Is using Ad-ons is cheating?

SeaGtGruff

Jhalin wrote: »

Imagine walking into an open note test and saying everyone’s notes were cheating because you failed to bring your notes.

That’s the OP

And there are educators and students who might argue that relying on notes while taking a test, or relying on a calculator in a math test-- whether it is allowed or not-- is cheating yourself out of actually learning the material, or the math, well enough to pass the test without having to refer to your notes or use your calculator. They might also argue that the fact that our modern educational system even allows those types of tests at all is just another part of the dumbing-down of education in particular and society in general.

Thorvik_Tyrson

Davor wrote: »

Thorvik_Tyrson wrote: »

IMO, mods are not cheats as they are allowed in the TOS, and industry wide MODs are used in most MMO games. I do not feel that it requires any argument for why they are not cheats. As I have posted in other threads, if you have played other MMO's there are several Quality of Life elements missing from ESO that you can only get from MODs. IMO they should be part of the base game, but they are not. Therefor we use the MODs.

Why are they not in the game? They are not in the game because Zenimax Online CHOOSE not to have them in. It's like saying hockey and baseball. Why not use hockey sticks in baseball? We can check the other player then. While they are both sports, they are different sports, just like ESO is a different MMO.

I agree add-ons are not cheats but there are some ad-ons that were cheats. Again, what I didn't explain is this is only for people who think they are better than others because they use ad-ons to help them.

I guess it's like a race. I am going to race Usain Bolt to see who has the better time. I win because I used a car. It wasn't against the rules because no where did it say I needed to run. So did I cheat? No. Is it right or correct? I guess that is what I am saying when it's one on one. When does it become something helpful and when is it a QoL issue.

Sadly my poor writing skills didn't convey this.

I think that you credit the MMO devs too much. The reason that a lot of stuff isnt in the game is mainly due to not enough time to complete what needs to be done before management pushes the game into Live. I have participated in a handfull of Alpha and Beta tests on MMO's that had laundry lists of things that should have been fixed or added prior to release, but they get shoved out the door "as is" because the management wasnt willing to take the time required to get a finished product.

Keep in mind that there is also the decision of "Do I add this to the game, or let the Modding community take care of it?"
This can also influence a decision to not add something to the base game when they know that it can be taken care of by a Mod.

Looking at ESO, I see this all over the place. They may have wanted to include functionality into the game, but I think it was more of a matter that they did not have the time and resources available to do what needed to be done to get a great product going, rather than deciding not to do it because they did not want it included. But we will never really know because gaming companies never give out this type of information.

VaranisArano

SeaGtGruff wrote: »

Jhalin wrote: »

Imagine walking into an open note test and saying everyone’s notes were cheating because you failed to bring your notes.

That’s the OP

And there are educators and students who might argue that relying on notes while taking a test, or relying on a calculator in a math test-- whether it is allowed or not-- is cheating yourself out of actually learning the material, or the math, well enough to pass the test without having to refer to your notes or use your calculator. They might also argue that the fact that our modern educational system even allows those types of tests at all is just another part of the dumbing-down of education in particular and society in general.

Your response has no bearing on the analogy being made, in which a teacher allows notes to be used on their test, regardless of whether or not you think its sound educational practice.
Like it or not, ESO allows PC users to use add-ons.


But hey, I'm a teacher, and this is a chance to go off-topic on educational theory! I apologize in advance for the very lengthy digression into teaching theory. If its boring, please skip!

There's always a push-pull debate in educational circles between what's more important: testing for rote learning or testing for the ability to apply what you've learned. (The answer is both, but like the ESO Dev team, education theory is very "flavor of the month" and swings like a pendulum between them. This undergirds the whole debate over standardized tests and so, so much more.)

Part of designing tests is answering the question: what are you testing for?
Example of a closed notes test: If I want to know that my 8th grade anatomy students have memorized the large bones of the human body, that's a rote memory test. I'm testing their memory, so that's a proper testing method.

Example of a open notes test: If I want my 8th graders to balance chemistry equations, I'm going to give them the periodic table as a reference because I'm testing their ability to follow a process. They don't need to memorize the Periodic Table to balance chemistry equations, so not giving them the Table would be an unfair test.

In short, if teachers are really making things easier via open notes tests, then its because they are misapplying "what am I testing for." Open note tests when testing for rote learning is bad testing methodology. Open note tests when testing for application can be appropriate, depending on what's being tested.


One of the differences in "modern education" is a greater emphasis on making sure students understand the process of what they are doing, not just the rote memorization. So there's more tests that focus on "do my students understand the process so they can do this on their own without me" vs "do my students have these basic facts memorized". Both are necessary! Just be prepared for the pendulum to swing back and forth, back and forth,


So, uh, digressions into educational theory aside, does any of that apply to ESO?

Sort of? Not really?

Education and testing is only an analogy to ESO, and I think its hitting the point where the analogy breaks down as all analogies inevitably do.

I mean, I've already pointed out that even if we completely discount add-ons, PC "students" get pretests (PTS Access) and the ability to check their answers and strategize with access to the study guide (ESO Logs), while Consoles get nothing of the sort. PC and Console aren't even on the same playing field when it comes to competitive PVE content - there's just no comparing those test scores.

Hope that all makes sense!

