Encounter Logging

reprosal

hedna123b14_ESO wrote: »

This tool is amazing! We have been using it for 2 days and already it helped us so much to figure out in trial optimization. Kudos to the maker and to ZOS for making this possible!

So which DPS(s) did you kick for being derpy/bad?

karekiz

reprosal wrote: »

So which DPS(s) did you kick for being derpy/bad?

Still find it hilarious in a game where they literally show Kill/ *Your* Deaths in Battlegrounds <Which is Prime timer for hate tells>, people freak out about meters.

We have a log that can send the amount of time "X" player died in a raid/group to the party, the world hasn't fallen apart yet.

reprosal

karekiz wrote: »

reprosal wrote: »

So which DPS(s) did you kick for being derpy/bad?

Still find it hilarious in a game where they literally show Kill/ *Your* Deaths in Battlegrounds <Which is Prime timer for hate tells>, people freak out about meters.

We have a log that can send the amount of time "X" player died in a raid/group to the party, the world hasn't fallen apart yet.

I am being sarcastic dude. I am sort of for this tool.

Mr_Freyr

Can we please get something like this for consoles. It is impossible to know what people are doing in trials. A tool like this would make it alot easier to maximize damage output in trials. Instead of everyone just running what there told is Bis..

hedna123b14_ESO

reprosal wrote: »

hedna123b14_ESO wrote: »

This tool is amazing! We have been using it for 2 days and already it helped us so much to figure out in trial optimization. Kudos to the maker and to ZOS for making this possible!

So which DPS(s) did you kick for being derpy/bad?

Haha, I kicked me:) seriously we fixed so many raid issues with it, our team roster hasnt changed, but dps is much better.

thedude33

I checked all over, can't find the link to the site.

Ogou

thedude33 wrote: »

I checked all over, can't find the link to the site.

https://www.esologs.com

You're talking about this?

Suddwrath

I would just like to say this feature has been immensely beneficial to the trials community.

scholar666

I recently joined a discord dedicated to veteran sunspire farming, where you have to submit proof of prior clear. They track everyone’s DPS via logs and will kick or ban people from the server if they don’t pull 45k dps minimum on the bosses. So yes logs can be used for that as well.I am neutral about all this, dont think its good or bad, but dont know how this is beneficial for people trying to farm gear but cant pull exactly 45k due to lag issues. Isnt the very definition of game related elitism? Personally, logs have helped me improve my dps. Cant deny that. But then you have people kicking and banning others for low dps.

VaranisArano

scholar666 wrote: »

I recently joined a discord dedicated to veteran sunspire farming, where you have to submit proof of prior clear. They track everyone’s DPS via logs and will kick or ban people from the server if they don’t pull 45k dps minimum on the bosses. So yes logs can be used for that as well.I am neutral about all this, dont think its good or bad, but dont know how this is beneficial for people trying to farm gear but cant pull exactly 45k due to lag issues. Isnt the very definition of game related elitism? Personally, logs have helped me improve my dps. Cant deny that. But then you have people kicking and banning others for low dps.

Guilds and groups can set their own rules. If you want to run with them, you agree to their rules. Some guilds/groups may have higher requirements than others.

As for whether its beneficial for everyone...there are more options for those people, right? This discord doesn't have a monopoly on vSunspire farming. And if 45k DPS isn't absolutely required from everyone to complete vSunspire, those people should be able to find other groups or guilds who will accept them with whatever their DPS is.

So the way I see it, everyone using this discord agreed upfront to share logs and get kicked if they can't make the known requirement. That might be elitist, but it isn't toxic (hopefully) since everyone agreed to it. Everyone who can't does have other options to farm gear, so its not harming (hopefully) anyone who can't make the required 45k DPS.

Now, a lot of toxicity is in how you do it. If the discord is pretty sensible about it, saying "Hey, you agreed to this requirement, you aren't making it, so you're out." that seems reasonable to me. But its also possible to get toxic with that, and not being on that discord, I can't judge how well they are handling it.

ManwithBeard9

scholar666 wrote: »

I recently joined a discord dedicated to veteran sunspire farming, where you have to submit proof of prior clear. They track everyone’s DPS via logs and will kick or ban people from the server if they don’t pull 45k dps minimum on the bosses. So yes logs can be used for that as well.I am neutral about all this, dont think its good or bad, but dont know how this is beneficial for people trying to farm gear but cant pull exactly 45k due to lag issues. Isnt the very definition of game related elitism? Personally, logs have helped me improve my dps. Cant deny that. But then you have people kicking and banning others for low dps.

You CHOSE to join a discord for farming endgame content. You CHOSE to participate in their requirements. This isn't someone LFG in zone chat yelling at you for "low" dps in a normal trial. This isn't someone voting to kick from a group because you aren't max cp. Choosing to join a private group for specific content is a hell of a lot different than shaming someone for their cp or non-BiS gear.

blnchk

This tool is informative. It's useful. It's also a travesty that there's (still!) no true opt-out. Because ending up on a random third party site, even "anonymously", should not happen without explicit consent. This is not something an AAA game should be facilitating.

Destruent

blnchk wrote: »

This tool is informative. It's useful. It's also a travesty that there's (still!) no true opt-out. Because ending up on a random third party site, even "anonymously", should not happen without explicit consent. This is not something an AAA game should be facilitating.

