Encounter Logging
-
idk✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭hedna123b14_ESO wrote: »hedna123b14_ESO wrote: »hedna123b14_ESO wrote: »hedna123b14_ESO 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?
What is interesting is Varanis seem to see the clear statement in our back and forth last night yet you merely made a cute meaningless statement instead of actually speaking to the points.
What is funny about some of your statements is you seem to miss the point that I think this tool is great except for this one small caveat. It really makes some of your comments seem out of place. Especailly since you do not speak to the points I made, that again, and repeated to you last night, but Varanis actually saw.Edited by idk on April 15, 2019 4:53PM1 -
VaranisArano✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭VaranisArano wrote: »hedna123b14_ESO 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.
There's some merit to those counterpoints, but I'll argue a bit more for the sake of debate.
1. CMX is relevant in that it establishes a baseline for what privacy/anonymity ZOS is willing to allow in the game. Through CMX, we see that ZOS is willing to allow players to match players with their parse by extrapolation. This is very close to the situation of an Anonymous player in an ESO log. Therefore, arguments made in this thread that anonymous players can be matched with their parse need to recognize that ZOS already allows this with CMX. ZOS doesnt regard that as problematic. (If you werent making that argument, sorry. I've seen it often enough that its worth explaining why we point to CMX as a baseline for our current level of privacy expectations.)
2. "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."
This plays into ZOS's ideal for this tool.
If you are correct that ZOS intends this tool to be primarily for serious raid groups, then yes, there is no reason not to implement an opt-out/veto check. I'd agree.
If you are incorrect, and ZOS intends this to be available for any player to use on any group content encounter to use for their own performance, then implementing an opt-out/veto check has the potential to severely limit the ability of players who are not in serious raid groups to use the logs, without forming premade groups of their own specifically to record logs.
3. The final possibility is one that Kihra discussed - that Kihra could change how the ESO Logs displays information. If its possible to display only the minimum data necessary from anonymous players (specifically the buffs) and hide the DPS parts, that might be a good compromise. Certainly, it sound like that would bring the ESO Log closer to something like CMX, where it mostly displays the logging individual's info.
However, that gets into how the data is handled...and I'm neither an expert in what can be done with the log's data display nor how/if Kihra plans to change it in response to community concerns.
I'd be fine with that solution as a conpromise. I don't think its a necessary compromise, but I'd be fine with it.1 -
idk✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭VaranisArano wrote: »VaranisArano wrote: »hedna123b14_ESO 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.
There's some merit to those counterpoints, but I'll argue a bit more for the sake of debate.
1. CMX is relevant in that it establishes a baseline for what privacy/anonymity ZOS is willing to allow in the game. Through CMX, we see that ZOS is willing to allow players to match players with their parse by extrapolation. This is very close to the situation of an Anonymous player in an ESO log. Therefore, arguments made in this thread that anonymous players can be matched with their parse need to recognize that ZOS already allows this with CMX. ZOS doesnt regard that as problematic. (If you werent making that argument, sorry. I've seen it often enough that its worth explaining why we point to CMX as a baseline for our current level of privacy expectations.)
2. "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."
This plays into ZOS's ideal for this tool.
If you are correct that ZOS intends this tool to be primarily for serious raid groups, then yes, there is no reason not to implement an opt-out/veto check. I'd agree.
If you are incorrect, and ZOS intends this to be available for any player to use on any group content encounter to use for their own performance, then implementing an opt-out/veto check has the potential to severely limit the ability of players who are not in serious raid groups to use the logs, without forming premade groups of their own specifically to record logs.
3. The final possibility is one that Kihra discussed - that Kihra could change how the ESO Logs displays information. If its possible to display only the minimum data necessary from anonymous players (specifically the buffs) and hide the DPS parts, that might be a good compromise. Certainly, it sound like that would bring the ESO Log closer to something like CMX, where it mostly displays the logging individual's info.
However, that gets into how the data is handled...and I'm neither an expert in what can be done with the log's data display nor how/if Kihra plans to change it in response to community concerns.
I'd be fine with that solution as a conpromise. I don't think its a necessary compromise, but I'd be fine with it.
To what is bolded, I covered that in my reply. They can still log the fight. They would see their own performance and relevant buffs and target debuffs would be logged. Only the damage component of other players that have opted out would not be logged and does not need to be.
As for Kihra's tool, it shows everything. If the player was anonymous only their name is withheld. It seems it makes no difference if a player opts out in game or on their site.
Kihra did say buff information is required for the tool to work and the true opt out I suggest would still allow that limited information to pass through. After all that is one thing that does affect someone's DPS.
As for CMX, this changes can be worked into it as well. After all, to see your own dps you do not need to see another players DPS, but the buffs they apply on the group is still useful for your own analysis.
As for implementing this, it is not complicated. Well, the only complication is if the ESO db is poorly designed. It just takes adding one field to damage components and buff components of skills. They would already be separated in the db. One setting in that field would allow the buffs to pass through all the time. The other setting would block what is not needed if someone opts out which would be the damage component.
And again, I think the tool is a great idea and look forward to seeing it in action on the PTS. I just think this little tweak is worthwhile.
Your reply is one of the best replies so far.Edited by idk on April 15, 2019 5:20PM2 -
VaranisArano✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭VaranisArano wrote: »VaranisArano wrote: »hedna123b14_ESO 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.
There's some merit to those counterpoints, but I'll argue a bit more for the sake of debate.
