ZOS: Answer this question! Can only the picker of the lock get the lead?

spartaxoxo

kargen27 wrote: »

That we have zero evidence otherwise is also a good indication that you have to pick the lock to get the lead.

We have a video of a user getting the lead from someone else's lockpick in another thread, IIRC.

ETA:

Yup

RemoryAzure wrote: »

marius_buys wrote: »

UNCONFIRMED:
4 You can loot the lead as the second person who opens the box

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXX-Hf2FpNc

to get the lead u need to interact with the box AFTER its 'owner' finishes lockpicking but BEFORE he starts looting it.
no other ways and cheeses, 99% chance that once the owner sees the loot window, the box is flagged empty and noone can get the lead anymore.

SilverBride

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Leaving items in a safebox solely to keep it from closing so multiple players can try to get a rare lead from one box should not be allowed in my opinion.

Why? Who does it hurt to share?

In my opinion it is not sharing, but rather taking advantage of something that I seriously doubt was intended for personal gain.

spartaxoxo

SilverBride wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Leaving items in a safebox solely to keep it from closing so multiple players can try to get a rare lead from one box should not be allowed in my opinion.

Why? Who does it hurt to share?

In my opinion it is not sharing, but rather taking advantage of something that I seriously doubt was intended for personal gain.

But bugs become features all the time if they help the playerbase in video games. Why shouldn't they simply adjust things so it's easier to share rather than prevent sharing? Because that's the reason people turned off their auto-loot, was to share with others.

SilverBride

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Leaving items in a safebox solely to keep it from closing so multiple players can try to get a rare lead from one box should not be allowed in my opinion.

Why? Who does it hurt to share?

In my opinion it is not sharing, but rather taking advantage of something that I seriously doubt was intended for personal gain.

But bugs become features all the time if they help the playerbase in video games. Why shouldn't they simply adjust things so it's easier to share rather than prevent sharing? Because that's the reason people turned off their auto-loot, was to share with others.

I think it's bordering on exploitation and I do not agree with it.

spartaxoxo

1

SilverBride wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Leaving items in a safebox solely to keep it from closing so multiple players can try to get a rare lead from one box should not be allowed in my opinion.

Why? Who does it hurt to share?

In my opinion it is not sharing, but rather taking advantage of something that I seriously doubt was intended for personal gain.

But bugs become features all the time if they help the playerbase in video games. Why shouldn't they simply adjust things so it's easier to share rather than prevent sharing? Because that's the reason people turned off their auto-loot, was to share with others.

I think it's bordering on exploitation and I do not agree with it.

Yes, I understand that part. For the sake argument, let's say that it IS exploitation. There are two ways they can fix it. They can make the bug a built in feature, and make it able to be done consistently and without exploitation. Or they can delete it from the game.

What is the argument for the latter solution? I don't see the harm that is caused in sharing loot with ungrouped fellow players for a brief duration. Could you please clarify the harm you see in that, setting aside it's an exploit? So I can understand why you'd prefer the solution be to delete it from the game.

SilverBride

spartaxoxo wrote: »

1

SilverBride wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Leaving items in a safebox solely to keep it from closing so multiple players can try to get a rare lead from one box should not be allowed in my opinion.

Why? Who does it hurt to share?

In my opinion it is not sharing, but rather taking advantage of something that I seriously doubt was intended for personal gain.

But bugs become features all the time if they help the playerbase in video games. Why shouldn't they simply adjust things so it's easier to share rather than prevent sharing? Because that's the reason people turned off their auto-loot, was to share with others.

I think it's bordering on exploitation and I do not agree with it.

Yes, I understand that part. For the sake argument, let's say that it IS exploitation. There are two ways they can fix it. They can make the bug a built in feature, and make it able to be done consistently and without exploitation. Or they can delete it from the game.

What is the argument for the latter solution? I don't see the harm that is caused in sharing loot with ungrouped fellow players for a brief duration. Could you please clarify the harm you see in that, setting aside it's an exploit? So I can understand why you'd prefer the solution be to delete it from the game.

This possibly being an exploit is reason enough, but if you want more take a look at the toxicity of players towards those who choose not to go along with them. Players are being called selfish and trolls because they choose not to do something they don't agree with.