As already explained in this thread...it's mathematically impossible to hide someone in 100% of the time if he wants that.

blnchk

Destruent wrote: »

blnchk wrote: »

This tool is informative. It's useful. It's also a travesty that there's (still!) no true opt-out. Because ending up on a random third party site, even "anonymously", should not happen without explicit consent. This is not something an AAA game should be facilitating.

As already explained in this thread...it's mathematically impossible to hide someone in 100% of the time if he wants that.

This is not about what the website can or cannot do. This is about how the tool itself should've been coded by ZOS from the start. Are you trying to tell me they had no other way of doing this? That it's either halfhearted sloppiness or nothing? That they had no choice but to rely on some third party site? Please.

Destruent

blnchk wrote: »

Destruent wrote: »

blnchk wrote: »

This tool is informative. It's useful. It's also a travesty that there's (still!) no true opt-out. Because ending up on a random third party site, even "anonymously", should not happen without explicit consent. This is not something an AAA game should be facilitating.

As already explained in this thread...it's mathematically impossible to hide someone in 100% of the time if he wants that.

This is not about what the website can or cannot do. This is about how the tool itself should've been coded by ZOS from the start. Are you trying to tell me they had no other way of doing this? That it's either halfhearted sloppiness or nothing? That they had no choice but to rely on some third party site? Please.

You will all the time know for example Group-DPS, all buffs casted on group and so on. IF one wants to be anonymous he can choose to....but everything (damage done, healing done, deaths etc) which can't be assigned of those players who are not anonymous belongs to the anonymous one. This is just simple math/logic and has nothing to do with ZOS, coding, or any 3rd-party site.
What you can do, is summarize everything related to all anonymous players altogether so it gets more complicated/impossible to sort such things out. But it still doesn't solve the problem, if there is only one.

VaranisArano

blnchk wrote: »

Destruent wrote: »

blnchk wrote: »

This tool is informative. It's useful. It's also a travesty that there's (still!) no true opt-out. Because ending up on a random third party site, even "anonymously", should not happen without explicit consent. This is not something an AAA game should be facilitating.

As already explained in this thread...it's mathematically impossible to hide someone in 100% of the time if he wants that.

This is not about what the website can or cannot do. This is about how the tool itself should've been coded by ZOS from the start. Are you trying to tell me they had no other way of doing this? That it's either halfhearted sloppiness or nothing? That they had no choice but to rely on some third party site? Please.

Its been explained by the tool's developer that the tool cannot work with partial data. Its all or nothing.

So while ZOS could turn off Encounter Logging unless everyone consents, that seriously limits the use of the tool to premade groups, effectively.

ZOS was not willing to limit the functionality of Encounter Logging. So you are anonymous by default, but you can't opt out.

blnchk

Destruent wrote: »

blnchk wrote: »

Destruent wrote: »

blnchk wrote: »

This tool is informative. It's useful. It's also a travesty that there's (still!) no true opt-out. Because ending up on a random third party site, even "anonymously", should not happen without explicit consent. This is not something an AAA game should be facilitating.

As already explained in this thread...it's mathematically impossible to hide someone in 100% of the time if he wants that.

This is not about what the website can or cannot do. This is about how the tool itself should've been coded by ZOS from the start. Are you trying to tell me they had no other way of doing this? That it's either halfhearted sloppiness or nothing? That they had no choice but to rely on some third party site? Please.

You will all the time know for example Group-DPS, all buffs casted on group and so on. IF one wants to be anonymous he can choose to....but everything (damage done, healing done, deaths etc) which can't be assigned of those players who are not anonymous belongs to the anonymous one. This is just simple math/logic and has nothing to do with ZOS, coding, or any 3rd-party site.
What you can do, is summarize everything related to all anonymous players altogether so it gets more complicated/impossible to sort such things out. But it still doesn't solve the problem, if there is only one.

And that last part of your comment would already be preferable to what is implemented now. Which begs the question: Why not do it this way?

VaranisArano wrote: »

blnchk wrote: »

Destruent wrote: »

blnchk wrote: »

This tool is informative. It's useful. It's also a travesty that there's (still!) no true opt-out. Because ending up on a random third party site, even "anonymously", should not happen without explicit consent. This is not something an AAA game should be facilitating.

As already explained in this thread...it's mathematically impossible to hide someone in 100% of the time if he wants that.

This is not about what the website can or cannot do. This is about how the tool itself should've been coded by ZOS from the start. Are you trying to tell me they had no other way of doing this? That it's either halfhearted sloppiness or nothing? That they had no choice but to rely on some third party site? Please.

Its been explained by the tool's developer that the tool cannot work with partial data. Its all or nothing.

So while ZOS could turn off Encounter Logging unless everyone consents, that seriously limits the use of the tool to premade groups, effectively.

ZOS was not willing to limit the functionality of Encounter Logging. So you are anonymous by default, but you can't opt out.

I'm aware of the website's owner stating this. I'm not aware of ZOS claiming the same regarding their own level of development.

Again, the tool has its place, but it's ZOS who should have made sure it was implemented with more care. It feels like they didn't see beyond their own nose.

And how would turning off Encounter Logging without every member's consent limit its use to organised groups? They can organise sufficiently well to run content, but not enough to enable a helpful function?

VaranisArano

blnchk wrote: »

Destruent wrote: »

blnchk wrote: »

Destruent wrote: »

blnchk wrote: »

This tool is informative. It's useful. It's also a travesty that there's (still!) no true opt-out. Because ending up on a random third party site, even "anonymously", should not happen without explicit consent. This is not something an AAA game should be facilitating.

