: »

After reading this forum post I'm not surprised ZoS ignores much of feedback from here...

So if we disagree we should just be quiet?

What is funny is it would require huge work to do what I suggested, add a field to the db. All aspects of skills have this field added to it. Default is set to No or 0. Buffs/debuffs would get a yes, or 1. Skills that do both damage and provide buffs/debuffs are already separated in the db. If someone opts out in game only the items set to a state of yes pass through.

Yes, it would take a moment to get every items set straight but it is pretty straight forward work and should not be complicated if the db that supports this game is arranged reasonably well.

This does not impact raid teams as they would require players to opt in just as they require sharing dps now. So there is no reason to object to this other than to object for the sake of it.

If you disagree you are insane, because your points have all been refuted.

My points have not been refuted. You are crazy to think so.

It is a fact that in certain situations the player who is anonymous can be surmised. This point is obvious and has not been many who disagree that Zos should create a truly anonymous setting have agreed this is the case.

Further, no one has refuted that Zos could create a true opt out system. The only people who would refute this do not understand the first thing about db and the foundation of this game is a db.

Last, this true opt out would not affect core and progression teams as any serious core team would require their players to opt in. You know this as it is already the case with serious core teams. I cannot remember the last time I raided on a serous team that did not require sharing information.

People have disagreed, but no one has refuted any of those points as they are all factually very, very possible. Just as samba is Brazillian a true opt out system can be added to the game that would not harm core raid teams. The only reason the game does not have one is Zos chose to not make it so.

The only reason that would make this challenging to do is if the db for ESO is an utter mess. If the development and continued design of this game has been poorly managed this could be the case, but even then it would still be very doable.

I hope to God they proceed with this feature as is and ignore all the naysayers...so that they can all be proven wrong...

I am not against the tool. It is a great idea. It just has this one flaw and you have said zilch to prove those comments wrong. Not even close.

Again, the points in the comment you posted have not been proven wrong by anyone. No one has even tried. They have disagreed but that is mostly out of fear that Zos would not make the changes necessary. That is not being proven wrong.

hedna123b14_ESO

idk wrote: »

hedna123b14_ESO wrote: »

idk wrote: »

hedna123b14_ESO wrote: »

idk wrote: »

hedna123b14_ESO wrote: »

After reading this forum post I'm not surprised ZoS ignores much of feedback from here...

So if we disagree we should just be quiet?

What is funny is it would require huge work to do what I suggested, add a field to the db. All aspects of skills have this field added to it. Default is set to No or 0. Buffs/debuffs would get a yes, or 1. Skills that do both damage and provide buffs/debuffs are already separated in the db. If someone opts out in game only the items set to a state of yes pass through.

Yes, it would take a moment to get every items set straight but it is pretty straight forward work and should not be complicated if the db that supports this game is arranged reasonably well.

This does not impact raid teams as they would require players to opt in just as they require sharing dps now. So there is no reason to object to this other than to object for the sake of it.

If you disagree you are insane, because your points have all been refuted.

My points have not been refuted. You are crazy to think so.

It is a fact that in certain situations the player who is anonymous can be surmised. This point is obvious and has not been many who disagree that Zos should create a truly anonymous setting have agreed this is the case.

Further, no one has refuted that Zos could create a true opt out system. The only people who would refute this do not understand the first thing about db and the foundation of this game is a db.

Last, this true opt out would not affect core and progression teams as any serious core team would require their players to opt in. You know this as it is already the case with serious core teams. I cannot remember the last time I raided on a serous team that did not require sharing information.

People have disagreed, but no one has refuted any of those points as they are all factually very, very possible. Just as samba is Brazillian a true opt out system can be added to the game that would not harm core raid teams. The only reason the game does not have one is Zos chose to not make it so.

The only reason that would make this challenging to do is if the db for ESO is an utter mess. If the development and continued design of this game has been poorly managed this could be the case, but even then it would still be very doable.

I hope to God they proceed with this feature as is and ignore all the naysayers...so that they can all be proven wrong...

I am not against the tool. It is a great idea. It just has this one flaw and you have said zilch to prove those comments wrong. Not even close.

Again, the points in the comment you posted have not been proven wrong by anyone. No one has even tried. They have disagreed but that is mostly out of fear that Zos would not make the changes necessary. That is not being proven wrong.

Ok guy

code65536

Nebthet78 wrote: »

It is not being recorded, saved and then sent OUTSIDE THE GAME SERVERS into the hands of a Third Party company without my permission and for their own monitization.