1. CMX is relevant in that it establishes a baseline for what privacy/anonymity ZOS is willing to allow in the game. Through CMX, we see that ZOS is willing to allow players to match players with their parse by extrapolation. This is very close to the situation of an Anonymous player in an ESO log. Therefore, arguments made in this thread that anonymous players can be matched with their parse need to recognize that ZOS already allows this with CMX. ZOS doesnt regard that as problematic. (If you werent making that argument, sorry. I've seen it often enough that its worth explaining why we point to CMX as a baseline for our current level of privacy expectations.)
2. "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."
This plays into ZOS's ideal for this tool.
If you are correct that ZOS intends this tool to be primarily for serious raid groups, then yes, there is no reason not to implement an opt-out/veto check. I'd agree.
If you are incorrect, and ZOS intends this to be available for any player to use on any group content encounter to use for their own performance, then implementing an opt-out/veto check has the potential to severely limit the ability of players who are not in serious raid groups to use the logs, without forming premade groups of their own specifically to record logs.
3. The final possibility is one that Kihra discussed - that Kihra could change how the ESO Logs displays information. If its possible to display only the minimum data necessary from anonymous players (specifically the buffs) and hide the DPS parts, that might be a good compromise. Certainly, it sound like that would bring the ESO Log closer to something like CMX, where it mostly displays the logging individual's info.
However, that gets into how the data is handled...and I'm neither an expert in what can be done with the log's data display nor how/if Kihra plans to change it in response to community concerns.
I'd be fine with that solution as a conpromise. I don't think its a necessary compromise, but I'd be fine with it.
To what is bolded, I covered that in my reply. They can still log the fight. They would see their own performance and relevant buffs and target debuffs would be logged. Only the damage component of other players that have opted out would not be logged and does not need to be.
As for Kihra's tool, it shows everything. If the player was anonymous only their name is withheld. It seems it makes no difference if a player opts out in game or on their site.
Kihra did say buff information is required for the tool to work and the true opt out I suggest would still allow that limited information to pass through. After all that is one thing that does affect someone's DPS.
As for CMX, this changes can be worked into it as well. After all, to see your own dps you do not need to see another players DPS, but the buffs they apply on the group is still useful for your own analysis.
As for implementing this, it is not complicated. Well, the only complication is if the ESO db is poorly designed. It just takes adding one field to damage components and buff components of skills. They would already be separated in the db. One setting in that field would allow the buffs to pass through all the time. The other setting would block what is not needed if someone opts out which would be the damage component.
And again, I think the tool is a great idea and look forward to seeing it in action on the PTS. I just think this little tweak is worthwhile.
I think, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that the bolded part and your solution to it is close to what I covered in my #3.
Essentially, every player could get a log with only the bare minimum of data from other players, but with the DPS and other non-essential stuff left out - which sounds similar to what Kihra suggested could be done. (i.e. not how the tool works now, but how it could be changed to work.)
I'll see if I can find the quote.
Here it is:Regarding anonymity, I have lots of options for what I can do in the report UI of my site.
At the moment, the data shows up, but the name is listed as Anonymous, and everything else is unchanged. It's important for the data to be collected for anonymous players, because the logs essentially break if data is missing. Absorbs tracking, buff tracking, etc. breaks down and doesn't really work if the data for a person who is overwriting someone else's buff is missing, for example.
For example if person A and person B both apply Minor Savagery, but B is anonymous, if B's data didn't get written out at all, the log essentially breaks.
That said, what I can show in the UI for anonymous players is flexible. I could simply exclude them from damage done/healing done tables completely while keeping buffs/debuffs intact. I could lump all anonymous players together into a single damage done bar that isn't drillable, etc. There are lots of options.
So it looks like there are options for displaying the data like you suggest!
It will be very interesting to see this on the PTS and how ZOS/the ESO Logs team adjusts this in response to community feedback.1 -
idk✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭VaranisArano wrote: »VaranisArano wrote: »VaranisArano wrote: »hedna123b14_ESO 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.
There's some merit to those counterpoints, but I'll argue a bit more for the sake of debate.
1. CMX is relevant in that it establishes a baseline for what privacy/anonymity ZOS is willing to allow in the game. Through CMX, we see that ZOS is willing to allow players to match players with their parse by extrapolation. This is very close to the situation of an Anonymous player in an ESO log. Therefore, arguments made in this thread that anonymous players can be matched with their parse need to recognize that ZOS already allows this with CMX. ZOS doesnt regard that as problematic. (If you werent making that argument, sorry. I've seen it often enough that its worth explaining why we point to CMX as a baseline for our current level of privacy expectations.)
2. "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."
This plays into ZOS's ideal for this tool.
If you are correct that ZOS intends this tool to be primarily for serious raid groups, then yes, there is no reason not to implement an opt-out/veto check. I'd agree.
If you are incorrect, and ZOS intends this to be available for any player to use on any group content encounter to use for their own performance, then implementing an opt-out/veto check has the potential to severely limit the ability of players who are not in serious raid groups to use the logs, without forming premade groups of their own specifically to record logs.
3. The final possibility is one that Kihra discussed - that Kihra could change how the ESO Logs displays information. If its possible to display only the minimum data necessary from anonymous players (specifically the buffs) and hide the DPS parts, that might be a good compromise. Certainly, it sound like that would bring the ESO Log closer to something like CMX, where it mostly displays the logging individual's info.