As already explained in this thread...it's mathematically impossible to hide someone in 100% of the time if he wants that.

This is not about what the website can or cannot do. This is about how the tool itself should've been coded by ZOS from the start. Are you trying to tell me they had no other way of doing this? That it's either halfhearted sloppiness or nothing? That they had no choice but to rely on some third party site? Please.

You will all the time know for example Group-DPS, all buffs casted on group and so on. IF one wants to be anonymous he can choose to....but everything (damage done, healing done, deaths etc) which can't be assigned of those players who are not anonymous belongs to the anonymous one. This is just simple math/logic and has nothing to do with ZOS, coding, or any 3rd-party site.
What you can do, is summarize everything related to all anonymous players altogether so it gets more complicated/impossible to sort such things out. But it still doesn't solve the problem, if there is only one.

And that last part of your comment would already be preferable to what is implemented now. Which begs the question: Why not do it this way?

VaranisArano wrote: »

blnchk wrote: »

Destruent wrote: »

blnchk wrote: »

This tool is informative. It's useful. It's also a travesty that there's (still!) no true opt-out. Because ending up on a random third party site, even "anonymously", should not happen without explicit consent. This is not something an AAA game should be facilitating.

As already explained in this thread...it's mathematically impossible to hide someone in 100% of the time if he wants that.

This is not about what the website can or cannot do. This is about how the tool itself should've been coded by ZOS from the start. Are you trying to tell me they had no other way of doing this? That it's either halfhearted sloppiness or nothing? That they had no choice but to rely on some third party site? Please.

Its been explained by the tool's developer that the tool cannot work with partial data. Its all or nothing.

So while ZOS could turn off Encounter Logging unless everyone consents, that seriously limits the use of the tool to premade groups, effectively.

ZOS was not willing to limit the functionality of Encounter Logging. So you are anonymous by default, but you can't opt out.

I'm aware of the website's owner stating this. I'm not aware of ZOS claiming the same regarding their own level of development.

Again, the tool has its place, but it's ZOS who should have made sure it was implemented with more care. It feels like they didn't see beyond their own nose.

And how would turning off Encounter Logging without every member's consent limit its use to organised groups? They can organise sufficiently well to run content, but not enough to enable a helpful function?

That has already been discussed earlier this thread, but since there's 21 pages at this point, I'll go through it again.

Its probably not that ZOS didn't think about an opt out. Its that having an opt out severely limited how useful the tool is for players wanting to analyze their combat data in a variety of content, and ZOS designed it to be used in a variety of PVE content.

1. Encounter Logging and ESO Logs are functionally the same thing. Encounter Logging is the in-game function that records everything into a basically unreadable file. ESO Logs is the website function that turns that uploaded log into a readable set of information.

You really can't separate the two. ZOS made it clear in the very first post that they intentionally designed Encounter Logging to be used through ESO Logs precisely because its not a real-time combat analysis. You are required to use ESO Logs to get something useful out of the logging data. (At least until someone on PC designs more addons.) Eitherr way, ZOS didn't design anything that interprets the data. ZOS just did the Encounter Logging portion - the part that logs all the data required for ESO Logs.

So if ZOS restricts some of the data, say, takes out all the data of one anonymous player, ESO Logs doesn't function correctly. ESO Logs is "All or Nothing" when it comes to data analysis.

Logically, if ZOS gives players a veto right, where none of their data will be logged at all, obviously there's going to be a lot more encounters that someone would like to log, but they'll get the "Nothing" because someone in the group doesn't want to.

And that's a big loss of functionality for the tool.

2. Which is a problem, because ZOS ALSO made it clear by developing it this way that they want Encounter Logging to be available for all types of PVE content: overland, World Boss fights, dolmens, dragon hunts, solo dummy parses, PUG dungeons, trial groups, etc. Everything you can do in PVE, ZOS wants you to be able to log.

If you give players a veto right...obviously you will be able to record and log much less overland content. Most likely, you won't be able to record and log most PUG content.

The only guarannteed way to be able to record and log your own combat data would be to make a premade group where everything agrees to it.

And that's a big loss of functionality for the tool.



So I'd argue that while some players desire an opt-out, ZOS made the decision that Encounter Logging ought to be widely available for players to record and log their combat data in a variety of PVE content. The alternative was to make the tool functionally useless in any content where anyone within recording range could "veto" the log, which severely limits its use. Practically speaking, the only content you could guarantee that you could use the Enncounter Logging data to evaluate your own combat data would be solo logs or a premade group where everyone agree to the log. ZOS obviously decided that loss of functionality wasn't acceptable.

Now, players who prioritize privacy over the usefulness of the tool for a variety of PVE content may disagree with ZOS' decision, but I hope you see the logic in why ZOS decided what they did.

blnchk

VaranisArano wrote: »

blnchk wrote: »

Destruent wrote: »

blnchk wrote: »

Destruent wrote: »

blnchk wrote: »

This tool is informative. It's useful. It's also a travesty that there's (still!) no true opt-out. Because ending up on a random third party site, even "anonymously", should not happen without explicit consent. This is not something an AAA game should be facilitating.

As already explained in this thread...it's mathematically impossible to hide someone in 100% of the time if he wants that.