Davor

InvitationNotFound wrote: »

https://wiki.esoui.com/API

Here you have all functions that ESO is exposing.

You can read it as:
FunctionNameThatUsuallyDoesWhatThisNameSays(ParameterOne, ParameterTwo,...)
-Returns .... <- you will receive this value when calling that function

Furthermore, there are private functions which can't be used, protected function which can only be used out of combat and functions that are always accessible to addon authors.

Addons are written in lua -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lua_(programming_language)

Furthermore, you can directly execute lua code in the chat window by typing /script <code>
e.g. /script d("hello world")
-> this will print "hello world" in your chat window.

Thank you very much. I appreciate the time in helping me learn.

Ouch, that hurts my head. Now I remember why I never got into coding. Kudos to coders and programmers. Too bad they are never given enough time to work their craft and magic.

deepseamk20b14_ESO

Davor wrote: »

Squidgaurd wrote: »

deepseamk20b14_ESO wrote: »

Cheating: fraudulent; dishonest: applied to persons.

False; deceptive; made or fitted to defraud: applied to things.
n. An act of deception, fraud, trickery, imposture, or imposition.

So no. It’s not cheating. Especially when it’s an open option for you as well as your opponent.

It’s like playing football and not wearing a helmet and calling the other team cheaters because they’re wearing one.

This

No it's not. Why not just take the gear off, and then that one person can run faster. Yeah he will get hurt if caught, but if not, then he has an advantage to run faster. Also taking the helmet of gives you a better field of vision so another advantage.

Just curious, you can't prove your point. Do you have an issue being labeled a cheater? It's only a game for fun. Why do you need justification? After all, you don't give examples, just a NO and This. We all have cheated when playing ESO or any other game. So where is your proof?

I am respectfully disagree @deepseamk20b14_ESO . It is cheating even if your opponent doesn't have it. Just like in hockey the goalies got bigger and bigger protection. Funny how these goalies are so skinny but a stop had to be put because most of the net was being covered by protection.

Let's see. Dictionary.com noun

any state, circumstance, opportunity, or means specially favorable to success, interest, or any desired end:

I can quote words as well to show my point as well. So maybe going by this definition I am correct.

OK, let's say for this instance your quote we will use. Let's say then people are exploiting then.

Again from Dictionary.com Exploit

(in a video game) the use of a bug or flaw in game design to a player’s advantage or to the disadvantage of other players

Is there a bug? Only Zenimax Online answer that. Is it a flaw? Again, we don't know one way or the other.

In the end, it's a third party software being used to make it easier to play for what ever reason. Some of it is good for like me and others who have a hard time hearing, others because they have limited mobility but there are people who don't need any help and only use it to get an advantage to make the game easier than it should be. Most people I know call it cheating.

So quoting words isn't proving any of our opinions. I thought explaining things is. As we both proved except for @Squidgaurd quoting the dictionary will not prove our opinion. Not here to change anyone's opinion, just want a nice debate. Some people honour that, others sadly don't.

Waiting in the morning for your reply. It is a good conversation we all are having.

If an add on can be considered cheating, by definition, remove it. But to make such a blanket statement like “add ons are cheating” is foolish. The vast majority of add ons would not fall into the category or cheating.

Your counter argument to he football example is simply unrealistic and not a trade off anyone is going to make if given the option. You can come up with whatever bogus example you’d like, but it doesn’t mean it’s realistic.

“So quoting words isn't proving any of our opinions.”

Can’t prove my point? First off, you don’t really prove an opinion. If your opinion is add ons are cheating, I could provide all the evidence in the world but it doesn’t mean it will change your mind if you’re already dead set on your opinion. Because you simply don’t want to approach this objectively doesn’t mean I can’t prove my point, you simply don’t want to accept it because you’ve already made up your mind. This is why opinions are never cited as fact.

Also, words have meaning. I know in 2019 people like to just change the meanings of words to fit whatever narrative they’re pushing at the time but defining something is how we are able to interact with the world around us.

Wet: moistened, covered, or soaked with water or some other liquid.

Me: HEY I put my hand in water now it’s wet!

You: well, just because you defined wet like that doesn’t mean your hands are really wet.

Really? Because my hands are wet. Just because you don’t like the definition of wet doesn’t change the FACT of what’s happened in relation to the definition of the word and the parameters set therein by it.

You also defined exploit and only proved that add ons for the game are neither a cheat or a bug, as ZoS allows add ons. Not sure you intended that. The whole “we’ll never know” simply isn’t true. We do know, and have known since 2014 when most of us started playing and ZoS acknowledged it. I was there from the beginning. If an add on was actually considering cheating BY DEFINITION ZoS disallowed it or made it not possible to use like when that one add on came out effectively signaling when a gank was about to happen. It fell into cheating BY DEFINITION, again, words have meaning and it’s important that we understand that or we might as well all grunt and moan to converse.

A ZoS rep could come by and post right now that add ons aren’t cheating and you still probably wouldn’t accept it.

Dark_Lord_Kuro

If crossplay between console an pc was a thing it woulbe but its not for now

VaranisArano

Dark_Lord_Kuro wrote: »

If crossplay between console an pc was a thing it woulbe but its not for now

Crossplay is just such an odd thing because PC is allowed to have add-ons, but the Console providers haven't allowed them or only allow specific, curated add-ons.