However, that gets into how the data is handled...and I'm neither an expert in what can be done with the log's data display nor how/if Kihra plans to change it in response to community concerns.
I'd be fine with that solution as a conpromise. I don't think its a necessary compromise, but I'd be fine with it.
To what is bolded, I covered that in my reply. They can still log the fight. They would see their own performance and relevant buffs and target debuffs would be logged. Only the damage component of other players that have opted out would not be logged and does not need to be.
As for Kihra's tool, it shows everything. If the player was anonymous only their name is withheld. It seems it makes no difference if a player opts out in game or on their site.
Kihra did say buff information is required for the tool to work and the true opt out I suggest would still allow that limited information to pass through. After all that is one thing that does affect someone's DPS.
As for CMX, this changes can be worked into it as well. After all, to see your own dps you do not need to see another players DPS, but the buffs they apply on the group is still useful for your own analysis.
As for implementing this, it is not complicated. Well, the only complication is if the ESO db is poorly designed. It just takes adding one field to damage components and buff components of skills. They would already be separated in the db. One setting in that field would allow the buffs to pass through all the time. The other setting would block what is not needed if someone opts out which would be the damage component.
And again, I think the tool is a great idea and look forward to seeing it in action on the PTS. I just think this little tweak is worthwhile.
I think, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that the bolded part and your solution to it is close to what I covered in my #3.
Essentially, every player could get a log with only the bare minimum of data from other players, but with the DPS and other non-essential stuff left out - which sounds similar to what Kihra suggested could be done. (i.e. not how the tool works now, but how it could be changed to work.)
I'll see if I can find the quote.
Here it is:Regarding anonymity, I have lots of options for what I can do in the report UI of my site.
At the moment, the data shows up, but the name is listed as Anonymous, and everything else is unchanged. It's important for the data to be collected for anonymous players, because the logs essentially break if data is missing. Absorbs tracking, buff tracking, etc. breaks down and doesn't really work if the data for a person who is overwriting someone else's buff is missing, for example.
For example if person A and person B both apply Minor Savagery, but B is anonymous, if B's data didn't get written out at all, the log essentially breaks.
That said, what I can show in the UI for anonymous players is flexible. I could simply exclude them from damage done/healing done tables completely while keeping buffs/debuffs intact. I could lump all anonymous players together into a single damage done bar that isn't drillable, etc. There are lots of options.
So it looks like there are options for displaying the data like you suggest!
It will be very interesting to see this on the PTS and how ZOS/the ESO Logs team adjusts this in response to community feedback.
Ok, sorry I missed that part.
Yes, we will have to test it. I understand some functionality will be removed while on the PTS. Not sure how this will affect it. However, I think my suggestion should be worked out in game instead of with a third party.
1 -
code65536✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭There is no downside to what I suggest as everyone wins.
Except it doesn't work like that.
Before I begin, please stop talking about this "no damage, just the buffs" nonsense. As stated repeatedly, it's all or nothing. The very idea of partial logging is nonsensical, period, full stop. You either don't log anything. Or you log it all. There can be no middle ground. And this is self-evident to me, and I think it would be self-evident to anyone who has given some thought to the nitty-gritty details of what would have to happen to make it work like that.
So, with that particular distraction out of the picture, the only question is, "logging or no logging?". And in answering that question, the first consideration has to be, what exactly is the added downside here? You dismiss CMX as irrelevant, but I strongly disagree, because it is the status quo against which this tool should be judged. What added downsides does this add that is not already possible in the current status quo?
And I do want to focus a bit on CMX, because as I've said in this thread this is information that every player is already receiving. How does my game know to draw your character moving or attacking? Because information about what your character is doing is already being sent to me all the time.
And this stream of data can be captured, in real time, by the addon API. When the addon API captures this data, though, there's a bit of anonymization going on. The data that addons can see can tell you when another player does damage to the boss, but not who that other player is. Anyway, CMX analyzes this data in real-time to provide you with your DPS meter. And then it can analyze the data after the fight to give you a more detailed analysis. Or, you could write an addon to save that data to a log file and then analyze that log file. All this is already possible. And that's something that I had already been doing for a couple of years--I have a custom addon that generates combat logs based on what the addon API is able to see, and I then examine these logs later--in my case, it's to help me develop addons. But there's really nothing stopping me (aside from having absolutely zero desire to waste my time on such a thing) from making a web-based analysis tool that uses the logging that is already possible in the addon system to make a pretty report, with timeline graphs and all that jazz.
So what is different about this new logging? Well, it's not something you can look at in real-time. It contains more information. Like who the other characters are if they choose to not anonymize. And then once you get that log, you as the logger can choose what to do with it. You can examine it manually. You can write your own analysis software to look at it. Or you can take the easy route and use a web-based analysis tool that someone else wrote.
The point is, it's fundamentally the same thing that already exists. The main difference is that it's not something that can be used real-time in-game, and in exchange for that, it is goes into a bit more detail. And anonymization is now a choice left to the other player than something that is always forced.
