Should sorcs hiding behind their pets be considered a targeting exploit?

teejkapow

Never in my life have I encountered such a pervasive anti-player attitude in a game as this one. So much whining about "exploiting".

And this goes for the devs as well who literally punish players for it. The idea that it is the player's responsibilty to understand and interpret correctly the intentions of the devs design and behave accordingly is so ridiculous.

An example of this is people who get all sweaty (devs included) when someone finds a way to skip a trash pull in a dungeon. "Omg they're exploiting!".

This toxic attitude and the fear of punishment it instills stifles player creativity and ingenuity. Some of the most amazing displays of this creativity comes from speedrunning, something based entirely on "exploiting".

ZOS you made this game. It's reasonable for the player to assume your competence and that the game you released is complete and is fitting your design. The responsibility is on you, not the player.

If something you don't like happens, and players benefit in a way you aren't happy with, roll their account back and fix your game. Don't punish them and act like they have a moral duty to run away from opportunity.

Emma_Overload

nryerson1025 wrote: »

not an "i got killed post" just curious if this could be considering cheating, not cheating borderline cheating...?

Stamina builds don't even need to hide behind anything, they just wiggle back and forth quickly and you can NEVER hit them with a so-called "instant" Frag. See my thread about this exploit here:

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/391301/exploit-can-we-talk-about-that-shady-thing-that-stamina-melee-builds-do/p1

VaranisArano

Players can also hide behind each other and friendly NPC guards, if you want to get technical about "targetable" LOS.

Sorry, OP, I have no suggestions because I mostly do large group play in Cyrodiil as a healer. I don't see too many Sorcs successfully hiding behind their pets in the large AvAvA fights I prefer.

Firstmep

VaranisArano wrote: »

Should LOS behind a rock or tree or another player be considered a targeting exploit?

No, its not.

Its cheese, not cheating.

I find it hilarious that PVP pet sorcs went from being useless to the target of complaints once someone figured out how to make pets actually useful.

I mean ZOS has been buffing pets to immortalhood patch after patch, they were always strong dueling.

Also continued nerfing of non pet sorcs forced this meta, we can thank all the shields are op whiners.

Gilvoth

we should consider what the term exploit defines as.
i did a fast search and found this:

ex·ploit
[exploit]
VERB
make full use of and derive benefit from (a resource).
"500 companies sprang up to exploit this new technology"
synonyms:
utilize · make use of · put to use · use · use to good advantage
NOUN
a bold or daring feat.
"the most heroic and secretive exploits of the war"

a software tool designed to take advantage of a flaw in a computer system, typically for malicious purposes such as installing malware.
"if someone you don't know tweets you a link, it's either spam, an exploit, or probably both"

what is the true definition of an exploit?
and what is Zenimax's definition of an exploit, and what are each of us bound to say is an exploit as per our personal definition would probably better answer the question that this thread creates.

RebornV3x

NO

MartiniDaniels

nryerson1025 wrote: »

was only a question; i'm not voicing some anti pet tirade here.

so what are resolutions to this targetting issue that i, and others around me, are having?

From in-game manual:
"Not wanting to end our interviews on a sour note, I pressed Lady Allena Benoch for advice for young blade-swingers just beginning their careers.

"When confronted with a wizard," she says, throwing petals of Kanthleaf into the Diceto. "Close the distance and hit 'im hard.""

Didgerion

nryerson1025 wrote: »

Should sorcs hiding behind their pets be considered a targeting exploit

Yes!!!! But same should be considered players hiding behind another players... or players hiding behind the obstacles..... Dang! Looks like everyone is exploiting in this game...how dare you all exploiting it... how dare you?

Jeremy

nryerson1025 wrote: »

not an "i got killed post" just curious if this could be considering cheating, not cheating borderline cheating...?

Whether it's considered an exploit or not I cannot say. But it is annoying as hell. As another poster pointed out - it's just flawed game design.

StormeReigns

No more an exploit of players allowed to move freely during combat, cancel their animations, block attacks, reflect attacks.

Matchimus

I vote for anything that nerfs sorcerers & their pets until they stop camping at wayshrines etc.

dazee

Yeah lets ban people for using pets. that's what it ends up boiling down to. No its not an exploit. Yes it IS a design flaw which is on ZOS to fix and not the players fault for using.

Didgerion

Matchimus wrote: »

I vote for anything that nerfs sorcerers & their pets until they stop camping at wayshrines etc.

I'd not do that. If they nerf pets then we might need to run 2 of them to compensate...you will worsen the situation.

Gilvoth

if we had a classless system, these types of threads and conversations would never take place.

dazee

Gilvoth wrote: »

if we had a classless system, these types of threads and conversations would never take place.

Agreed. Becuase everyone would have access to the same skills and eventually be able to use anything, no one would be demanding nerfs becuase people really only demand nerfs to skills they never use.

dazee

Gilvoth wrote: »

if we had a classless system, these types of threads and conversations would never take place.

Agreed. Becuase everyone would have access to the same skills and eventually be able to use anything, no one would be demanding nerfs becuase people really only demand nerfs to skills they never use.