I mean, ZOS could tell PC players that they are changing the TOS to disallow add-ons or significantly restrict the API because of Crossplay to match what's available on Consoles, but that would be PR nightmare for PC gamers.

It'll be interesting to see what ZOS does for Crossplay, if anything at all.

starkerealm

VaranisArano wrote: »

Dark_Lord_Kuro wrote: »

If crossplay between console an pc was a thing it woulbe but its not for now

Crossplay is just such an odd thing because PC is allowed to have add-ons, but the Console providers haven't allowed them or only allow specific, curated add-ons.

I mean, ZOS could tell PC players that they are changing the TOS to disallow add-ons or significantly restrict the API because of Crossplay to match what's available on Consoles, but that would be PR nightmare for PC gamers.

It'll be interesting to see what ZOS does for Crossplay, if anything at all.

Probably nothing. The consoles have separate servers, and given how the game's designed, it seems unlikely, it's set up to allow servers to interact directly. Could be wrong, but that's my guess.

Vicarra

Most addons are not "cheating". Obviously, that depends on the nature of the addon.

You cannot legitimately compare a player on PS4 and a player on PC, because they do not play against each other. However, the lack of addons on PS4 and Xbox does arguably make players there better than the PC players who use addons as a crutch (all the trial addons, for example, that tell you when you should dodge roll or block, means you're not having to actually look at what is happening on the screen).

However, when comparing two PC players - they both have access to the same range of addons and make their own choices about which ones to use. If, in PVP, some addons become "required" because they're simply so useful that players don't want to live without them, that is (in my opinion) saying more about the lack of functionality in the base UI.

Speaking of base-game issues, I can't help but think of the addons I feel are essential for adding basic functionality that I don't want to play without, and that other games have...The base UI should have the option for a minimap. It should allow the option of filtering by category in the guild store AND inventory. It should BY DEFAULT have some sort of indicator that you know a motif/recipe/furnishing pattern and be able to search guild stores for unknown ones. It should have the ability to mark (and remember) items as junk, and lock things you want to keep. It really should have the ability to save more than one build loadout (gear / skills) to make it easier to be a tank or healer, or to switch between PVP and PVE.

If the base game had these kinds of functions, most addons wouldn't be necessary.

Malyck

Davor wrote: »

While it is still allowed by Zenimax Online, it's still an advantage that the developers didn't want people to have. So we are playing a way that Zenimax didn't originally want, or it would have been in the game.

I disagree, if the developers don't want people to have access to something in the game via an addon, they can prohibit it from the API. The developers wanted to allow the community to develop the UI as they see fit, that is why they delivered the UI in a very plain state and have provided a public API.

The developers control the API and what addons can have access to through it. So I do not believe this is cheating or an unfair advantage for PC players, because all players have the same access to addons. Since console players do not compete directly with PC players, it doesn't provide an unfair advantage there either.

I do wish that the UI had more functionality built in so we did not need addons, but it is nice to have the choice of how I want the UI customized to fit the way I play.

srfrogg23

If an addon gives you a competitive advantage, then it's cheating. Cosmetic addons are not.

Squidgaurd

Let us rember this is not 2017 addons dont litteraly predict what an opponent will do via miats. Miats was cheating and ZOS applied the propper nerf stick. Now an arguement could be made for addons that apply to trials since there are addons that tell players the mechanics without the player knowing them and addons that make it easy to change between gear setups and cp placement at the click of a button. I for one think addons are just convenient if addons were cheating then it would only be cheating if this game was crossplay enabled because thats the only instance where it would matter.

kylewwefan

I’m of the belief that anything goes in gaming. They’re sweaty, sweaty, so sweaty people out there they need this stuff. What you gonna do? The Devs are clearly for it. They’ve shown they can lock down what they don’t want.

Uhm, it’s questionable why they would ban anyone for any reason of exploiting in a game that allows/ encourages exploits. Mind boggling really. (And many of those people keep coming back)

Is it cheating? How can you really define cheating in a environment where anything goes?

If there was no scoreboard, who would even care? Ok, there is a scoreboard and people barely care. We know how sweaty it is at the top.

whitecrow

It depends on the add-on. If you're using one to find books or skyshards, yeah it is.

I don't consider mini-map to be a cheat. It's a basic feature that many games have and it should always have been an option in this one. All it does is save you from having to jump in and out of the full map all the time. It doesn't give you any more information than that does.

VaranisArano

Squidgaurd wrote: »

Let us rember this is not 2017 addons dont litteraly predict what an opponent will do via miats. Miats was cheating and ZOS applied the propper nerf stick. Now an arguement could be made for addons that apply to trials since there are addons that tell players the mechanics without the player knowing them and addons that make it easy to change between gear setups and cp placement at the click of a button. I for one think addons are just convenient if addons were cheating then it would only be cheating if this game was crossplay enabled because thats the only instance where it would matter.

Technically, using Miats add-on to alert about attacks from stealth wasnt ever cheating, as in "breaking the TOS" cheating.

At the time, it used the API that was freely available for everyone in an intended manner that was compliant with the TOS.

Then ZOS decided they didnt want that API function being used after all, removed its accessibility, and the stealth alert part didnt work after that. It was that simple - not cheating, but ZOS altered the API so it didnt work. No bans, no punishment, just an addon function that was removed - because it wasnt cheating.