But that's exactly what happens when a streamer streams themselves killing other players, for example. It's stuff that's recorded. Being sent to an outside third party. For monetization. And lots of it. It's obscene how much money some streamers in some games can make, but that's another topic of dicussion. The point is, that's all happening with the help of the various other players that appear in their videos, without their permission. So how is that different than this?

Nebthet78 wrote: »

Actually, if people wanted to, there are ways for them to petition these companies to have the video removed if a person really didn't want to be on there. There are tonnes of Youtube videos removed because of this on a daily basis.

If it's a real person, and the circumstances are right, yes. But if someone has a video of them killing my character in Cyrodiil, what grounds do I have to get that video removed? There are none.

And yes, many streamers do ask, as a matter of courtesy. But they don't have to, and there are many who don't (esp. in PvP--nobody is going to stop in the middle of a battle and whisper their opponent, "before I fight and try to you, is it okay that I'm showing this on a stream?") I think it would be a good matter of courtesy for people to say, "FYI, I'm testing a new build so I'm logging this run." or ask, "Is it okay for me to log this run?" But should they be required to, when anonymization is available (and ideally enabled by default)? I don't think so. To do so would be to hold it to a different--and higher--standard than everything else.

idk

hedna123b14_ESO wrote: »

idk wrote: »

hedna123b14_ESO wrote: »

idk wrote: »

hedna123b14_ESO wrote: »

idk wrote: »

hedna123b14_ESO wrote: »

After reading this forum post I'm not surprised ZoS ignores much of feedback from here...

So if we disagree we should just be quiet?

What is funny is it would require huge work to do what I suggested, add a field to the db. All aspects of skills have this field added to it. Default is set to No or 0. Buffs/debuffs would get a yes, or 1. Skills that do both damage and provide buffs/debuffs are already separated in the db. If someone opts out in game only the items set to a state of yes pass through.

Yes, it would take a moment to get every items set straight but it is pretty straight forward work and should not be complicated if the db that supports this game is arranged reasonably well.

This does not impact raid teams as they would require players to opt in just as they require sharing dps now. So there is no reason to object to this other than to object for the sake of it.

If you disagree you are insane, because your points have all been refuted.

My points have not been refuted. You are crazy to think so.

It is a fact that in certain situations the player who is anonymous can be surmised. This point is obvious and has not been many who disagree that Zos should create a truly anonymous setting have agreed this is the case.

Further, no one has refuted that Zos could create a true opt out system. The only people who would refute this do not understand the first thing about db and the foundation of this game is a db.

Last, this true opt out would not affect core and progression teams as any serious core team would require their players to opt in. You know this as it is already the case with serious core teams. I cannot remember the last time I raided on a serous team that did not require sharing information.

People have disagreed, but no one has refuted any of those points as they are all factually very, very possible. Just as samba is Brazillian a true opt out system can be added to the game that would not harm core raid teams. The only reason the game does not have one is Zos chose to not make it so.

The only reason that would make this challenging to do is if the db for ESO is an utter mess. If the development and continued design of this game has been poorly managed this could be the case, but even then it would still be very doable.

I hope to God they proceed with this feature as is and ignore all the naysayers...so that they can all be proven wrong...

I am not against the tool. It is a great idea. It just has this one flaw and you have said zilch to prove those comments wrong. Not even close.

Again, the points in the comment you posted have not been proven wrong by anyone. No one has even tried. They have disagreed but that is mostly out of fear that Zos would not make the changes necessary. That is not being proven wrong.

Ok guy

If you had an actual argument against those points you would have made it in at least one of your last few posts instead of this and trying to claim those points had been refuted. You have not.

Masel

This whole debate has shown something that is symptomatic for basically all new features/changes coming to this game.

1. People randomly assume the functionality and impact any new change has on them without having all necessary information. Even before we knew what the default option for logging was, there was an outcry that it's an invasion of privacy. Same happens with many combat changes. The ones that were leaked were probably the best example.
2. The debate of "average" players vs. "Endgame" players is not one that actually holds in reality. This thread only shows that even more. It is not the level of gameplay that defines toxicity, it is the personal character. In this thread, players of both ends said that the other side is the most toxic, which is a grand overgeneralisation. There are bad apples on both ends. I've been mistreated by both in the past since I've been a new player once too. I even experience it still sometimes on my secondary account when I get kicked immediately from random vet just for having 160 cp. It is awful, but there are more examples for the better side than for the worse. I've also been called elitist quite a few times as well if I route for something that helps the endgame community (see the first response to my initial comment in here).
3. Theres also a few arguments in this thread that prove that players assume other people's attitudes and positions. I never said I dont want the tool to be set to anonymous by default for example, yet I was called out for having a position that doesnt reflect that.