This is not about what the website can or cannot do. This is about how the tool itself should've been coded by ZOS from the start. Are you trying to tell me they had no other way of doing this? That it's either halfhearted sloppiness or nothing? That they had no choice but to rely on some third party site? Please.

You will all the time know for example Group-DPS, all buffs casted on group and so on. IF one wants to be anonymous he can choose to....but everything (damage done, healing done, deaths etc) which can't be assigned of those players who are not anonymous belongs to the anonymous one. This is just simple math/logic and has nothing to do with ZOS, coding, or any 3rd-party site.
What you can do, is summarize everything related to all anonymous players altogether so it gets more complicated/impossible to sort such things out. But it still doesn't solve the problem, if there is only one.

And that last part of your comment would already be preferable to what is implemented now. Which begs the question: Why not do it this way?

VaranisArano wrote: »

blnchk wrote: »

Destruent wrote: »

blnchk wrote: »

This tool is informative. It's useful. It's also a travesty that there's (still!) no true opt-out. Because ending up on a random third party site, even "anonymously", should not happen without explicit consent. This is not something an AAA game should be facilitating.

As already explained in this thread...it's mathematically impossible to hide someone in 100% of the time if he wants that.

This is not about what the website can or cannot do. This is about how the tool itself should've been coded by ZOS from the start. Are you trying to tell me they had no other way of doing this? That it's either halfhearted sloppiness or nothing? That they had no choice but to rely on some third party site? Please.

Its been explained by the tool's developer that the tool cannot work with partial data. Its all or nothing.

So while ZOS could turn off Encounter Logging unless everyone consents, that seriously limits the use of the tool to premade groups, effectively.

ZOS was not willing to limit the functionality of Encounter Logging. So you are anonymous by default, but you can't opt out.

I'm aware of the website's owner stating this. I'm not aware of ZOS claiming the same regarding their own level of development.

Again, the tool has its place, but it's ZOS who should have made sure it was implemented with more care. It feels like they didn't see beyond their own nose.

And how would turning off Encounter Logging without every member's consent limit its use to organised groups? They can organise sufficiently well to run content, but not enough to enable a helpful function?

That has already been discussed earlier this thread, but since there's 21 pages at this point, I'll go through it again.

Then why repeat it? You're disregarding my points in order to warm up old information. As stated above, I'm aware of the general arguments made here so far. Again:

Eitherr way, ZOS didn't design anything that interprets the data.

They should have. Right now it looks like they didn't do this so that they can wash their hands of any privacy concerns. Sloppy.

So I'd argue that while some players desire an opt-out, ZOS made the decision that Encounter Logging ought to be widely available for players to record and log their combat data in a variety of PVE content. The alternative was to make the tool functionally useless in any content where anyone within recording range could "veto" the log, which severely limits its use. Practically speaking, the only content you could guarantee that you could use the Enncounter Logging data to evaluate your own combat data would be solo logs or a premade group where everyone agree to the log. ZOS obviously decided that loss of functionality wasn't acceptable.

Above, Destruent suggested a compromise. The point is that ZOS could have easily done this, and didn't. They hadn't even set people to "anonymous" by default when they first released the functionality on the PTS. That's blatant disregard of the very idea that people might prefer their privacy over traceable information being uploaded to a third party site. To me, that's mind-boggling.

Now, players who prioritize privacy over the usefulness of the tool for a variety of PVE content may disagree with ZOS' decision, but I hope you see the logic in why ZOS decided what they did.

I still haven't read anything informative about why the tool logs encounters the way it does. It even has a chance to log people who aren't grouped with you but are doing overland content in your vicinity. Everything about this screams sloppy coding. I'm astonished that ZOS are being defended over this. No one's trying to take away this new toy. What I'm saying is that they should have done a better job.

Destruent

blnchk wrote: »

Above, Destruent suggested a compromise. The point is that ZOS could have easily done this, and didn't. They hadn't even set people to "anonymous" by default when they first released the functionality on the PTS. That's blatant disregard of the very idea that people might prefer their privacy over traceable information being uploaded to a third party site. To me, that's mind-boggling.

Although i suggested it, i have no idea if that is technically possible.

On top of that, pls stop with anything related to "privacy concerns". This is not personal data at all...
There is only one personal data related to eso, and that's your account information with your RL-name and so on. And that is hidden to everyone but ZOS.

blnchk

Destruent wrote: »

blnchk wrote: »

Above, Destruent suggested a compromise. The point is that ZOS could have easily done this, and didn't. They hadn't even set people to "anonymous" by default when they first released the functionality on the PTS. That's blatant disregard of the very idea that people might prefer their privacy over traceable information being uploaded to a third party site. To me, that's mind-boggling.

Although i suggested it, i have no idea if that is technically possible.

On top of that, pls stop with anything related to "privacy concerns". This is not personal data at all...
There is only one personal data related to eso, and that's your account information with your RL-name and so on. And that is hidden to everyone but ZOS.

As it stands, I do not even trust ZOS to have explored possibilities such as this. Which is a shame, and part of my point.

I have no privacy concerns in a legal sense, and never claimed anything of the sort. Privacy goes beyond that; people have a right to feel uncomfortable about all this. It would have been on ZOS to show some good will here.

VaranisArano

blnchk wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

blnchk wrote: »

Destruent wrote: »

blnchk wrote: »

Destruent wrote: »

blnchk wrote: »

This tool is informative. It's useful. It's also a travesty that there's (still!) no true opt-out. Because ending up on a random third party site, even "anonymously", should not happen without explicit consent. This is not something an AAA game should be facilitating.