The change to Miats is one reason I kind of chuckle over the hand-wringing about trial add-ons. ZOS controls what combat alerts addons have access to, and as they showed with Miats, they can take away those alerts if they want to. ZOS knows about those trial alert addons and hasn't changed a thing.

Davor

deepseamk20b14_ESO wrote: »

[q

If an add on can be considered cheating, by definition, remove it. But to make such a blanket statement like “add ons are cheating” is foolish. The vast majority of add ons would not fall into the category or cheating.

Just curious, why would the majority of add ons not fall into the category of cheating? Again, I am not saying they are, but wouldn't it be "cheating" because the developers did not design it that way, OR if they did design it, did not implement it. So using something to by pass what the developers wanted people to play, could be considered a cheat. Bypassing they way the developer put out. Not saying it's wrong or right. I have no issues with it, but love a good debate and playing devils advocate.

So how do you call it when using something the developers didn't implement and didn't want people to use? If the developers wanted people to use it, it would be implemented like the mini map. Just because it's there doesn't mean the developers wanted it to be used. Though someone figured out a way to use it, the developers don't stop it, but still how come after how many years the developers don't allow it for everyone?

Your counter argument to he football example is simply unrealistic and not a trade off anyone is going to make if given the option. You can come up with whatever bogus example you’d like, but it doesn’t mean it’s realistic.

I have to disagree here. Bogus example and not explaining why. Just because it's not realistic, don't say I am wrong if not going to provide proof. All this is, is a "I say so". Doesn't make you right and me wrong.

“So quoting words isn't proving any of our opinions.”

I said that because you started using quotes. I just did what you did.

Can’t prove my point? First off, you don’t really prove an opinion.

Uhm, all I did was say something. If someone wants to say I am wrong, then they should say why I am wrong with what I have said. I don't need to prove it, the person who says I am wrong has to say why. That is how discussions work.

If your opinion is add ons are cheating,

Actually I didn't say that. I said my opinion is that it is not cheating.

could provide all the evidence in the world but it doesn’t mean it will change your mind if you’re already dead set on your opinion. Because you simply don’t want to approach this objectively doesn’t mean I can’t prove my point, you simply don’t want to accept it because you’ve already made up your mind. This is why opinions are never cited as fact.

Have you read anything I really said? I have said a few times, this is just for a discussion, I am not here to say it's fact and in fact I said it's not a cheat. I even said I am not trying to change anyone's mind and it's for discussion only.

Same goes for you as well. How about you don't want to accept it? It seems you are closed minded here where I am open minded to see why others would say this. Remember I said this wasn't my opinion, I said IT WAS NOT FACT, but having an open mind we can see the other side.

You have stated your facts about me wrong.

Also, words have meaning. I know in 2019 people like to just change the meanings of words to fit whatever narrative they’re pushing at the time but defining something is how we are able to interact with the world around us.

Ad-on. Hmm what is the meaning of that? OH it's a "Thank you very much for supporting us in Morrowind, so here is some free ad-ons as appreciation from Bethesda to their fans and customers". Or it's just software added onto another software so it adds more content.

DLC. Down Loadable Content. "We want to start charging you and not say thank you since we don't respect you as much anymore". OR it can mean it's just software added onto another software so it adds more content.

Stories. "This is a big finger to you since you have the audacity to expect Free DLC, so we are charging you for free DLC". Or it means software added onto another softwar so it adds more content.

Wet: moistened, covered, or soaked with water or some other liquid.

Me: HEY I put my hand in water now it’s wet!

You: well, just because you defined wet like that doesn’t mean your hands are really wet.

Really? Because my hands are wet. Just because you don’t like the definition of wet doesn’t change the FACT of what’s happened in relation to the definition of the word and the parameters set therein by it.

Please ask Bethesda why they keep changing the meaning of what words are. After all, DLC is Add-ons. If all DLC is suppose to be "free" that actually should mean all stores in the Crown Store or Atom Shop should be free as well since they are add-ons, or DLC that is Downloadable content that is free. Different names, but mean the same thing, but it's Bethesda who keep changing the meaning of words.

You also defined exploit and only proved that add ons for the game are neither a cheat or a bug, as ZoS allows add ons. Not sure you intended that. The whole “we’ll never know” simply isn’t true. We do know, and have known since 2014 when most of us started playing and ZoS acknowledged it. I was there from the beginning. If an add on was actually considering cheating BY DEFINITION ZoS disallowed it or made it not possible to use like when that one add on came out effectively signaling when a gank was about to happen. It fell into cheating BY DEFINITION, again, words have meaning and it’s important that we understand that or we might as well all grunt and moan to converse.

I only did what you did. So, why turning it around say I can't do it, but you can?

A ZoS rep could come by and post right now that add ons aren’t cheating and you still probably wouldn’t accept it.

Zenimax Online rep can come in and say 1+1=3, and that still wouldn't mean it's correct.

I said it once, I said it again, I am not here to change anyone's mind, after all, I have said Ad-ons is not cheating. I am not here to prove anyone wrong. So are you saying Ad-ons is cheating since I already said it's not. It seems you want to prove me wrong, but I did say Ad-ons is not cheating but gave reasons why other people may think it is cheating.

Davor

Malyck wrote: »

Davor wrote: »

While it is still allowed by Zenimax Online, it's still an advantage that the developers didn't want people to have. So we are playing a way that Zenimax didn't originally want, or it would have been in the game.