In my opinion this borders on exploitation and I hope they remove the ability to loot a chest that someone else has opened.

spartaxoxo

SilverBride wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

1

SilverBride wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Leaving items in a safebox solely to keep it from closing so multiple players can try to get a rare lead from one box should not be allowed in my opinion.

Why? Who does it hurt to share?

In my opinion it is not sharing, but rather taking advantage of something that I seriously doubt was intended for personal gain.

But bugs become features all the time if they help the playerbase in video games. Why shouldn't they simply adjust things so it's easier to share rather than prevent sharing? Because that's the reason people turned off their auto-loot, was to share with others.

I think it's bordering on exploitation and I do not agree with it.

Yes, I understand that part. For the sake argument, let's say that it IS exploitation. There are two ways they can fix it. They can make the bug a built in feature, and make it able to be done consistently and without exploitation. Or they can delete it from the game.

What is the argument for the latter solution? I don't see the harm that is caused in sharing loot with ungrouped fellow players for a brief duration. Could you please clarify the harm you see in that, setting aside it's an exploit? So I can understand why you'd prefer the solution be to delete it from the game.

This possibly being an exploit is reason enough, but if you want more take a look at the toxicity of players towards those who choose not to go along with them. Players are being called selfish and trolls because they choose not to do something they don't agree with.

In my opinion this borders on exploitation and I hope they remove the ability to loot a chest that someone else has opened.

I mean it being an exploit is not really reason enough. All bugs that became features started out life as bugs. That's the thing they all have in common. When deciding whether to remove or make consistent these bugs, they instead look at what the impact on the game is and why players are doing it. We wouldn't have the unsend feature in email, combos in fighting games, wall jumps in platformers, etc. if bugs could never become features because the existence of a bug automatically means it must be removed.

I can't see zone chat, but if it is toxic, then that's all the more reason to make chest sharing a feature, imo. There is already a lot of toxicity around people deciding they don't want loot and leaving a chest open. People yell at them for doing it, and now they are apparently yelling at them for not doing it. In both cases the person doing the yelling is just mad they didn't get fresh loot.

Instead of removing chest sharing entirely, they should make it a feature. Let all the loot be instanced to that particular player for a brief time, the same barrels and other containers work. There is no toxicity around barrels, because barrels don't have mechanics that make sharing something that disrupts the gameplay of another player.

SilverBride

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

In my opinion this borders on exploitation and I hope they remove the ability to loot a chest that someone else has opened.

I mean it being an exploit is not really reason enough.

In my opinion it is and I stand by this.

spartaxoxo

I mean, that's literally not how game design works. And I'm glad for that. I think we've gotten some awesome stuff in video games due to them not designing things that way. It's so hard to imagine fighting games without all of those ultra long combos, for example. It's become such an important part of fighting games, that I actually don't even know how the genre could have survived without them. It might have started life as a bug but the genre as a whole is better for it.

In this game, I'm not sure if there's any bugs that ended up as gameplay features. I would love to hear a Dev's thoughts on that concept at some point.

Anyway, I am very glad that in tech bugs can become features. And I hope this game makes chest sharing easier to do. It would solve a lot of problems if they worked differently not just with this lead, but in general as well. I think forcing a lot of players to get overly competitive with a very little amount of nodes would only make things more toxic. At least when people share, more people can get what they need.

chessalavakia_ESO

SilverBride wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

1

SilverBride wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Leaving items in a safebox solely to keep it from closing so multiple players can try to get a rare lead from one box should not be allowed in my opinion.

Why? Who does it hurt to share?

In my opinion it is not sharing, but rather taking advantage of something that I seriously doubt was intended for personal gain.

But bugs become features all the time if they help the playerbase in video games. Why shouldn't they simply adjust things so it's easier to share rather than prevent sharing? Because that's the reason people turned off their auto-loot, was to share with others.

I think it's bordering on exploitation and I do not agree with it.

Yes, I understand that part. For the sake argument, let's say that it IS exploitation. There are two ways they can fix it. They can make the bug a built in feature, and make it able to be done consistently and without exploitation. Or they can delete it from the game.

What is the argument for the latter solution? I don't see the harm that is caused in sharing loot with ungrouped fellow players for a brief duration. Could you please clarify the harm you see in that, setting aside it's an exploit? So I can understand why you'd prefer the solution be to delete it from the game.