As already explained in this thread...it's mathematically impossible to hide someone in 100% of the time if he wants that.

This is not about what the website can or cannot do. This is about how the tool itself should've been coded by ZOS from the start. Are you trying to tell me they had no other way of doing this? That it's either halfhearted sloppiness or nothing? That they had no choice but to rely on some third party site? Please.

You will all the time know for example Group-DPS, all buffs casted on group and so on. IF one wants to be anonymous he can choose to....but everything (damage done, healing done, deaths etc) which can't be assigned of those players who are not anonymous belongs to the anonymous one. This is just simple math/logic and has nothing to do with ZOS, coding, or any 3rd-party site.
What you can do, is summarize everything related to all anonymous players altogether so it gets more complicated/impossible to sort such things out. But it still doesn't solve the problem, if there is only one.

And that last part of your comment would already be preferable to what is implemented now. Which begs the question: Why not do it this way?

VaranisArano wrote: »

blnchk wrote: »

Destruent wrote: »

blnchk wrote: »

This tool is informative. It's useful. It's also a travesty that there's (still!) no true opt-out. Because ending up on a random third party site, even "anonymously", should not happen without explicit consent. This is not something an AAA game should be facilitating.

As already explained in this thread...it's mathematically impossible to hide someone in 100% of the time if he wants that.

This is not about what the website can or cannot do. This is about how the tool itself should've been coded by ZOS from the start. Are you trying to tell me they had no other way of doing this? That it's either halfhearted sloppiness or nothing? That they had no choice but to rely on some third party site? Please.

Its been explained by the tool's developer that the tool cannot work with partial data. Its all or nothing.

So while ZOS could turn off Encounter Logging unless everyone consents, that seriously limits the use of the tool to premade groups, effectively.

ZOS was not willing to limit the functionality of Encounter Logging. So you are anonymous by default, but you can't opt out.

I'm aware of the website's owner stating this. I'm not aware of ZOS claiming the same regarding their own level of development.

Again, the tool has its place, but it's ZOS who should have made sure it was implemented with more care. It feels like they didn't see beyond their own nose.

And how would turning off Encounter Logging without every member's consent limit its use to organised groups? They can organise sufficiently well to run content, but not enough to enable a helpful function?

That has already been discussed earlier this thread, but since there's 21 pages at this point, I'll go through it again.

Then why repeat it? You're disregarding my points in order to warm up old information. As stated above, I'm aware of the general arguments made here so far. Again:

Eitherr way, ZOS didn't design anything that interprets the data.

They should have. Right now it looks like they didn't do this so that they can wash their hands of any privacy concerns. Sloppy.

So I'd argue that while some players desire an opt-out, ZOS made the decision that Encounter Logging ought to be widely available for players to record and log their combat data in a variety of PVE content. The alternative was to make the tool functionally useless in any content where anyone within recording range could "veto" the log, which severely limits its use. Practically speaking, the only content you could guarantee that you could use the Enncounter Logging data to evaluate your own combat data would be solo logs or a premade group where everyone agree to the log. ZOS obviously decided that loss of functionality wasn't acceptable.

Above, Destruent suggested a compromise. The point is that ZOS could have easily done this, and didn't. They hadn't even set people to "anonymous" by default when they first released the functionality on the PTS. That's blatant disregard of the very idea that people might prefer their privacy over traceable information being uploaded to a third party site. To me, that's mind-boggling.

Now, players who prioritize privacy over the usefulness of the tool for a variety of PVE content may disagree with ZOS' decision, but I hope you see the logic in why ZOS decided what they did.

I still haven't read anything informative about why the tool logs encounters the way it does. It even has a chance to log people who aren't grouped with you but are doing overland content in your vicinity. Everything about this screams sloppy coding. I'm astonished that ZOS are being defended over this. No one's trying to take away this new toy. What I'm saying is that they should have done a better job.

It's works the way it does because ZOS wants it to be useful for players trying to analyze their combat data in all types of PVE content including overland. That's how ZOS designed it to record and log data.

You seem to want ZOS to have designed it differently. Along with some other folks who made that same argument during PTS.

Unfortunately for your ideas, its Live now and they aren't likely to redesign a tool that's working as they intended.

I figure its a done deal at this point.

blnchk

VaranisArano wrote: »

blnchk wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

blnchk wrote: »

Destruent wrote: »

blnchk wrote: »

Destruent wrote: »

blnchk wrote: »

This tool is informative. It's useful. It's also a travesty that there's (still!) no true opt-out. Because ending up on a random third party site, even "anonymously", should not happen without explicit consent. This is not something an AAA game should be facilitating.

As already explained in this thread...it's mathematically impossible to hide someone in 100% of the time if he wants that.

This is not about what the website can or cannot do. This is about how the tool itself should've been coded by ZOS from the start. Are you trying to tell me they had no other way of doing this? That it's either halfhearted sloppiness or nothing? That they had no choice but to rely on some third party site? Please.

You will all the time know for example Group-DPS, all buffs casted on group and so on. IF one wants to be anonymous he can choose to....but everything (damage done, healing done, deaths etc) which can't be assigned of those players who are not anonymous belongs to the anonymous one. This is just simple math/logic and has nothing to do with ZOS, coding, or any 3rd-party site.
What you can do, is summarize everything related to all anonymous players altogether so it gets more complicated/impossible to sort such things out. But it still doesn't solve the problem, if there is only one.