I disagree, if the developers don't want people to have access to something in the game via an addon, they can prohibit it from the API. The developers wanted to allow the community to develop the UI as they see fit, that is why they delivered the UI in a very plain state and have provided a public API.

I am playing devils advocate. I thought people may have seen that, It seems I was wrong to think so. Again, I don't think it's a cheat, just playing devils advocate here.

I respectfully disagree here. Just because Zenimax allows it, doesn't mean it's still not cheating. They just allow the cheat, just like how Zenimax allows animation cancelling. It was a cheat before, but now it's a feature. So Zenimax does allow cheating. They didn't stop people from using it, and I believe and could be wrong did say at one time people shouldn't be doing it, and since they couldn't fix it and people didn't stop using it, shows that Zenimax allows cheating.

The way I see it is, it's like Jay Walking. Lots of cities, it's illegal to do so. Most police see this every day, but do not issue tickets. So the way I see it is, Zenimax Online for example did not implement the Mini Map or say "no jay walking". People are using Mini Maps and don't get in trouble just like people jay walking do not get in trouble.

The developers control the API and what addons can have access to through it. So I do not believe this is cheating or an unfair advantage for PC players, because all players have the same access to addons. Since console players do not compete directly with PC players, it doesn't provide an unfair advantage there either.

The way I see it, if the developers didn't implement the feature, a third party adds to it, then it's something the developers didn't want. Doesn't matter why the developers didn't implement it, it wasn't implement as intended. So therefore people are playing the game the way the developer didn't implement.

I do wish that the UI had more functionality built in so we did not need addons, but it is nice to have the choice of how I want the UI customized to fit the way I play.

I fully agree. Thing is Zenimax has given us a choice. Play the version their way, or play it a different way. Thing is playing it a different way is not as intended other wise it would be in the game. So playing as something that wasn't intended could be considered cheating. Again, I don't think so, but I can see how others say so.

Donny_Vito

I fully agree. Thing is Zenimax has given us a choice. Play the version their way, or play it a different way. Thing is playing it a different way is not as intended other wise it would be in the game. So playing as something that wasn't intended could be considered cheating. Again, I don't think so, but I can see how others say so.

While we have a similar mentality about add-ons, I think your logic is flawed here. The argument I see against this is that using the API (to allow for different UI and QoL features) is allowed and therefore you are not playing in a different way. If the API didn't exist and you were pulling the data from a non-authorized source then I think your argument would be sound.

starkerealm

Squidgaurd wrote: »

...since there are addons that tell players the mechanics without the player knowing them...

Not, really.

Let's give you an example. If Rele is about to overcharge you. Raid notifier will say, "hey, ***, you're about to kill all your friends." Though, it might just say, "Overcharged," one of those, anyway. Then it'll count down until you can bar swap again.

Thing is, Rele's overcharge mechanic actually puts a visual effect on the player before it kicks in, and there's even an audio cue. There's also a visual while you're overcharged, so you know to stay off your other bar. None of this is info that you, as the player, do not have access to. It simply slaps you upside the face.

You might not be able to parse that information mid fight, if you don't know what it is, but

Actually, Saint Olms is a hilarious offender, because several of his Raid Notifier callouts are way too late to be useful. You need to know his move set, and if you don't, by the time it's warning you, you're already reduced to pulled people pork, or BBQed.

I get the RN hate, but that addon does far less than most non-raiders, realize.

The one thing it is really good for is helping newbies get up to speed, and helping them learn the actual names for boss abilities.

VaranisArano

Donny_Vito wrote: »

I fully agree. Thing is Zenimax has given us a choice. Play the version their way, or play it a different way. Thing is playing it a different way is not as intended other wise it would be in the game. So playing as something that wasn't intended could be considered cheating. Again, I don't think so, but I can see how others say so.

The argument I see against this is that using the API (to allow for different UI and QoL features) is allowed and therefore you are not playing in a different way. If the API didn't exist and you were pulling the data from a non-authorized source then I think your argument would be sound.

Your argument is entirely correct.

The Devs allowed and intended for PC players to be able to use the API to create addons since well before Launch. In fact, looking back at the pre-Launch info, we can see them making changes to what API is and isnt available for players.

Whatever API is allowed, the Devs intended that to be available to be used. Any add-ons created are within the allowed scope of what the Devs intended players to be able to do. For example, the Multicrafting addon wasn't unintended before ZOS added Multicraft! Rather, the Multicrafting function was always intended to be available for players, but the Devs finally made their own tool.

There's a crucial distinction there. Addons are allowed and intended for everyone. We focus on PC because
A. ESO launched on PC, so addons have been in development for PC since the beginning
B. Console providers don't want add-on code on their platforms, even though ZOS would allow console players to use add-ons.

So the idea of "If ZOS didnt code it, its not intended" is incorrect. ZOS did code the API, and opened the intended portions for players to make add-ons, and ZOS isnt shy about changing the API when their intentions change. All addons are within the bounds of ZOS' intentions.

Davor

Donny_Vito wrote: »

I fully agree. Thing is Zenimax has given us a choice. Play the version their way, or play it a different way. Thing is playing it a different way is not as intended other wise it would be in the game. So playing as something that wasn't intended could be considered cheating. Again, I don't think so, but I can see how others say so.