This possibly being an exploit is reason enough, but if you want more take a look at the toxicity of players towards those who choose not to go along with them. Players are being called selfish and trolls because they choose not to do something they don't agree with.

In my opinion this borders on exploitation and I hope they remove the ability to loot a chest that someone else has opened.

Chests have been lootable by other players for years. One of the constants from the various times I've came and left ESO is people complaining about other people leaving items in chests.

As a result, I'd question if we really should assume the person creating the content would be unaware that people might leave items in a chest.

spartaxoxo

chessalavakia_ESO wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

1

SilverBride wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Leaving items in a safebox solely to keep it from closing so multiple players can try to get a rare lead from one box should not be allowed in my opinion.

Why? Who does it hurt to share?

In my opinion it is not sharing, but rather taking advantage of something that I seriously doubt was intended for personal gain.

But bugs become features all the time if they help the playerbase in video games. Why shouldn't they simply adjust things so it's easier to share rather than prevent sharing? Because that's the reason people turned off their auto-loot, was to share with others.

I think it's bordering on exploitation and I do not agree with it.

Yes, I understand that part. For the sake argument, let's say that it IS exploitation. There are two ways they can fix it. They can make the bug a built in feature, and make it able to be done consistently and without exploitation. Or they can delete it from the game.

What is the argument for the latter solution? I don't see the harm that is caused in sharing loot with ungrouped fellow players for a brief duration. Could you please clarify the harm you see in that, setting aside it's an exploit? So I can understand why you'd prefer the solution be to delete it from the game.

This possibly being an exploit is reason enough, but if you want more take a look at the toxicity of players towards those who choose not to go along with them. Players are being called selfish and trolls because they choose not to do something they don't agree with.

In my opinion this borders on exploitation and I hope they remove the ability to loot a chest that someone else has opened.

Chests have been lootable by other players for years. One of the constants from the various times I've came and left ESO is people complaining about other people leaving items in chests.

As a result, I'd question if we really should assume the person creating the content would be unaware that people might leave items in a chest.

Yeah. I accepted it as an exploit for the sake of argument. But chests are actually specifically designed so that items that were left behind can be grabbed by other players. It is literally how they always worked. So it's not an exploit to leave loot for someone else to grab.

Ipsius

ZOS is going above and beyond even commenting on this thread. They shouldn't be expected to respond and refute everytime a player convinces others of some baseless superstition.

chrisub17_ESO104

We have enough data now to answer this question. We would be seeing a lot of people saying that they got the lead from not picking. Even if the drop rate for not picking was ridiculously low, there would be I think at least dozens of drops by now.

So, not auto looting can only possibly hurt things not help. Simple logic. It might extend how long it takes boxes to spawn. It might even mess with drops although I think that's unlikely. But there is no train of logic you can follow where not looting helps.

spartaxoxo

chrisub17_ESO104 wrote: »

We have enough data now to answer this question. We would be seeing a lot of people saying that they got the lead from not picking. Even if the drop rate for not picking was ridiculously low, there would be I think at least dozens of drops by now.

So, not auto looting can only possibly hurt things not help. Simple logic. It might extend how long it takes boxes to spawn. It might even mess with drops although I think that's unlikely. But there is no train of logic you can follow where not looting helps.

There is a video of someone getting the loot without picking the lock themselves in this very thread. Beyond that, it doesn't follow that because nobody said anything in this thread that nobody got it. Very few users use any game's forums. There's actually nothing that states leaving stuff behind hurts either.

If no reports are generated about adverse or advantageous results, we can conclude that it's a neutral action or that we don't have enough information. Going to it is could be hurting based off nothing is a logical leap.

ETA

Actually if I were to hazard a guess based only on that video, I would say that having auto-loot on or spamming the take button might be harmful, but taking your items after they've fully loaded in is a not. And that items should be taken after they've fully loaded in to increase respawn rate.

This is because it seems the users that successfully took a lead from a chest someone else opened only were able to do so in the split second between the locked being picked and the opener being given their report on what was in the chest. So anything that might potentially shorten that process like spamming accept or auto-loot would be detrimental to people also trying to use the chest. Once you have that report however, you should take all items so that a new chest can spawn somewhere else, as there are a limited number of boxes up at any given time.