And that last part of your comment would already be preferable to what is implemented now. Which begs the question: Why not do it this way?

VaranisArano wrote: »

blnchk wrote: »

Destruent wrote: »

blnchk wrote: »

This tool is informative. It's useful. It's also a travesty that there's (still!) no true opt-out. Because ending up on a random third party site, even "anonymously", should not happen without explicit consent. This is not something an AAA game should be facilitating.

As already explained in this thread...it's mathematically impossible to hide someone in 100% of the time if he wants that.

This is not about what the website can or cannot do. This is about how the tool itself should've been coded by ZOS from the start. Are you trying to tell me they had no other way of doing this? That it's either halfhearted sloppiness or nothing? That they had no choice but to rely on some third party site? Please.

Its been explained by the tool's developer that the tool cannot work with partial data. Its all or nothing.

So while ZOS could turn off Encounter Logging unless everyone consents, that seriously limits the use of the tool to premade groups, effectively.

ZOS was not willing to limit the functionality of Encounter Logging. So you are anonymous by default, but you can't opt out.

I'm aware of the website's owner stating this. I'm not aware of ZOS claiming the same regarding their own level of development.

Again, the tool has its place, but it's ZOS who should have made sure it was implemented with more care. It feels like they didn't see beyond their own nose.

And how would turning off Encounter Logging without every member's consent limit its use to organised groups? They can organise sufficiently well to run content, but not enough to enable a helpful function?

That has already been discussed earlier this thread, but since there's 21 pages at this point, I'll go through it again.

Then why repeat it? You're disregarding my points in order to warm up old information. As stated above, I'm aware of the general arguments made here so far. Again:

Eitherr way, ZOS didn't design anything that interprets the data.

They should have. Right now it looks like they didn't do this so that they can wash their hands of any privacy concerns. Sloppy.

So I'd argue that while some players desire an opt-out, ZOS made the decision that Encounter Logging ought to be widely available for players to record and log their combat data in a variety of PVE content. The alternative was to make the tool functionally useless in any content where anyone within recording range could "veto" the log, which severely limits its use. Practically speaking, the only content you could guarantee that you could use the Enncounter Logging data to evaluate your own combat data would be solo logs or a premade group where everyone agree to the log. ZOS obviously decided that loss of functionality wasn't acceptable.

Above, Destruent suggested a compromise. The point is that ZOS could have easily done this, and didn't. They hadn't even set people to "anonymous" by default when they first released the functionality on the PTS. That's blatant disregard of the very idea that people might prefer their privacy over traceable information being uploaded to a third party site. To me, that's mind-boggling.

Now, players who prioritize privacy over the usefulness of the tool for a variety of PVE content may disagree with ZOS' decision, but I hope you see the logic in why ZOS decided what they did.

I still haven't read anything informative about why the tool logs encounters the way it does. It even has a chance to log people who aren't grouped with you but are doing overland content in your vicinity. Everything about this screams sloppy coding. I'm astonished that ZOS are being defended over this. No one's trying to take away this new toy. What I'm saying is that they should have done a better job.

It's works the way it does because ZOS wants it to be useful for players trying to analyze their combat data in all types of PVE content including overland. That's how ZOS designed it to record and log data.

You seem to want ZOS to have designed it differently. Along with some other folks who made that same argument during PTS.

Unfortunately for your ideas, its Live now and they aren't likely to redesign a tool that's working as they intended.

I figure its a done deal at this point.

Precisely. And agreed; I don't expect any sort of revision. They still deserve flack. At least for as long as this thread is still up.

alainjbrennanb16_ESO

Destruent wrote: »

blnchk wrote: »

Above, Destruent suggested a compromise. The point is that ZOS could have easily done this, and didn't. They hadn't even set people to "anonymous" by default when they first released the functionality on the PTS. That's blatant disregard of the very idea that people might prefer their privacy over traceable information being uploaded to a third party site. To me, that's mind-boggling.

Although i suggested it, i have no idea if that is technically possible.

On top of that, pls stop with anything related to "privacy concerns". This is not personal data at all...
There is only one personal data related to eso, and that's your account information with your RL-name and so on. And that is hidden to everyone but ZOS.

actual it is personal data, personal data is not just down to rl name its down to other factors within a given prematur, Processing, in relation to information, means an operation or set of operations which is performed on information, or on sets of information, such as collection, recording, organisation, structuring or storage, to not the rl name but a gamer tag, from this it can be back traced to a rl name, thus under the new eu law it becomes personal data, this app is disclosure by transmission, dissemination or otherwise making available, thus this app revolves around a Filing system means any structured set of personal data which is held by automated means or manually and whether centralised, decentralised or dispersed on a functional or geographical basis, this is only part of it ZOS is like EA etc they think if they don't do it them self's or call it something else, its not breaking the law, this data is being used to discriminate and thus is against the law, even if you put ur self to not showing ur gamer tag, it can be worked out within mins who it is

Destruent

alainjbrennanb16_ESO wrote: »

Destruent wrote: »

blnchk wrote: »

Above, Destruent suggested a compromise. The point is that ZOS could have easily done this, and didn't. They hadn't even set people to "anonymous" by default when they first released the functionality on the PTS. That's blatant disregard of the very idea that people might prefer their privacy over traceable information being uploaded to a third party site. To me, that's mind-boggling.