While we have a similar mentality about add-ons, I think your logic is flawed here. The argument I see against this is that using the API (to allow for different UI and QoL features) is allowed and therefore you are not playing in a different way. If the API didn't exist and you were pulling the data from a non-authorized source then I think your argument would be sound.

You are correct, I need to read up more how API works. My mentality is still thinking 3rd party writing the new app, mod what ever it is called.

Again, not saying it is a cheat, I agree it's not. Time to stop playing devils advocate now.

pod88kk

On consoles, yes. PC, nah mate go for it

starkerealm

srfrogg23 wrote: »

If an addon gives you a competitive advantage, then it's cheating. Cosmetic addons are not.

There are, almost, no cosmetic addons. Almost all addons provide some kind of competitive advantage of some sort. Most often it's UI efficiency.

Here's a couple examples:





That's a lot of information that a player without addons won't have access to. It also means I can parse through my inventory much faster than you can. Especially if I'm looking for a specific set. That is a competitive advantage.

If you mean an addon that improves your damage? That doesn't really exist. There's a lot of bull**** stories going around in the community about addons that simply don't exist, and couldn't. But, they maintain traction, because "a friend of mine looked at ESOUI, and you wouldn't believe what he saw..."

SeaGtGruff

VaranisArano wrote: »

SeaGtGruff wrote: »

Jhalin wrote: »

Imagine walking into an open note test and saying everyone’s notes were cheating because you failed to bring your notes.

That’s the OP

And there are educators and students who might argue that relying on notes while taking a test, or relying on a calculator in a math test-- whether it is allowed or not-- is cheating yourself out of actually learning the material, or the math, well enough to pass the test without having to refer to your notes or use your calculator. They might also argue that the fact that our modern educational system even allows those types of tests at all is just another part of the dumbing-down of education in particular and society in general.

Your response has no bearing on the analogy being made, in which a teacher allows notes to be used on their test, regardless of whether or not you think its sound educational practice.
Like it or not, ESO allows PC users to use add-ons.


But hey, I'm a teacher, and this is a chance to go off-topic on educational theory! I apologize in advance for the very lengthy digression into teaching theory. If its boring, please skip!

There's always a push-pull debate in educational circles between what's more important: testing for rote learning or testing for the ability to apply what you've learned. (The answer is both, but like the ESO Dev team, education theory is very "flavor of the month" and swings like a pendulum between them. This undergirds the whole debate over standardized tests and so, so much more.)

Part of designing tests is answering the question: what are you testing for?
Example of a closed notes test: If I want to know that my 8th grade anatomy students have memorized the large bones of the human body, that's a rote memory test. I'm testing their memory, so that's a proper testing method.

Example of a open notes test: If I want my 8th graders to balance chemistry equations, I'm going to give them the periodic table as a reference because I'm testing their ability to follow a process. They don't need to memorize the Periodic Table to balance chemistry equations, so not giving them the Table would be an unfair test.

In short, if teachers are really making things easier via open notes tests, then its because they are misapplying "what am I testing for." Open note tests when testing for rote learning is bad testing methodology. Open note tests when testing for application can be appropriate, depending on what's being tested.


One of the differences in "modern education" is a greater emphasis on making sure students understand the process of what they are doing, not just the rote memorization. So there's more tests that focus on "do my students understand the process so they can do this on their own without me" vs "do my students have these basic facts memorized". Both are necessary! Just be prepared for the pendulum to swing back and forth, back and forth,


So, uh, digressions into educational theory aside, does any of that apply to ESO?

Sort of? Not really?

Education and testing is only an analogy to ESO, and I think its hitting the point where the analogy breaks down as all analogies inevitably do.

I mean, I've already pointed out that even if we completely discount add-ons, PC "students" get pretests (PTS Access) and the ability to check their answers and strategize with access to the study guide (ESO Logs), while Consoles get nothing of the sort. PC and Console aren't even on the same playing field when it comes to competitive PVE content - there's just no comparing those test scores.

Hope that all makes sense!

Hope this makes sense:

No analogy is perfect, and the analogy comparing the use of add-ons in a video game to using notes in a test was dumb, because a video game isn't a test. Although, it sure does appear that a lot of people who play ESO take it really, really, really seriously, like it's a cut-throat professional job, or a highly-paid professional sport, and not a game in which you're supposed to be having fun.

Hope this analogy is less imperfect than the dumb "open notes test" analogy:

Climbing a mountain.

Some people like to climb mountains. Their reasons vary.

For some it might be about sitting on the mountain top and looking down at the view. Let's say that they're mainly interested in the result or outcome-- or the destination, if you will.

For others it might be about the act of climbing the mountain. Let's say that they're mainly interested in the journey itself, not the destination.

The people who are mainly interested in the

EDIT -- Sorry, I had to break for dinner and somehow this got posted before I finished writing it...

The people who are mainly interested in the end result don't generally care how they get there, so they're perfectly happy to hop in a helicopter and fly to the top of the mountain. They don't consider that to be cheating, and as long as whatever government or organization that has control over the mountain says that it isn't illegal to fly helicopters up to the top of the mountain, then it's okay to do so.

The people who are mainly interested in the journey might consider taking a helicopter to the top of the mountain to be "cheating," because that basically eliminates the journey, or at least shortens it. Or some of them might consider it to be okay if it's done in a way that it's also a journey-- a leisurely sight-seeing trip up the mountain by air.