VaranisArano

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I mean, that's literally not how game design works. And I'm glad for that. I think we've gotten some awesome stuff in video games due to them not designing things that way. It's so hard to imagine fighting games without all of those ultra long combos, for example. It's become such an important part of fighting games, that I actually don't even know how the genre could have survived without them. It might have started life as a bug but the genre as a whole is better for it.

In this game, I'm not sure if there's any bugs that ended up as gameplay features. I would love to hear a Dev's thoughts on that concept at some point.

Anyway, I am very glad that in tech bugs can become features. And I hope this game makes chest sharing easier to do. It would solve a lot of problems if they worked differently not just with this lead, but in general as well. I think forcing a lot of players to get overly competitive with a very little amount of nodes would only make things more toxic. At least when people share, more people can get what they need.

Light attack weaving is probably the most famous example of unintended gameplay in this game that has since become accepted by the Devs as a core part of ESO's combat.

We still see the occasional thread calling it a bug asking the Devs to remove it.

kargen27

Cameryn wrote: »

I still don't understand why these developers haven't fixed this. Just reduce the spawn time of these safeboxes, even temporarily. It doesn't take testing or lengthy development time (and if it does, then that's a design flaw of the game.)

I mean, is that REALLY a more costly solution than all the bad blood you're creating with your player community? Honestly.

I'm guessing the spawn time is universal across all the zones so reducing spawn time would have an impact in other areas of the game.

MidniteOwl1913

So zos never actually answered the question. It's not as if it's a state secret. I'm assuming that they know and are simply choosing not to answer BTW. I'm not even planning on going after this lead anytime soon, because I value my sanity, but about this question I am curious.

wolfie1.0.

Ipsius wrote: »

ZOS is going above and beyond even commenting on this thread. They shouldn't be expected to respond and refute everytime a player convinces others of some baseless superstition.

While it's true that they shouldn't be obligated to respond to every question on every thread, there are exceptions. One of those exceptions is (or should be) when an issue becomes a major point of contention in the community to the point that players are reporting each other for TOS violations over it, or TOS violations occur due the scale of the issue.

Aislinna

spartaxoxo wrote: »

kargen27 wrote: »

That we have zero evidence otherwise is also a good indication that you have to pick the lock to get the lead.

We have a video of a user getting the lead from someone else's lockpick in another thread, IIRC.

ETA:

Yup

RemoryAzure wrote: »

marius_buys wrote: »

UNCONFIRMED:
4 You can loot the lead as the second person who opens the box

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXX-Hf2FpNc

to get the lead u need to interact with the box AFTER its 'owner' finishes lockpicking but BEFORE he starts looting it.
no other ways and cheeses, 99% chance that once the owner sees the loot window, the box is flagged empty and noone can get the lead anymore.

What that video shows is somebody other then the lockpicker hitting the loot button before the lockpicker is able to. The video is titled "petrified oak loop stealing" (not sharing) and the description says what happened. Basically, player 1 picked the lock and before player 1 could hit E to loot, player 2 hit E to loot. Two players did not get a chance at the lead, only the player who first looted did. So like other items in the drop, there is only one lead and you can not choose to leave it in the chest like you can choose to leave other inventory items, so only the first looter gets the lead if one is in the drop. Now why player 1 did not loot in this video, I don't know, but that is why player 2 got the lead.

Solantris

Hi there, I can confirm it does drop if you dont pick the box, I got it on PCNA as the second in line. I imagine the drop chance is smaller but still possible? (Thank God tho, because I'm Australian and there's no way in hell I'd be first in line lol)

Pevey

The only way that happened is if the first person got it and accidentally closed the box out of habit before looting it.

ErMurazor

Vianca wrote: »

Hi there, I can confirm it does drop if you dont pick the box, I got it on PCNA as the second in line. I imagine the drop chance is smaller but still possible? (Thank God tho, because I'm Australian and there's no way in hell I'd be first in line lol)

Still just hearsay. I call it [snip] until i actually see evidence of it. So much talk and not 1 video actually showing it.

[edited for profanity bypass]

Aislinna

Vianca wrote: »

Hi there, I can confirm it does drop if you dont pick the box, I got it on PCNA as the second in line. I imagine the drop chance is smaller but still possible? (Thank God tho, because I'm Australian and there's no way in hell I'd be first in line lol)

How do you know the lockpicker looted the chest before you looted it?