There are two questions that must be answered: "If CMX is okay, then why isn't esologs?" and "If uploading a video recording that includes other players to a public website like Twitch or YouTube is okay, then why is uploading a non-video recording more problematic?" If you truly believe that esologs is a violation of a player's privacy, then you must also come to the conclusion that CMX or Twitch are violations as well. Are people really willing to argue against those as well?Edited by code65536 on April 15, 2019 5:34PMNightfighters ― PC/NA and PC/EU
Dungeons and Trials:Personal best scores:- Dragonstar Arena: 46817 (NA)
- Maelstrom Arena: 600526 (NA)
- Blackrose Prison: 99274 (EU) (Unchained)
- Maw of Lorkhaj: 165227 (EU)
- Halls of Fabrication: 220708 (NA) (Tick-Tock Tormentor #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12)
- Asylum Sanctorium: 114957 (NA) (Immortal Redeemer #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10)
- Cloudrest: 131256 (NA) (Gryphon Heart #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7)
- Sunspire: 250866 (EU) (Godslayer #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7)
- Kyne's Aegis: 235841 (EU) (Dawnbringer #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8)
Dungeon trifectas:- Mountain God and Leave No Bone Unbroken
- Apex Predator and Pure Lunacy
- Depths Defier and Relentless Raider
- Defanged the Devourer and Nature's Wrath
- In Defiance of Death and No Rest for the Wicked
- Bane of Thorns and True Genius
- Ardent Bibliophile and Subterranean Smasher
- Battlespire's Best and Bastion Breaker
- Zero Regrets and Land, Air, and Sea Supremacy
- Fist of Tava and Invader's Bane
- Curator's Champion (Valinna) and Temporal Tempest
- Unshakeable Fervor and Lighting the Embers
Extended Journal Add-Ons: Item Set Browser ― Loot Log ― Character Knowledge ― Collectibles Tracker ― RaidificatorOther Add-Ons: Combat Alerts ― Deconstruction Junk Marker ― Purge Tracker ― Asylum Status Panel ― Smart Looter ― Improved Companion Rapport Information3 -
anitajoneb17_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭There are two questions that must be answered: "If CMX is okay, then why isn't esologs?" and "If uploading a video recording that includes other players to a public website like Twitch or YouTube is okay, then why is uploading a non-video recording more problematic?" If you truly believe that esologs is a violation of a player's privacy, then you must also come to the conclusion that CMX or Twitch are violations as well. Are people really willing to argue against those as well?
To this particular point (ESOlogs vs. Twitch/YT/etc.) I'd say that the difference is quantitative. Qualitatively, there's not so much difference : you've demonstrated it very well. But very few people (as compared to the overall game population) stream, and ESO is not a very successful game on streaming platforms, there are not that many people watching. As a result, the chance of being "caught / noticed" on someone's stream can be considered negligible.
On the contrary, with logging being available to everyone and widely advertised, the risk is much higher to be recorded. The chance of that person then uploading the log publicly + identifying me etc. is again rather small, but we're not talking actual risk here, but psychologically perceived risk, which is what causes discomfort.
You also mentioned somewhere else that "we're the scenery, noone cares about you". Well, you'd be surprised... I've been part of or witness of so many guild drama over the years, I can tell you : there are people who really care.. That being said, this "scenery" argumentation was imho very relevant and helped me looking at the whole thing in a more relaxed manner.
4 -
muh✭✭✭VaranisArano wrote: »hedna123b14_ESO 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.
Yea, fair enough. I don't know how up to date Kihra's info on this are. For me, we know nothing until we actually have it accessible to to a broader audience.0 -
code65536✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »To this particular point (ESOlogs vs. Twitch/YT/etc.) I'd say that the difference is quantitative. Qualitatively, there's not so much difference : you've demonstrated it very well. But very few people (as compared to the overall game population) stream, and ESO is not a very successful game on streaming platforms, there are not that many people watching. As a result, the chance of being "caught / noticed" on someone's stream can be considered negligible.
On the contrary, with logging being available to everyone and widely advertised, the risk is much higher to be recorded. The chance of that person then uploading the log publicly + identifying me etc. is again rather small, but we're not talking actual risk here, but psychologically perceived risk, which is what causes discomfort.
First, I think people are overestimating just how many people are going to be looking at this website. I think there's going to be a lot more people watching a stream (which is a hell of a lot more entertaining) than reading numbers and charts. Charts are informative, sure, but definitely not entertaining.
Next, you have to consider why people are logging. The first would be for bragging rights. "Hey, look at us beating Frostvault HM in under 25 minutes!" I expect almost all of these cases will organized, pre-formed groups. The next would be for diagnostic purposes. "I'm playing this new Necromancer that I just leveled for the first time in group content, so I want to log my runs and see how I'm doing." And I expect that most of those runs will be private, for just the eyes of the person who logged the run. Hey, we are self-conscious too.