Daedric_NB_187

This entire thread is lolworthy. Using pets is exploiting? Lol. I have seen it all now.

DivineFirstYOLO

Gilvoth wrote: »

we should consider what the term exploit defines as.
i did a fast search and found this:

ex·ploit
[exploit]
VERB
make full use of and derive benefit from (a resource).
"500 companies sprang up to exploit this new technology"
synonyms:
utilize · make use of · put to use · use · use to good advantage
NOUN
a bold or daring feat.
"the most heroic and secretive exploits of the war"

a software tool designed to take advantage of a flaw in a computer system, typically for malicious purposes such as installing malware.
"if someone you don't know tweets you a link, it's either spam, an exploit, or probably both"

what is the true definition of an exploit?
and what is Zenimax's definition of an exploit, and what are each of us bound to say is an exploit as per our personal definition would probably better answer the question that this thread creates.

If hiding behind pets is an exploit then using broken a*s snipe that hits 2-3 times at the same time is an exploit as well, same counts for scattershot/drainingshot stun before it got "fixed". Did you ever use any of the 2 skills? - you don't have to answer...so in that case - in some peoples eyes - you are a exploiter too.

yRaven

There's summoners on RPG, and they normally don't fight, they summon minions to do that, so i don't see exactly the difference, even if i like Stamina Class more

AbysmalGhul

Pets in BGs and Pvp can be nuisances, but I wouldn't consider them blocking the player cheating or borderline cheating. Same thing applies to werewolves.

TC, ignore pet sorcs until you can find an opening....your opening is usually when they get involved in unleashing both pets and drop the atronach ulti.

Go in for the kill when they're laying into a group during a heavy attack to make the pets attack. The pet sorc will be at a distance and the pets will be focused on the group.

Knightpanther

Sorcerer here, a decent NB is a targeting exploit in himself/herself - want to nerf them?

Thought not

I don't use pets in pvp but using them to help is not an exploit just clever mechanics, think of it as the pet protecting its master and your on the right track.

Be safe

Jayman1000

nryerson1025 wrote: »

not an "i got killed post" just curious if this could be considering cheating, not cheating borderline cheating...?

No way, zos deliberately designed it this way, it's not an exploit. see, when your opponent is position them behind their pet does it not reasonable to you that you might hit their pet instead? Seems completely logical and intended to me.

MartiniDaniels

Jayman1000 wrote: »

nryerson1025 wrote: »

not an "i got killed post" just curious if this could be considering cheating, not cheating borderline cheating...?

No way, zos deliberately designed it this way, it's not an exploit. see, when your opponent is position them behind their pet does it not reasonable to you that you might hit their pet instead? Seems completely logical and intended to me.

Then sorc should hit his pet too if he attack you atm, from logic side.

StormeReigns

MartiniDaniels wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

nryerson1025 wrote: »

not an "i got killed post" just curious if this could be considering cheating, not cheating borderline cheating...?

No way, zos deliberately designed it this way, it's not an exploit. see, when your opponent is position them behind their pet does it not reasonable to you that you might hit their pet instead? Seems completely logical and intended to me.

Then sorc should hit his pet too if he attack you atm, from logic side.

And wings should keep DKs from attacking. Only seeing it from logic side, giant flapping wings that encase the body? Yeah, you aint swinging that sword.

Knightpanther

MartiniDaniels wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

nryerson1025 wrote: »

not an "i got killed post" just curious if this could be considering cheating, not cheating borderline cheating...?

No way, zos deliberately designed it this way, it's not an exploit. see, when your opponent is position them behind their pet does it not reasonable to you that you might hit their pet instead? Seems completely logical and intended to me.

Then sorc should hit his pet too if he attack you atm, from logic side.

Seriously ?

I never shot my mates while on active duty! lol

Be safe

rotaugen454

Show us on this doll where the big bad pet Sorc touched you...

MartiniDaniels

SkerKro wrote: »

MartiniDaniels wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

nryerson1025 wrote: »

not an "i got killed post" just curious if this could be considering cheating, not cheating borderline cheating...?

No way, zos deliberately designed it this way, it's not an exploit. see, when your opponent is position them behind their pet does it not reasonable to you that you might hit their pet instead? Seems completely logical and intended to me.

Then sorc should hit his pet too if he attack you atm, from logic side.

And wings should keep DKs from attacking. Only seeing it from logic side, giant flapping wings that encase the body? Yeah, you aint swinging that sword.

It is suggested that wings re-appear exactly to reflect projectile. Anyway you may qualify wings as damage shield, and such shields are always transparent from user's side. Pet is summoned piece of meat, so it can't be that way.
Combat pets are breaking game in all types of content. They are often forbidden in trials for how random is their behavior, they made VMA trivial, they are a nuisance in PVP and especially battlegrounds. Given how cheap they are acquired and how they limit bar space, hampering their user.. it was wrong move from ZOS to buff them so much during shield nerf. This all applies to WW pets too. It's a lot of power and impact with low effort, while reducing number of skills pet-owner have as pay-off.

Strider__Roshin

Juhasow wrote: »

Not an exploit just bad game design.

This.

D0PAMINE

sigh.....

Dubhliam

L2tabtarget