I don't doubt you got the lead without being the lockpicker, but I'd bet the lockpicker did not loot the chest at all. With auto-loot stolen items turned off, it leaves a split second opening for somebody other then the lockpicker to loot the chest, if the lockpicker doesn't hit loot fast enough. With everybody spamming E to try and lockpick/loot the chest, I'm sure unintentionally some people hit that split second window and got first loot without being the lockpicker.

evymyu233

the first people who unlock this safebox,caught by guard.he didnt open thesafebox.so second people come here,see this box is unlock,and get lead.

Jaraal

kargen27 wrote: »

Cameryn wrote: »

I still don't understand why these developers haven't fixed this. Just reduce the spawn time of these safeboxes, even temporarily. It doesn't take testing or lengthy development time (and if it does, then that's a design flaw of the game.)

I mean, is that REALLY a more costly solution than all the bad blood you're creating with your player community? Honestly.

I'm guessing the spawn time is universal across all the zones so reducing spawn time would have an impact in other areas of the game.

Spawn times are not universal. Go into a delve and harvest materials, open treasure chests, and use fishing holes. You will find that everything respawns much faster than in large zones.

Jaraal

ErMurazor wrote: »

Vianca wrote: »

Hi there, I can confirm it does drop if you dont pick the box, I got it on PCNA as the second in line. I imagine the drop chance is smaller but still possible? (Thank God tho, because I'm Australian and there's no way in hell I'd be first in line lol)

Still just hearsay. I call it [snip] until i actually see evidence of it. So much talk and not 1 video actually showing it.

And to think the debate could easily be ended with a yes or no answer from ZOS! But sadly, no.

[edited to remove quote]

spartaxoxo

Aislinna wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

kargen27 wrote: »

That we have zero evidence otherwise is also a good indication that you have to pick the lock to get the lead.

We have a video of a user getting the lead from someone else's lockpick in another thread, IIRC.

ETA:

Yup

RemoryAzure wrote: »

marius_buys wrote: »

UNCONFIRMED:
4 You can loot the lead as the second person who opens the box

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXX-Hf2FpNc

to get the lead u need to interact with the box AFTER its 'owner' finishes lockpicking but BEFORE he starts looting it.
no other ways and cheeses, 99% chance that once the owner sees the loot window, the box is flagged empty and noone can get the lead anymore.

What that video shows is somebody other then the lockpicker hitting the loot button before the lockpicker is able to. The video is titled "petrified oak loop stealing" (not sharing) and the description says what happened. Basically, player 1 picked the lock and before player 1 could hit E to loot, player 2 hit E to loot. Two players did not get a chance at the lead, only the player who first looted did. So like other items in the drop, there is only one lead and you can not choose to leave it in the chest like you can choose to leave other inventory items, so only the first looter gets the lead if one is in the drop. Now why player 1 did not loot in this video, I don't know, but that is why player 2 got the lead.

You don't actually know what player 1 got, you're basing that off the title. Which was only named that way because person 2 got to loot before the other player. Player 2 is then kicked out of the loot table because when you pick a lock it is your loot, he did not have auto-loot on. Since Player 1 seems unaware that any such "theft" occured, they likely also got their loot. Which is what would be consistent with chest behavior.

deleted221106-002999

Summary (for me):

• picking lock on safebox is only consistent, guaranteed way - rng aside - to obtain the lead.
• there may be an edge case where the lead can be obtained just before the lock-picker has looted the safe-box
• there may be significantly reduced/marginal probability that another non-lock-picker can obtain the lead provided the safebox has not been looted.
• safe-boxes take 5-30m to respawn from point of lock-picking, regardless of looting.

kindnuguz

evymyu233 wrote: »

the first people who unlock this safebox,caught by guard.he didnt open thesafebox.so second people come here,see this box is unlock,and get lead.

See , good eye and good catch, I was saying this is zone chat that's about the only way I could see it happening. (a looker getting a lead)
Picker gets knocked off by a guard (or what ever) then someone else looks in and see's what was left behind.

But in no way could I see a picker take the lead from the box, then any other random can come up and it will spawn in the box for them.

Anyways

oldbobdude

I got the lead on both EU and NA when picking the lock. I’ve looted a number of already picked boxes with nothing but trash loot. Has anybody reading this thread gotten the lead from an already picked box?