Finally, if you set yourself to anonymous (which, again, I think should be made the default option), then what's the fear of that log being made public? If the person reading the report on the website was not in the run, how would they know you were even in the run at all? And if the person reading the report was in the run, then they've probably already seen anything embarrassing that you did live, as it happened. This is actually more protection than what you'd get on a stream. If someone streams a trial run that I'm in, the viewers can actually see my name in the group frame and above my character's head (if the streamer has nameplates turned on). I don't have the luxury of anonymity in someone else's stream.Edited by code65536 on April 15, 2019 6:18PMNightfighters ― PC/NA and PC/EU
Dungeons and Trials:Personal best scores:- Dragonstar Arena: 46817 (NA)
- Maelstrom Arena: 600526 (NA)
- Blackrose Prison: 99274 (EU) (Unchained)
- Maw of Lorkhaj: 165227 (EU)
- Halls of Fabrication: 220708 (NA) (Tick-Tock Tormentor #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12)
- Asylum Sanctorium: 114957 (NA) (Immortal Redeemer #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10)
- Cloudrest: 131256 (NA) (Gryphon Heart #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7)
- Sunspire: 250866 (EU) (Godslayer #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7)
- Kyne's Aegis: 235841 (EU) (Dawnbringer #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8)
Dungeon trifectas:- Mountain God and Leave No Bone Unbroken
- Apex Predator and Pure Lunacy
- Depths Defier and Relentless Raider
- Defanged the Devourer and Nature's Wrath
- In Defiance of Death and No Rest for the Wicked
- Bane of Thorns and True Genius
- Ardent Bibliophile and Subterranean Smasher
- Battlespire's Best and Bastion Breaker
- Zero Regrets and Land, Air, and Sea Supremacy
- Fist of Tava and Invader's Bane
- Curator's Champion (Valinna) and Temporal Tempest
- Unshakeable Fervor and Lighting the Embers
Extended Journal Add-Ons: Item Set Browser ― Loot Log ― Character Knowledge ― Collectibles Tracker ― RaidificatorOther Add-Ons: Combat Alerts ― Deconstruction Junk Marker ― Purge Tracker ― Asylum Status Panel ― Smart Looter ― Improved Companion Rapport Information2 -
VaranisArano✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭VaranisArano wrote: »hedna123b14_ESO 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.
Yea, fair enough. I don't know how up to date Kihra's info on this are. For me, we know nothing until we actually have it accessible to to a broader audience.
Yeah, considering Kihra is one of the developers of the tool, I've been taking Kihra's comments as read until we get more detail from the PTS, which I'm looking forward to!0 -
alainjbrennanb16_ESO✭✭✭✭✭wow what a way to go Zos i tried to think you where not stupid this will be misused all that will happen is the raid leader after the trail will go to site and then ban peeps from their raids
Main character dk - Vanikifar whitestrike2 -
Thicclady✭✭✭Thing is. Even if you able to "anonymize" youself, your whole trial group is showing in some web log, and it will be just that much more embarassing to have that lowest dps name anonymized, because everyone can put 2 and 2 together who is who. ESO (raiding scene) is such small community compared to WoW (which have this for ages), that not sure how it will play out.Edited by Thicclady on April 15, 2019 8:22PM2
-
LiquidPony✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Thing is. Even if you able to "anonymize" youself, your whole trial group is showing in some web log, and it will be just that much more embarassing to have that lowest dps name anonymized, because everyone can put 2 and 2 together who is who. ESO (raiding scene) is such small community compared to WoW (which have this for ages), that not sure how it will play out.
If you're in a raid group, you shouldn't be afraid of other people seeing your DPS. If your DPS is lower than everyone else ... let's be honest, they already know it.
Raiding is a team activity. I'm not sure why people are trying to hide stuff from their teammates. If you're raiding with people you know, they're going to want to help you. If you're raiding with PUGs, why do you care what they think anyway?
The real solution to the "embarrassment" is to improve as a player, not to hide your weakness. And you improve by being honest about your performance, not hiding it.
The ESO community is really weird in this regard. I've never played another online game where people were so scared of other people seeing their in-game performance. Or maybe it's not the "ESO community" at-large but rather just a specific subset that tends to spend a lot of time on the forums.Edited by LiquidPony on April 15, 2019 8:32PM0 -
alainjbrennanb16_ESO✭✭✭✭✭LiquidPony wrote: »Thing is. Even if you able to "anonymize" youself, your whole trial group is showing in some web log, and it will be just that much more embarassing to have that lowest dps name anonymized, because everyone can put 2 and 2 together who is who. ESO (raiding scene) is such small community compared to WoW (which have this for ages), that not sure how it will play out.
If you're in a raid group, you shouldn't be afraid of other people seeing your DPS. If your DPS is lower than everyone else ... let's be honest, they already know it.
Raiding is a team activity. I'm not sure why people are trying to hide stuff from their teammates. If you're raiding with people you know, they're going to want to help you. If you're raiding with PUGs, why do you care what they think anyway?
The real solution to the "embarrassment" is to improve as a player, not to hide your weakness.
The ESO community is really weird in this regard. I've never played another online game where people were so scared of other people seeing their in-game performance.
i agree with you to a degree, but the embarrassment might come for other reason, i know several in game with colour blindness, poor vision, missing fingers, so when this goes up, they to save face might have to explain something like that which they dont want toMain character dk - Vanikifar whitestrike0 -
idk✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭There is no downside to what I suggest as everyone wins.
Except it doesn't work like that.
Before I begin, please stop talking about this "no damage, just the buffs" nonsense. As stated repeatedly, it's all or nothing. The very idea of partial logging is nonsensical, period, full stop. You either don't log anything. Or you log it all. There can be no middle ground. And this is self-evident to me, and I think it would be self-evident to anyone who has given some thought to the nitty-gritty details of what would have to happen to make it work like that.
If this is the case it is due to poor design. I have used raid logging in a different game and we could solo log our fights when in a raid. It contained information about when buffs started and stopped including those that were provided to the group by other players. We also parsed the group when everyone opted in
My guess is you are correct but that just means the focus on the design was merely on the serous raid groups that would use it and a lack of thought for the rest. It would have not been difficult to do it the right way.1 -
code65536✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭There is no downside to what I suggest as everyone wins.
Except it doesn't work like that.