What I'm saying is that players should stop overgeneralising, provide funded feedback with proof and for the love of god, CHILL. There's not a single screenshot of the new log tool in here because we simply dont know yet how it works. So instead of complaining without any solid fundament, have a look at it later today, and if theres something that you dont like, deliver a funded argument as for why it is bothering you and then we can have a talk.

robvs

We NEED this on console please!

Idinuse

Kihra wrote: »

majulook wrote: »

Since this log is apparently just a txt file, I just wonder how difficult would it be to modify the data prior to upload.

Is there some DTS / Hash string that will discredit the file if modified by something /someone outside of the games logging process?

The single greatest protection against log editing is eyeballs. When you have the entire group's data broken down to an ability level and can see all gear, buffs, debuffs, etc., spotting a forgery becomes obvious. This is why every ranking has to be verifiable, i.e., you can go to the report and study it to see if something isn't right.

Note that log editing (if you're caught) results in the character being permabanned on the site (and this would follow you across renames of the character), and the user account and IP being banned.

So you are collecting and connecting Username and IDs to IPs in the data log and or on the website along with E-mail addresses? Seems the most thorough way to opt out is cheating the numbers and getting permabanned?

Also what protects someone to create a program that recalculates all data upon altering a number (like feeding it into a spread sheet or a self made program), making everything look completely legitimate? I seriously think this needs a rework or at least a second look.

Idinuse

Joy_Division wrote: »

Because I was tagged earlier in the thread, just letting everyone know I am paying attention to both sides of the argument and that elusive middle ground in-between. I'd imagine ZOS is too.

Yes, I have my own opinions, but my highest priority is a system that is most accommodating. The health and the overall sustainability of the game is ultimately what I'm hoping for. I have no interest playing a game where people are uncomfortable and not excited to play it.

An Awesome for you Joy!

hedna123b14_ESO

idk wrote: »

hedna123b14_ESO wrote: »

idk wrote: »

hedna123b14_ESO wrote: »

idk wrote: »

hedna123b14_ESO wrote: »

idk wrote: »

hedna123b14_ESO wrote: »

After reading this forum post I'm not surprised ZoS ignores much of feedback from here...

So if we disagree we should just be quiet?

What is funny is it would require huge work to do what I suggested, add a field to the db. All aspects of skills have this field added to it. Default is set to No or 0. Buffs/debuffs would get a yes, or 1. Skills that do both damage and provide buffs/debuffs are already separated in the db. If someone opts out in game only the items set to a state of yes pass through.

Yes, it would take a moment to get every items set straight but it is pretty straight forward work and should not be complicated if the db that supports this game is arranged reasonably well.

This does not impact raid teams as they would require players to opt in just as they require sharing dps now. So there is no reason to object to this other than to object for the sake of it.

If you disagree you are insane, because your points have all been refuted.

My points have not been refuted. You are crazy to think so.

It is a fact that in certain situations the player who is anonymous can be surmised. This point is obvious and has not been many who disagree that Zos should create a truly anonymous setting have agreed this is the case.

Further, no one has refuted that Zos could create a true opt out system. The only people who would refute this do not understand the first thing about db and the foundation of this game is a db.

Last, this true opt out would not affect core and progression teams as any serious core team would require their players to opt in. You know this as it is already the case with serious core teams. I cannot remember the last time I raided on a serous team that did not require sharing information.

People have disagreed, but no one has refuted any of those points as they are all factually very, very possible. Just as samba is Brazillian a true opt out system can be added to the game that would not harm core raid teams. The only reason the game does not have one is Zos chose to not make it so.

The only reason that would make this challenging to do is if the db for ESO is an utter mess. If the development and continued design of this game has been poorly managed this could be the case, but even then it would still be very doable.

I hope to God they proceed with this feature as is and ignore all the naysayers...so that they can all be proven wrong...

I am not against the tool. It is a great idea. It just has this one flaw and you have said zilch to prove those comments wrong. Not even close.

Again, the points in the comment you posted have not been proven wrong by anyone. No one has even tried. They have disagreed but that is mostly out of fear that Zos would not make the changes necessary. That is not being proven wrong.

Ok guy

If you had an actual argument against those points you would have made it in at least one of your last few posts instead of this and trying to claim those points had been refuted. You have not.