Although i suggested it, i have no idea if that is technically possible.

On top of that, pls stop with anything related to "privacy concerns". This is not personal data at all...
There is only one personal data related to eso, and that's your account information with your RL-name and so on. And that is hidden to everyone but ZOS.

actual it is personal data, personal data is not just down to rl name its down to other factors within a given prematur, Processing, in relation to information, means an operation or set of operations which is performed on information, or on sets of information, such as collection, recording, organisation, structuring or storage, to not the rl name but a gamer tag, from this it can be back traced to a rl name, thus under the new eu law it becomes personal data, this app is disclosure by transmission, dissemination or otherwise making available, thus this app revolves around a Filing system means any structured set of personal data which is held by automated means or manually and whether centralised, decentralised or dispersed on a functional or geographical basis, this is only part of it ZOS is like EA etc they think if they don't do it them self's or call it something else, its not breaking the law, this data is being used to discriminate and thus is against the law, even if you put ur self to not showing ur gamer tag, it can be worked out within mins who it is

This data doesn't even belong to you. How can it be your personal data in any way?

alainjbrennanb16_ESO

Destruent wrote: »

alainjbrennanb16_ESO wrote: »

Destruent wrote: »

blnchk wrote: »

Above, Destruent suggested a compromise. The point is that ZOS could have easily done this, and didn't. They hadn't even set people to "anonymous" by default when they first released the functionality on the PTS. That's blatant disregard of the very idea that people might prefer their privacy over traceable information being uploaded to a third party site. To me, that's mind-boggling.

Although i suggested it, i have no idea if that is technically possible.

On top of that, pls stop with anything related to "privacy concerns". This is not personal data at all...
There is only one personal data related to eso, and that's your account information with your RL-name and so on. And that is hidden to everyone but ZOS.

actual it is personal data, personal data is not just down to rl name its down to other factors within a given prematur, Processing, in relation to information, means an operation or set of operations which is performed on information, or on sets of information, such as collection, recording, organisation, structuring or storage, to not the rl name but a gamer tag, from this it can be back traced to a rl name, thus under the new eu law it becomes personal data, this app is disclosure by transmission, dissemination or otherwise making available, thus this app revolves around a Filing system means any structured set of personal data which is held by automated means or manually and whether centralised, decentralised or dispersed on a functional or geographical basis, this is only part of it ZOS is like EA etc they think if they don't do it them self's or call it something else, its not breaking the law, this data is being used to discriminate and thus is against the law, even if you put ur self to not showing ur gamer tag, it can be worked out within mins who it is

This data doesn't even belong to you. How can it be your personal data in any way?

actual it does, it tracks your online so if i knew you in real life or knew ur real name and gamer tag (It is an offence for a person knowingly or recklessly to re-identify information that is de-identified personal data without the consent of the controller responsible for de-identifying the personal data) i used this log to check on you and stated you where doing things wrong in my view not urs i have re-identified the information and it makes no difference if done in private or public, thats how zos gets around it, its not them doing it but you, thus,....

VaranisArano

alainjbrennanb16_ESO wrote: »

Destruent wrote: »

blnchk wrote: »

Above, Destruent suggested a compromise. The point is that ZOS could have easily done this, and didn't. They hadn't even set people to "anonymous" by default when they first released the functionality on the PTS. That's blatant disregard of the very idea that people might prefer their privacy over traceable information being uploaded to a third party site. To me, that's mind-boggling.

Although i suggested it, i have no idea if that is technically possible.

On top of that, pls stop with anything related to "privacy concerns". This is not personal data at all...
There is only one personal data related to eso, and that's your account information with your RL-name and so on. And that is hidden to everyone but ZOS.

actual it is personal data, personal data is not just down to rl name its down to other factors within a given prematur, Processing, in relation to information, means an operation or set of operations which is performed on information, or on sets of information, such as collection, recording, organisation, structuring or storage, to not the rl name but a gamer tag, from this it can be back traced to a rl name, thus under the new eu law it becomes personal data, this app is disclosure by transmission, dissemination or otherwise making available, thus this app revolves around a Filing system means any structured set of personal data which is held by automated means or manually and whether centralised, decentralised or dispersed on a functional or geographical basis, this is only part of it ZOS is like EA etc they think if they don't do it them self's or call it something else, its not breaking the law, this data is being used to discriminate and thus is against the law, even if you put ur self to not showing ur gamer tag, it can be worked out within mins who it is

Encounter Logging is on PC, where we have add-ons that if everyone shares their own data with the group, the exact same thing is true. Your group can easily work out your data from the collective group data.

So in the hypothetical case of you being the sole anonymous person in a logged group...
A. You've got exactly the same privacy as you had with the addons already widely available on PC
B. Your information will still be anonymous on the website and not available for any of the tracking or searching functions.

Destruent

alainjbrennanb16_ESO wrote: »

Destruent wrote: »

alainjbrennanb16_ESO wrote: »

Destruent wrote: »

blnchk wrote: »

Above, Destruent suggested a compromise. The point is that ZOS could have easily done this, and didn't. They hadn't even set people to "anonymous" by default when they first released the functionality on the PTS. That's blatant disregard of the very idea that people might prefer their privacy over traceable information being uploaded to a third party site. To me, that's mind-boggling.

Although i suggested it, i have no idea if that is technically possible.