Before I begin, please stop talking about this "no damage, just the buffs" nonsense. As stated repeatedly, it's all or nothing. The very idea of partial logging is nonsensical, period, full stop. You either don't log anything. Or you log it all. There can be no middle ground. And this is self-evident to me, and I think it would be self-evident to anyone who has given some thought to the nitty-gritty details of what would have to happen to make it work like that.
If this is the case it is due to poor design. I have used raid logging in a different game and we could solo log our fights when in a raid. It contained information about when buffs started and stopped including those that were provided to the group by other players. We also parsed the group when everyone opted in
My guess is you are correct but that just means the focus on the design was merely on the serous raid groups that would use it and a lack of thought for the rest. It would have not been difficult to do it the right way.
I don't understand this obsession with DPS. If all we wanted was to look at our DPS, then CMX does a damn good job of it already, and with immediate results.
The point is to get a holistic picture of a combat encounter. Damage taken, healing received, etc. It seems rather strange and arbitrary to single out damage done and exclude that while not excluding anything else. Are people not concerned about healers getting exposed?
Or tanks? I tank trials, and while nobody judges a tank's DPS, I do get judged--and sometimes to my embarrassment--on my buff uptimes. "Look at that scrub tank. How is his crusher uptime so low?" The way some supports compare their uptimes is really not that different than the way DDs compare their parses, with people posting screenshots bragging about >90% solo Alkosh uptimes, etc.
Leaving aside the rather strange notion that damage done is the only way players are judged, damage done is important in understanding fights. There are fights were we may want to hold DPS at a particular moment, to avoid pushing the boss past a certain mechanic trigger. Or there may be moments where the group DPS needs to spike to push through a particular mechanic. Furthermore, there are mechanics that are directly tied to damage done, e.g., the first boss of VoM. Or the Assembly General when it's crouching.
And even if you could disentangle damage done from everything else, there's still the matter of the enemies dying at a certain rate. If it takes 2 minutes to kill a boss, you could infer from that what the total group DPS is and then from that, make further extrapolations.Nightfighters ― PC/NA and PC/EU
Dungeons and Trials:Personal best scores:- Dragonstar Arena: 46817 (NA)
- Maelstrom Arena: 600526 (NA)
- Blackrose Prison: 99274 (EU) (Unchained)
- Maw of Lorkhaj: 165227 (EU)
- Halls of Fabrication: 220708 (NA) (Tick-Tock Tormentor #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12)
- Asylum Sanctorium: 114957 (NA) (Immortal Redeemer #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10)
- Cloudrest: 131256 (NA) (Gryphon Heart #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7)
- Sunspire: 250866 (EU) (Godslayer #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7)
- Kyne's Aegis: 235841 (EU) (Dawnbringer #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8)
Dungeon trifectas:- Mountain God and Leave No Bone Unbroken
- Apex Predator and Pure Lunacy
- Depths Defier and Relentless Raider
- Defanged the Devourer and Nature's Wrath
- In Defiance of Death and No Rest for the Wicked
- Bane of Thorns and True Genius
- Ardent Bibliophile and Subterranean Smasher
- Battlespire's Best and Bastion Breaker
- Zero Regrets and Land, Air, and Sea Supremacy
- Fist of Tava and Invader's Bane
- Curator's Champion (Valinna) and Temporal Tempest
- Unshakeable Fervor and Lighting the Embers
Extended Journal Add-Ons: Item Set Browser ― Loot Log ― Character Knowledge ― Collectibles Tracker ― RaidificatorOther Add-Ons: Combat Alerts ― Deconstruction Junk Marker ― Purge Tracker ― Asylum Status Panel ― Smart Looter ― Improved Companion Rapport Information2 -
VaranisArano✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭On the PTS, Anonymous is NOT the Default.
If you want to leave feedback on that in the PTS Forum, here's a poll: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/468778/encounter-logger-should-default-be-anonymous-currently-is-not
I highly encourage everyone to give feedback, even (especially!) if you disagree with me.1 -
Sylvermynx✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭VaranisArano wrote: »On the PTS, Anonymous is NOT the Default.
If you want to leave feedback on that in the PTS Forum, here's a poll: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/468778/encounter-logger-should-default-be-anonymous-currently-is-not
I highly encourage everyone to give feedback, even (especially!) if you disagree with me.
I don't disagree with you. And even though I don't have the bw to download the PTS, I'm going to express my opinion in the thread you very kindly linked. Thanks!0 -
Seri✭✭✭✭alainjbrennanb16_ESO wrote: »wow what a way to go Zos i tried to think you where not stupid this will be misused all that will happen is the raid leader after the trail will go to site and then ban peeps from their raids
Dunno about you, but if someone's gonna be a <bleep> about that, it's not really a run I'd want to be in anyway. The good raid leads are going to be the ones that either don't care as long as group performance is good enough, or the expectation of the guild is everyone should try and improve (and so it'll be used as a teaching tool).EP CP160+ Templar, Sorc, NB
DC CP160+ Templar, Sorc, DK1 -
alainjbrennanb16_ESO✭✭✭✭✭alainjbrennanb16_ESO wrote: »wow what a way to go Zos i tried to think you where not stupid this will be misused all that will happen is the raid leader after the trail will go to site and then ban peeps from their raids
Dunno about you, but if someone's gonna be a <bleep> about that, it's not really a run I'd want to be in anyway. The good raid leads are going to be the ones that either don't care as long as group performance is good enough, or the expectation of the guild is everyone should try and improve (and so it'll be used as a teaching tool).