Which points? Yall keep repeating the same stuff and getting refuted...what hasnt been refuted?

VaranisArano

idk wrote: »

hedna123b14_ESO wrote: »

idk wrote: »

hedna123b14_ESO wrote: »

After reading this forum post I'm not surprised ZoS ignores much of feedback from here...

So if we disagree we should just be quiet?

What is funny is it would require huge work to do what I suggested, add a field to the db. All aspects of skills have this field added to it. Default is set to No or 0. Buffs/debuffs would get a yes, or 1. Skills that do both damage and provide buffs/debuffs are already separated in the db. If someone opts out in game only the items set to a state of yes pass through.

Yes, it would take a moment to get every items set straight but it is pretty straight forward work and should not be complicated if the db that supports this game is arranged reasonably well.

This does not impact raid teams as they would require players to opt in just as they require sharing dps now. So there is no reason to object to this other than to object for the sake of it.

If you disagree you are insane, because your points have all been refuted.

My points have not been refuted. You are crazy to think so.

It is a fact that in certain situations the player who is anonymous can be surmised. This point is obvious and has not been many who disagree that Zos should create a truly anonymous setting have agreed this is the case.

Further, no one has refuted that Zos could create a true opt out system. The only people who would refute this do not understand the first thing about db and the foundation of this game is a db.

Last, this true opt out would not affect core and progression teams as any serious core team would require their players to opt in. You know this as it is already the case with serious core teams. I cannot remember the last time I raided on a serous team that did not require sharing information.

People have disagreed, but no one has refuted any of those points as they are all factually very, very possible. Just as samba is Brazillian a true opt out system can be added to the game that would not harm core raid teams. The only reason the game does not have one is Zos chose to not make it so.

The only reason that would make this challenging to do is if the db for ESO is an utter mess. If the development and continued design of this game has been poorly managed this could be the case, but even then it would still be very doable.

I'll take a stab at it.

Identity can be surmised? The same is true with CMX, where the identity can be associated with a parse, obtained by extrapolation. The case of an Anonymous player in ESO Logs is very similar to someone in a group where everyone is running CMX and sharing parses.

ZOS could create a true opt-out system? Yes, they could. However, implementing that would go against the idea of using this tool for any player in any encounter.

A true opt-out effects no one? It would not effect organized raid groups who already require shared parses. It would impact the ability of any player to log any encounter, which is part of the design of ESO Logs.

Hallothiel

To those comparing this to streamers /Twitch etc - yes, I don’t think they should be able to do that without my consent - especially if they are making some sort of financial gain out of it. My agreement is with Zos, not them.

But then I would have that for stuff someone films on their phone & uploads to share. Don’t like it and don’t see why I have to agree to it without being asked.

muh

idk wrote: »

hedna123b14_ESO wrote: »

idk wrote: »

hedna123b14_ESO wrote: »

After reading this forum post I'm not surprised ZoS ignores much of feedback from here...

So if we disagree we should just be quiet?

What is funny is it would require huge work to do what I suggested, add a field to the db. All aspects of skills have this field added to it. Default is set to No or 0. Buffs/debuffs would get a yes, or 1. Skills that do both damage and provide buffs/debuffs are already separated in the db. If someone opts out in game only the items set to a state of yes pass through.

Yes, it would take a moment to get every items set straight but it is pretty straight forward work and should not be complicated if the db that supports this game is arranged reasonably well.

This does not impact raid teams as they would require players to opt in just as they require sharing dps now. So there is no reason to object to this other than to object for the sake of it.

If you disagree you are insane, because your points have all been refuted.

My points have not been refuted. You are crazy to think so.

It is a fact that in certain situations the player who is anonymous can be surmised. This point is obvious and has not been many who disagree that Zos should create a truly anonymous setting have agreed this is the case.

Right, you just miss the context in which it is relevant.

I'm farily certain you could figure out who every anonymous player was with some degree of certainty if you've been in the group and paid a lot of attention to everyone in your group. Anonymous just means it's stripped of your character names, so if you don't want to have it on a thirdparty website it won't be.

As an example, if I would visit an anonymous meeting of e.g. Alcoholics Anonymous (pretty much the only anonymous real life meeting that came to my mind), I would still recognize other people that have been there. If I saw them in public I could say that they have been to an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting, but everyone else who wasn't there has no clue they've been to a meeting with me. Right?
They would have to believe me that I actually met that person at a meeting. They would have to believe me that what I say about that person is actually about that person.