On top of that, pls stop with anything related to "privacy concerns". This is not personal data at all...
There is only one personal data related to eso, and that's your account information with your RL-name and so on. And that is hidden to everyone but ZOS.

actual it is personal data, personal data is not just down to rl name its down to other factors within a given prematur, Processing, in relation to information, means an operation or set of operations which is performed on information, or on sets of information, such as collection, recording, organisation, structuring or storage, to not the rl name but a gamer tag, from this it can be back traced to a rl name, thus under the new eu law it becomes personal data, this app is disclosure by transmission, dissemination or otherwise making available, thus this app revolves around a Filing system means any structured set of personal data which is held by automated means or manually and whether centralised, decentralised or dispersed on a functional or geographical basis, this is only part of it ZOS is like EA etc they think if they don't do it them self's or call it something else, its not breaking the law, this data is being used to discriminate and thus is against the law, even if you put ur self to not showing ur gamer tag, it can be worked out within mins who it is

This data doesn't even belong to you. How can it be your personal data in any way?

actual it does, it tracks your online so if i knew you in real life or knew ur real name and gamer tag (It is an offence for a person knowingly or recklessly to re-identify information that is de-identified personal data without the consent of the controller responsible for de-identifying the personal data) i used this log to check on you and stated you where doing things wrong in my view not urs i have re-identified the information and it makes no difference if done in private or public, thats how zos gets around it, its not them doing it but you, thus,....

If you knew my real name, we either know each other in real life (and then it's no problem you know...otherwise you wouldn't), ZOS told you (they are not allowd to) or you hacked their site (which is not allowed aswell).
I tbh really don't get your privacy concerns. Without my permission or criminal acts it's not possible to link my character/accountname on esologs to any personal data (reallife name and so on).

on a sidenote...the account belongs to ZOS, you are just allowed to use it.

edit: from the ZENIMAX Media Terms of Service

By creating an Account, You agree that You do not own the Account, any user names created on the Account, any Content stored or associated with an Account (such as digital and/or virtual assets, achievements, virtual currency, and other Downloadable Content), or related data associated with the Account.

alainjbrennanb16_ESO

VaranisArano wrote: »

alainjbrennanb16_ESO wrote: »

Destruent wrote: »

blnchk wrote: »

Above, Destruent suggested a compromise. The point is that ZOS could have easily done this, and didn't. They hadn't even set people to "anonymous" by default when they first released the functionality on the PTS. That's blatant disregard of the very idea that people might prefer their privacy over traceable information being uploaded to a third party site. To me, that's mind-boggling.

Although i suggested it, i have no idea if that is technically possible.

On top of that, pls stop with anything related to "privacy concerns". This is not personal data at all...
There is only one personal data related to eso, and that's your account information with your RL-name and so on. And that is hidden to everyone but ZOS.

actual it is personal data, personal data is not just down to rl name its down to other factors within a given prematur, Processing, in relation to information, means an operation or set of operations which is performed on information, or on sets of information, such as collection, recording, organisation, structuring or storage, to not the rl name but a gamer tag, from this it can be back traced to a rl name, thus under the new eu law it becomes personal data, this app is disclosure by transmission, dissemination or otherwise making available, thus this app revolves around a Filing system means any structured set of personal data which is held by automated means or manually and whether centralised, decentralised or dispersed on a functional or geographical basis, this is only part of it ZOS is like EA etc they think if they don't do it them self's or call it something else, its not breaking the law, this data is being used to discriminate and thus is against the law, even if you put ur self to not showing ur gamer tag, it can be worked out within mins who it is[/quote]

Encounter Logging is on PC, where we have add-ons that if everyone shares their own data with the group, the exact same thing is true. Your group can easily work out your data from the collective group data.

So in the hypothetical case of you being the sole anonymous person in a logged group...
A. You've got exactly the same privacy as you had with the addons already widely available on PC
B. Your information will still be anonymous on the website and not available for any of the tracking or searching functions.

You made my point the info is still there, even if anonymous, like you said ingame the add ons can help work out stuff, so thus so you can do with the 3rd party app and under the new eu Personal data is information that relates to an identified or identifiable person who could be identified, directly or indirectly based on the information, so indirectly comes under this so not allowed, like i said before if i knew who you where in real life and stated stuff from this app, to re-identify to a person is not allowed and the uk parliament is looking at this type of thing at the mo, deciding what course of action to take

VaranisArano

alainjbrennanb16_ESO wrote: »

You made my point the info is still there, even if anonymous, like you said ingame the add ons can help work out stuff, so thus so you can do with the 3rd party app and under the new eu Personal data is information that relates to an identified or identifiable person who could be identified, directly or indirectly based on the information, so indirectly comes under this so not allowed, like i said before if i knew who you where in real life and stated stuff from this app, to re-identify to a person is not allowed and the uk parliament is looking at this type of thing at the mo, deciding what course of action to take

Well, the info is the same type of info that was already available in game.

So unless you want to start complaining that Combat Metrics lets players identify your combat data via extrapolation in exactly the same way Encounter Logging does, there's just not much meat to that argument. Functionally, they have the same expectation of privacy.

And you missed the boat on the rest of the forum lawyering that went on while this toll was still in PTS. If/when the EU or the UK ever get around to establishing solid legal precedents based on these laws in court, maybe we'll see ESO change some things. Until then, I'd expect that ESO's legal department isn't too worried as I seriously doubt they didn't do their homework on the legality of this tool on their fastest growing PC server.