i agree with you on not wanting to be a part of that group, but disagree as using it as a teaching tool, around 50% of the game does 15-20k dps and they will single out and made to feel small, as i pointed out to someone else in here they may have a condition like poor vision or missing finger that makes it hard for them to get high dps etc. This will be used since casual raids or guilds no longer are in eso, but a few of my friends have set up a discord guild with the aim to do this content with no skill, gear or add requirements, within in a week we have done all craglorn trails, to prove the point things like this addition to the game is not need, but this will be used by every guild out there, all i to say is all guilds out there make you use certain add ons, like combat meterics and raid noitifier, so yes they will make peeps use this featureMain character dk - Vanikifar whitestrike1 -
FierceSam✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭Ydrisselle wrote: »Rustyfish101 wrote: »Question:
Took a look at the website and it looks incredibly thought out and detailed which makes me happy and excited but one thing worries me... Is this going to be worldwide or serverwide, or only the logs you've personally saved? I'd feel uncomfortable posting a log without someone's consent if many people will be able to see it. Just because I wanted to know about something that happened during an encounter.
@Kihra perhaps you could shed some light?
Sure, as mentioned by Bobby, you'll be able to check a checkbox in-game that will cause your name to be omitted when logging. This means if someone did upload it to the Web site, it will just show up as Anonymous and have no connection to any specific character.
In addition, the site itself supports just opting out completely and saying you don't want to ever be ranked, etc. This will be possible by either just sending an email to me through the site's contact us link asking for your character to be hidden (if say you accidentally forgot to check the box in-game), or by creating an account, claiming your character, and toggling its visibility to hidden yourself.
I just don't want my name to be omitted, but I also want all my data to be omitted as well!!
Kihra mentioned it in the thread that it's not possible if somebody wants to log the encounter.
Then this is simply unacceptable.
Secretly recording my performance, without telling me or enabling me to deny consent, then uploading it to an external for-profit website not owned by ZOS, which is then free to use the data in any way they wish? How is ZOS even remotely happy with this? What level of contempt must they have for their users if they think behaving like this is acceptable?
To be clear - providing me with more info about my performance is a great idea
But it’s MY performance and any use of that data beyond gameplay should only be done with MY consent.
This is a good idea very badly implemented. Let’s hope it undergoes significant remedial work during PTS phase, or ZOS should pull it.7 -
MisterBigglesworth✭✭✭✭✭
✭Really we do it without like, the musical instruments. This is the only musical: the mouth. And hopefully the brain attached to the mouth. Right? The brain, more important than the mouth, is the brain. The brain is much more important.1 -
Turelus✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭I think if ZOS is going to create tools which log player actions they need to really take the time to read this thread and address the issues and flaws already found in the system.
Whilst I agree most of the end game players (and may who posted here) won't use this to "expose" people, let's not kid ourselves by saying there are not people who would do this, especially with known names within the community.
I am also with others in that the opt out needs to be defaulted on, ZOS themselves have commented how people don't read the news and forums, so they shouldn't be enabling a system which tracks peoples combat performance and can be uploaded to a third party website by default.@Turelus - EU PC Megaserver
"Don't count on others for help. In the end each of us is in this alone. The survivors are those who know how to look out for themselves."7 -
alainjbrennanb16_ESO✭✭✭✭✭I think if ZOS is going to create tools which log player actions they need to really take the time to read this thread and address the issues and flaws already found in the system.
Whilst I agree most of the end game players (and may who posted here) won't use this to "expose" people, let's not kid ourselves by saying there are not people who would do this, especially with known names within the community.
I am also with others in that the opt out needs to be defaulted on, ZOS themselves have commented how people don't read the news and forums, so they shouldn't be enabling a system which tracks peoples combat performance and can be uploaded to a third party website by default.
i would more say an opt in to download itMain character dk - Vanikifar whitestrike1 -
Bluepitbull13✭✭✭✭alainjbrennanb16_ESO wrote: »alainjbrennanb16_ESO wrote: »wow what a way to go Zos i tried to think you where not stupid this will be misused all that will happen is the raid leader after the trail will go to site and then ban peeps from their raids
Dunno about you, but if someone's gonna be a <bleep> about that, it's not really a run I'd want to be in anyway. The good raid leads are going to be the ones that either don't care as long as group performance is good enough, or the expectation of the guild is everyone should try and improve (and so it'll be used as a teaching tool).
i agree with you on not wanting to be a part of that group, but disagree as using it as a teaching tool, around 50% of the game does 15-20k dps and they will single out and made to feel small, as i pointed out to someone else in here they may have a condition like poor vision or missing finger that makes it hard for them to get high dps etc. This will be used since casual raids or guilds no longer are in ESO, but a few of my friends have set up a discord guild with the aim to do this content with no skill, gear or add requirements, within in a week we have done all craglorn trails, to prove the point things like this addition to the game is not need, but this will be used by every guild out there, all i to say is all guilds out there make you use certain add ons, like combat meterics and raid noitifier, so yes they will make peeps use this feature
So you're telling me that the 50% of the players in the game that pulled 15-20k dps couldn't unite in a way to make a "casual gamers" guild as a safe haven to do raids with like minded people?
You stated that your friends setup a discord guild with the aim to do content with no skill, gear, or add requirements is it the potential now that this good people guild will be ridiculing players with this raid tool? If any of the guilds that im in, used this tool to ridicule how i played after years of being with them then in the end I was fooled into thinking they had the same type of attitude in game as i did right? and after getting kicked out of such guild, don't you think that either in zone chat, LF guild forum section, or soon the LF guild tool I could use to find "nicer" people to run with?