To spin it a bit further, if it would be possible to opt-out of logging completly, you would still be able to know who didn't want to be logged. As long as you've been there.

The whole point of the anonymous option is to not share personal data outside of the system ZOS controls without user consent.
And please correct me if I'm wrong, but so far we have no clue if it actually is "opt-in to share names" or "opt-in to be anonymous".

hedna123b14_ESO

Hallothiel wrote: »

To those comparing this to streamers /Twitch etc - yes, I don’t think they should be able to do that without my consent - especially if they are making some sort of financial gain out of it. My agreement is with Zos, not them.

But then I would have that for stuff someone films on their phone & uploads to share. Don’t like it and don’t see why I have to agree to it without being asked.

You are entitled to liking and disliking anything you want, but you dont own your character data any more than I own the high score I got at the arcade. All in game data belongs to ZoS and they can do with it whatever they please.

hedna123b14_ESO

muh wrote: »

idk wrote: »

hedna123b14_ESO wrote: »

idk wrote: »

hedna123b14_ESO wrote: »

After reading this forum post I'm not surprised ZoS ignores much of feedback from here...

So if we disagree we should just be quiet?

What is funny is it would require huge work to do what I suggested, add a field to the db. All aspects of skills have this field added to it. Default is set to No or 0. Buffs/debuffs would get a yes, or 1. Skills that do both damage and provide buffs/debuffs are already separated in the db. If someone opts out in game only the items set to a state of yes pass through.

Yes, it would take a moment to get every items set straight but it is pretty straight forward work and should not be complicated if the db that supports this game is arranged reasonably well.

This does not impact raid teams as they would require players to opt in just as they require sharing dps now. So there is no reason to object to this other than to object for the sake of it.

If you disagree you are insane, because your points have all been refuted.

My points have not been refuted. You are crazy to think so.

It is a fact that in certain situations the player who is anonymous can be surmised. This point is obvious and has not been many who disagree that Zos should create a truly anonymous setting have agreed this is the case.

Right, you just miss the context in which it is relevant.

I'm farily certain you could figure out who every anonymous player was with some degree of certainty if you've been in the group and paid a lot of attention to everyone in your group. Anonymous just means it's stripped of your character names, so if you don't want to have it on a thirdparty website it won't be.

As an example, if I would visit an anonymous meeting of e.g. Alcoholics Anonymous (pretty much the only anonymous real life meeting that came to my mind), I would still recognize other people that have been there. If I saw them in public I could say that they have been to an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting, but everyone else who wasn't there has no clue they've been to a meeting with me. Right?
They would have to believe me that I actually met that person at a meeting. They would have to believe me that what I say about that person is actually about that person.

The whole point of the anonymous option is to not share personal data outside of the system ZOS controls without user consent.
And please correct me if I'm wrong, but so far we have no clue if it actually is "opt-in to share names" or "opt-in to be anonymous".

That seems like rational discourse....what are you doing with that on these forums?

VaranisArano

muh wrote: »

idk wrote: »

hedna123b14_ESO wrote: »

idk wrote: »

hedna123b14_ESO wrote: »

After reading this forum post I'm not surprised ZoS ignores much of feedback from here...

So if we disagree we should just be quiet?

What is funny is it would require huge work to do what I suggested, add a field to the db. All aspects of skills have this field added to it. Default is set to No or 0. Buffs/debuffs would get a yes, or 1. Skills that do both damage and provide buffs/debuffs are already separated in the db. If someone opts out in game only the items set to a state of yes pass through.

Yes, it would take a moment to get every items set straight but it is pretty straight forward work and should not be complicated if the db that supports this game is arranged reasonably well.

This does not impact raid teams as they would require players to opt in just as they require sharing dps now. So there is no reason to object to this other than to object for the sake of it.

If you disagree you are insane, because your points have all been refuted.

My points have not been refuted. You are crazy to think so.

It is a fact that in certain situations the player who is anonymous can be surmised. This point is obvious and has not been many who disagree that Zos should create a truly anonymous setting have agreed this is the case.

Right, you just miss the context in which it is relevant.

I'm farily certain you could figure out who every anonymous player was with some degree of certainty if you've been in the group and paid a lot of attention to everyone in your group. Anonymous just means it's stripped of your character names, so if you don't want to have it on a thirdparty website it won't be.

As an example, if I would visit an anonymous meeting of e.g. Alcoholics Anonymous (pretty much the only anonymous real life meeting that came to my mind), I would still recognize other people that have been there. If I saw them in public I could say that they have been to an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting, but everyone else who wasn't there has no clue they've been to a meeting with me. Right?
They would have to believe me that I actually met that person at a meeting. They would have to believe me that what I say about that person is actually about that person.