Each group has its extremes, and there are many gradations in between.

For the extremist who just wants to get to the top of the mountain, a helicopter might not be fast enough, so they might be always looking for a faster way up.

For the extremist who is in it for the journey, the most enjoyable way to the top might be free solo climbing-- no ropes, no hooks, just rely on their own physical and mental abilities and stamina.

There are a lot of different types of players in ESO. Some play the game for the end results-- grinding for some gear that they're convinced they must have, or trying to find the most overpowered build possible so they can crush all other players and have ultimate bragging rights. Others play ESO for the journey as it were-- exploring and questing, developing a character-- and they don't see it as something that must be "won"; it's an experience, not a contest.

I'm sure there are many players of both types who use approved add-ons. But there are going to be some players who are more like a free solo climber in the sense that they don't want to use any add-ons and would prefer to play with a minimalist approach-- no overpowered AoEs, no "Jesus beams," just a blade, some armor, and a few basic skills. And there are going to be other players who are more like the helicopter riders in the sense that they just want to melt everything as quickly as possible so they can get their rewards and go.

Most are probably somewhere in the middle. Personally, I'm probably about a third of the way between, closer to the "knife and no clothes" approach but not nearly that extreme. And I don't care whether other players use add-ons or not, or even whether they use cheat engines or bots or whatever unapproved means they feel the need to use. Because it's just a game to me, and it isn't the type of game where you can win per se, because there's nothing to win-- no big boss fight at the very end that concludes the entire game. You "win" by having fun in the game, by making the journey and seeing the sights, by exploring different types of character builds. I can't control why other people play the game, or how they play it-- what tools they use, what kind of behavior they engage in, etc.-- so I'm not going to ruin my own fun by worrying about any of that.

I don't add-ons myself, but that's because I'm a purist, not because I think they're wrong. I grew up in the early days of video games, when add-ons were unheard of. As far as competitions for high scores, especially competitions that were for some kind of prize, there were usually strict rules about what type of joystick or other game controller you could use, because everyone had to be playing with the exact same kind of controller-- even if it was a cruddy Atari joystick-- and later on, when the classic games were being played on computers using an emulator, there were sometimes rules about which emulations you could use, and definitely rules against playing with modded ROMs.

But ESO isn't a competition, and add-ons are allowed, and people can play with whatever keyboard or mouse or fame game controller they want. [Stupid iPad spelling corrector.]

starkerealm

SeaGtGruff wrote: »

No analogy is perfect...

Then don't use them.

I understand the appeal. It's much easier to frame something in a different context you're more comfortable with. If you don't fully understand the topic you're discussing, it's much easier to drag the logical test you're trying to set up, onto ground you're familiar with, and say, "see, it makes sense!"

Resist that impulse. It is lazy writing.

Your arguments will be better, and more grounded, if you do not try to insert awkward analogies in to explain your logic.

Your arguments will also be more resistant to being dragged off into the weeds and savaged because of discrepancies between how the two, not entirely similar, situations work. It's easier to stay on topic, if you don't go off into an analogy.

Analogies are fantastic when you're teaching someone how something works. That's where they excel. That's how you can use them effectively.

Analogies do not work when you're arguing from a position, because it introduces new weaknesses to your argument that may not have existed before. It can mask other weaknesses, but a better approach is simply to prepare for people to call you on those, rather than trying to hide them through clever wordplay.

Using analogies turns one argument into two, separate, parallel, arguments. You do not want that, unless you're ready to go at it on both.

In many cases, a poorly constructed analogy can outright undermine your point. This could have been avoided by, you know, not using an analogy.

So, in the interests of being a better debater, don't use analogies to illustrate your point.

VaranisArano

SeaGtGruff wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

SeaGtGruff wrote: »

Jhalin wrote: »

Imagine walking into an open note test and saying everyone’s notes were cheating because you failed to bring your notes.

That’s the OP

And there are educators and students who might argue that relying on notes while taking a test, or relying on a calculator in a math test-- whether it is allowed or not-- is cheating yourself out of actually learning the material, or the math, well enough to pass the test without having to refer to your notes or use your calculator. They might also argue that the fact that our modern educational system even allows those types of tests at all is just another part of the dumbing-down of education in particular and society in general.

Your response has no bearing on the analogy being made, in which a teacher allows notes to be used on their test, regardless of whether or not you think its sound educational practice.
Like it or not, ESO allows PC users to use add-ons.


But hey, I'm a teacher, and this is a chance to go off-topic on educational theory! I apologize in advance for the very lengthy digression into teaching theory. If its boring, please skip!

There's always a push-pull debate in educational circles between what's more important: testing for rote learning or testing for the ability to apply what you've learned. (The answer is both, but like the ESO Dev team, education theory is very "flavor of the month" and swings like a pendulum between them. This undergirds the whole debate over standardized tests and so, so much more.)

Part of designing tests is answering the question: what are you testing for?
Example of a closed notes test: If I want to know that my 8th grade anatomy students have memorized the large bones of the human body, that's a rote memory test. I'm testing their memory, so that's a proper testing method.

Example of a open notes test: If I want my 8th graders to balance chemistry equations, I'm going to give them the periodic table as a reference because I'm testing their ability to follow a process. They don't need to memorize the Periodic Table to balance chemistry equations, so not giving them the Table would be an unfair test.