I'm a bit confused as to why would a player that pulls 15-20k dps is running around doing trials with toxic players. The only thing I can think of is that this 15-20k dps person infiltrated a group/guild to get trial clears. Is this somehow justifiable? the fear of a 15-20k dps being ridiculed but not the other way around of finding out this person doesn't belong in this guild that bases enrollment on higher than 20k dps?
Why isn't this player raiding with people that wouldn't judge to begin with? I guess if "metal" music starts playing in a church, there's fears that people will turn towards satan?
If toxic players or guild started using this tool to viciously mock and ridicule players in their group, how is it that this player even started to run with these evil gamers to begin with? Edited by Bluepitbull13 on April 16, 2019 9:43AMPC-NA0 -
Wolfkeks✭✭✭✭✭
✭For the people who are interested where you can set encounter log as anonymous.
EU PC 2000+ CP professional mudballer and pie thrower"Sheggorath, you are the Skooma Cat, for what is crazier than a cat on skooma?" - FadomaiFormer Emperor, Grand Overlord, vAA hm, vHelRa hm, vSO hm, vMoL hm, vHoF hm, vAS+2, vCR+3, vSS hm, vKA, vRG, Flawless Conquerer, Spirit Slayer2 -
majulook✭✭✭✭✭
✭So on PTS I made myself a template character, set them to Anonymous found a place that had so bad guys, started the log process, and started fighting stuff for few minutes, and ended the logging process.
I started looking at the log, could not find any identifiable info like my @name or character name This is good anonymous works as it is supposed. I did see my class since the log shows my gear and abilities.
I looking through the log found that it that picked up another player that was in the area. This player was not anonymous and shows a @name and what I believe is character name which if they were not anonymous it should show.
I was not in a group, and it picked him up, which I did not realize was possible as I thought it was a a group only tool. I looked back through the threads and yep, it is stated that logger will pickup anyone around the person using the logging process.
Just be sure if you do not want to have your @name or character name picked up by the logging process set yourself to anonymous.
I will most likely use this or be in a group that wants to use it at some point.
IMHO (and that's all this my opinion) this tool needs to be set to Anonymous by default.
Note:
Almost all of the info in the log is strings of info like the following snippets of my info that was logged, you can see one of the named monster that I fought and the ability they used against me. ALL of the below snippets are of the log prior to the added player :
4055,ABILITY_INFO,46356,"Force Pulse","/esoui/art/icons/ability_destructionstaff_001b.dds",T,T
4055,ABILITY_INFO,117637,"Ricochet Skull","/esoui/art/icons/ability_necromancer_001_b.dds",F,T
4055,ABILITY_INFO,117919,"Hexproof","/esoui/art/icons/ability_necromancer_014_a.dds",F,T
4055,ABILITY_INFO,118623,"Deaden Pain","/esoui/art/icons/ability_necromancer_011_a.dds",F,T
4055,ABILITY_INFO,118008,"Mystic Siphon","/esoui/art/icons/ability_necromancer_005_a.dds",F,T
4055,ABILITY_INFO,122388,"Glacial Colossus","/esoui/art/icons/ability_necromancer_006_a.dds",F,T
4055,ABILITY_INFO,39167,"Storm Pulsar","/esoui/art/icons/ability_destructionstaff_009_b.dds",T,T
4055,ABILITY_INFO,118912,"Spirit Guardian","/esoui/art/icons/ability_necromancer_015_a.dds",F,T
4055,ABILITY_INFO,118279,"Ravenous Goliath","/esoui/art/icons/ability_necromancer_012_b.dds",F,T
[CHEST,149281,T,16,ARMOR_DIVINES,LEGENDARY,440,MAGICKA,T,16,LEGENDARY],
[MAIN_HAND,150029,T,16,WEAPON_PRECISE,LEGENDARY,444,ABSORB_MAGICKA,T,16,LEGENDARY],
5580,COMBAT_EVENT,HOT_TICK,GENERIC,MAGICKA,0,5677,3315959,34836,5533,17150/17150,40102/40102,12389/12389,411/500,0/1000,0,0.6406,0.2403,1.6157,*
6018,UNIT_ADDED,5479,MONSTER,F,0,88412,F,0,0,"Euraxian Knight","",0,50,160,0,HOSTILE,F
6018,ABILITY_INFO,34646,"Lava Whip","/esoui/art/icons/ability_dragonknight_001.dds",F,T
6018,BEGIN_CAST,1800,F,3318063,34646,5479,34501/34501,0/0,0/0,0/0,0/0,0,0.6582,0.2587,0.9362,1,20609/20609,40767/40767,14130/15567,500/500,0/1000,0,0.6575,0.2582,3.4591
6252,COMBAT_EVENT,ABILITY_ON_COOLDOWN,FIRE,INVALID,0,0,4294967295,117637,1,20609/20609,40767/40767,14130/15567,500/500,0/1000,0,0.6575,0.2582,4.0086,*
Si vis pacem, para bellum5 -
alainjbrennanb16_ESO✭✭✭✭✭it will make no difference if you set ur self to Anonymous ur stats still go up and if 11 in the group are set to be seen it does not take a lot to work out or if its healing a there is olny 2 healersMain character dk - Vanikifar whitestrike0