To spin it a bit further, if it would be possible to opt-out of logging completly, you would still be able to know who didn't want to be logged. As long as you've been there.

The whole point of the anonymous option is to not share personal data outside of the system ZOS controls without user consent.
And please correct me if I'm wrong, but so far we have no clue if it actually is "opt-in to share names" or "opt-in to be anonymous".

I asked Kihra that earlier this thread. The default is to share character ids. There is a check box to be Anonymous.

However, Kihra also said that it makes no difference to the functionality of ESO Logs if the default becomes that everyone is anonymous and you have to check a box to consent to share character id's.

So I'm hopeful that anonymity can be easily changed to be the default. We'll find out with the PTS if ZOS changed the checkbox so that anonymity is default...and if so, I'll be very pleased with the addition of this tool for players.

idk

VaranisArano wrote: »

idk wrote: »

hedna123b14_ESO wrote: »

idk wrote: »

hedna123b14_ESO wrote: »

After reading this forum post I'm not surprised ZoS ignores much of feedback from here...

So if we disagree we should just be quiet?

What is funny is it would require huge work to do what I suggested, add a field to the db. All aspects of skills have this field added to it. Default is set to No or 0. Buffs/debuffs would get a yes, or 1. Skills that do both damage and provide buffs/debuffs are already separated in the db. If someone opts out in game only the items set to a state of yes pass through.

Yes, it would take a moment to get every items set straight but it is pretty straight forward work and should not be complicated if the db that supports this game is arranged reasonably well.

This does not impact raid teams as they would require players to opt in just as they require sharing dps now. So there is no reason to object to this other than to object for the sake of it.

If you disagree you are insane, because your points have all been refuted.

My points have not been refuted. You are crazy to think so.

It is a fact that in certain situations the player who is anonymous can be surmised. This point is obvious and has not been many who disagree that Zos should create a truly anonymous setting have agreed this is the case.

Further, no one has refuted that Zos could create a true opt out system. The only people who would refute this do not understand the first thing about db and the foundation of this game is a db.

Last, this true opt out would not affect core and progression teams as any serious core team would require their players to opt in. You know this as it is already the case with serious core teams. I cannot remember the last time I raided on a serous team that did not require sharing information.

People have disagreed, but no one has refuted any of those points as they are all factually very, very possible. Just as samba is Brazillian a true opt out system can be added to the game that would not harm core raid teams. The only reason the game does not have one is Zos chose to not make it so.

The only reason that would make this challenging to do is if the db for ESO is an utter mess. If the development and continued design of this game has been poorly managed this could be the case, but even then it would still be very doable.

I'll take a stab at it.

Identity can be surmised? The same is true with CMX, where the identity can be associated with a parse, obtained by extrapolation. The case of an Anonymous player in ESO Logs is very similar to someone in a group where everyone is running CMX and sharing parses.

ZOS could create a true opt-out system? Yes, they could. However, implementing that would go against the idea of using this tool for any player in any encounter.

A true opt-out effects no one? It would not effect organized raid groups who already require shared parses. It would impact the ability of any player to log any encounter, which is part of the design of ESO Logs.

CMX is irrelevant as this thread is not about CMX. It is the weakest and lacking point made in this thread and only shows

There is no reason for this tool to be available for any player encounter. This tool is design for serious raid groups to use to analyze their fights. They are groups that would already require an opt out. I have seen a tool like this work extremely well that required everyone in the group to opt in.

Further, for some random joe or jane to decide to log a random encounter of FG1 because they think it is cool or want to see what their parse is, my suggestion does not prevent that. It actually preserves that ability while also blocking the damage of those who opted out. The buff/debuff info still passes through since that does affect a persons parse.

They do not need the groups damage information as only regular groups would truly benefit from doing a proper analysis. Regular groups would include regular guilds who may want to see info of players they are testing even when the run is not a core team, but a guild run. My suggestion does not hinder this at all.

My suggestion does not hinder this at all. It keeps the functionality of the tool full time for people who want to parse their on info when with a random group. It certainly preserves the most important part for serious raid groups to analyze their teams info.

There is no downside to what I suggest as everyone wins.

Edit: to the CMX point. Zos could use these changes to affect that as well. It does not need damage numbers from each player. I have an addon that shows the groups damage on a boss but takes no information from any other players.