In short, if teachers are really making things easier via open notes tests, then its because they are misapplying "what am I testing for." Open note tests when testing for rote learning is bad testing methodology. Open note tests when testing for application can be appropriate, depending on what's being tested.


One of the differences in "modern education" is a greater emphasis on making sure students understand the process of what they are doing, not just the rote memorization. So there's more tests that focus on "do my students understand the process so they can do this on their own without me" vs "do my students have these basic facts memorized". Both are necessary! Just be prepared for the pendulum to swing back and forth, back and forth,


So, uh, digressions into educational theory aside, does any of that apply to ESO?

Sort of? Not really?

Education and testing is only an analogy to ESO, and I think its hitting the point where the analogy breaks down as all analogies inevitably do.

I mean, I've already pointed out that even if we completely discount add-ons, PC "students" get pretests (PTS Access) and the ability to check their answers and strategize with access to the study guide (ESO Logs), while Consoles get nothing of the sort. PC and Console aren't even on the same playing field when it comes to competitive PVE content - there's just no comparing those test scores.

Hope that all makes sense!

Hope this makes sense:

No analogy is perfect, and the analogy comparing the use of add-ons in a video game to using notes in a test was dumb, because a video game isn't a test. Although, it sure does appear that a lot of people who play ESO take it really, really, really seriously, like it's a cut-throat professional job, or a highly-paid professional sport, and not a game in which you're supposed to be having fun.

Hope this analogy is less imperfect than the dumb "open notes test" analogy:

Climbing a mountain.

Some people like to climb mountains. Their reasons vary.

For some it might be about sitting on the mountain top and looking down at the view. Let's say that they're mainly interested in the result or outcome-- or the destination, if you will.

For others it might be about the act of climbing the mountain. Let's say that they're mainly interested in the journey itself, not the destination.

The people who are mainly interested in the

All analogies break down when pushed hard enough, and that's one thing I specifically pointed out to Davor when I explained what the other poster meant by an open note test.

Honestly, if it werent for the fact that I got really excited to talk about educational theory in response to your comment, I'd suggest we avoid analogies and stick with the facts:

ZOS allows addons and intends for players to be able to use the available API to create and use addons in order to complete ESO content. So addons are not cheating from ZOS' perspective and ZOS is, to be quite frank, the only people who's opinions matter when it comes to what's cheating in ESO.

We can draw analogies to explain why some players don't like addons or think addons are cheating. Personally, I'd use the analogy to the debate in the mountain climbing community about the use of supplemental oxygen and other assistance, but I'm sure even that would break down if pressed far enough, so I'll avoid that. In any case, none of those analogies really change the fact that ZOS allows and intends for players to make and use add-ons within the scope of the allowed API, so in the opinion of the people who own ESO, control the API, and hold the banhammer...addons aren't cheating.

SeaGtGruff

starkerealm wrote: »

SeaGtGruff wrote: »

No analogy is perfect...

Then don't use them.

I understand the appeal. It's much easier to frame something in a different context you're more comfortable with. If you don't fully understand the topic you're discussing, it's much easier to drag the logical test you're trying to set up, onto ground you're familiar with, and say, "see, it makes sense!"

Resist that impulse. It is lazy writing.

Your arguments will be better, and more grounded, if you do not try to insert awkward analogies in to explain your logic.

Your arguments will also be more resistant to being dragged off into the weeds and savaged because of discrepancies between how the two, not entirely similar, situations work. It's easier to stay on topic, if you don't go off into an analogy.

Analogies are fantastic when you're teaching someone how something works. That's where they excel. That's how you can use them effectively.

Analogies do not work when you're arguing from a position, because it introduces new weaknesses to your argument that may not have existed before. It can mask other weaknesses, but a better approach is simply to prepare for people to call you on those, rather than trying to hide them through clever wordplay.

Using analogies turns one argument into two, separate, parallel, arguments. You do not want that, unless you're ready to go at it on both.

In many cases, a poorly constructed analogy can outright undermine your point. This could have been avoided by, you know, not using an analogy.

So, in the interests of being a better debater, don't use analogies to illustrate your point.

I guess you missed the part where I was the one replying to the "open notes test" analogy, not the person who made it. Yes, I made an analogy to mountain climbing, because I think it fits the topic better, since ESO is something that's supposed to be an enjoyable pastime, not a test. But I suppose the "open notes test" analogy appeals to players who yell at other players in dungeons and say things like, "Didn't you do your homework? Where are your notes? Why did you come in here without an extra No. 2 pencil and a big eraser the right kind of gear and both of your skill bars set up correctly?"

Env_t

@starkerealm
names of addon pls?

starkerealm

You mean in those screenshots?

PerfectPixel, Harven's Improved Skills Window, (also you can see Skyshards on the skills screen shot), Inventory Insight, Inventory Grid View, IGV Skin: Abyss, AutoCategories, Quality Sort, Bank Manager Revived (only visible in chat), Inventory Item Borders... I think that's it. Craft Store might be visible somewhere on that too, I'm not sure.

Env_t

@starkerealm
hmm i like skill window
i also have Harvens Improved skill window but it looks different
all your categories expanded

i also have Spent Skill Points but its also doesnt do that