JonnytheKing wrote: »

i get poeple feel strongly on this and i get why poeple spoke out about this i can understand the frustration poeple have , but at the end of the day miat and myself made this video to try and get a response about it, witch we did and thank you to all of those that helped us do this. i dont think the hate and insults towards me and miat were not needed , at the end of the day we are all gamers that want the game we have sank so many hours in to , get better and funner for every one , thats the goel guys and dont forget it please

Holy double negative ...or just a Freudian faux pa

FloppyTouch wrote: »

Why is this thread going on ffs

People are getting so caught up on the word “cheating” let’s put that word down for a sec. what ever you want to call it, it’s not how ZoS wanted the game to be played an addOn should never be a counter to a build just that simple. Does this addOn help counter a build class and playstyle? Yep ur damn sure it does so “at the end of the day” it’s WRONG.

Just bc ZoS didn’t know the API could be used to do something like this does not mean it’s okay. Look at all the other unattended bugs or issues with the game that they found out later.

Can we please get off the word cheat and get on the subject that we can all agree on that this is obviously not right and so much so that ZoS is looking at changing the API to prevent people from making these kinds of changes to combat.

END OF THREAD FFS

Agree. Making a stand on whether this is or is not a cheat detracts from the entire point. That this particular add on is not good for the game.

JonnytheKing wrote: »

So are poeple happy about zos making changers to this , im glad that we got something done. i want to thank the poeple that your smart about this and could see that it wasnt a cheat , but sadly must poeple are dumb and blind and think it ok to get angry at me for trying to help the community witch by the way i did . But at the end of the day im happy that zos replied its a GOOD start

jonny the king!!!

you done good sir...

seeing as how you have grabbed the attention of our favorite dungeon master, zos - think you could get them to add some dragons to upcoming content...

just askin...

I'm not going to continue this any further but Johnny's opinions are not the issue , Miat's opinions are not the issue , ZoS is the issue here . An poor Gina has to come in and explain things for everyone at ZoS even though none of this is her fault . She never coded the API or set a single rule for access but she will take the blunt force from the players because the people responsible never step in here and say sorry guys , my bad . That was my department . Should of looked into this more , won't happen again . I would die of shock to see a person take responsibility that was actually responsible and not Gina or Jessica . So keep focus where it belongs .

DDuke wrote: »

That's a subject for an entirely different thread. I'm not so sure you'll find sympathy for that idea, given that you're pretty much the only person who sees channeled skills acting in an unintended manner

I gave you the reasoning. Do you have any objections to the provided reasoning?

DDuke wrote: »

(they've worked like they work now since the beta).

Which can't be a reason not to consider them exploits, just like you tell us about double mundus stuff.

DDuke wrote: »

When making your case, please also explain how those channeled abilities from stealth negatively affect the game in comparison to other builds (including melee stealth builds), and if they make any build in the game unviable just by existing (thus negatively affecting build diversity in game).

They affect any other build in a negative way, because any other build will get hit by a channeled attack with hidden channel time, thus receiving more damage and additional status effects compared to being hit with an instant skill.

Build diversity that is based on an exploit has to be considered an undesired thing for the game as a whole if that exploit is not available for everybody and if it undermines some skills in favor of another skills only because of the exploit.

In the current case we have both of those.

DDuke wrote: »

Then (since this is a balance discussion as well) you can constructively come up with ways that would make these skills see more use, as they're currently not really used by anyone (even on consoles the typical melee meta builds are more common based on 1v1/1vX videos I've watched, but maybe someone from consoles can elaborate).

These skills have high risk/high reward type of behavior and thus obviously are less reliable than instant skills.

If you want to increase the usage of those skills you will need to either increase the rewards (damage, effects on successful hit) or decrease the drawbacks (reduce channel time, make snipes uninterruptible, increase movement speed while channeling).

By doing so you might see much more use of those, without exploiting the channel time. The exploit effectively makes channel time zero, which is too much of a buff to the said skills (given their relative power).

Dorrino wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

Vizier wrote: »

It's not a "cheat" based on the allowable usage of the API. It does, however, appear to have some seriously destructive unintended (by ZOS) consequences to PvP. These consequences are both general to the overall population and very specific to the NB class that relies on the ability to be undetected before they strike.

Those that do not support the addon need to frame the argument differently than calling it a "cheat." That only allows for a counter to your argument that you can't win. It literally is not a cheat due to currently allowable access to the API / combat logs. It IS, however, a game breaking addon that needs to be stamped out by ZOS if they have any integrity or desire to maintain a relatively fair PvP environment...period.

I think the argument is that since the API was letting you see attacks from stealth enemies, it should have been "/bug" instead of creating an add-on that utilizes it's function. And it was up to the players that found it to do so, and the rest of the playerbase to continue to "/bug" to keep the DEV team mindful of its presence. But this part hints at issues of ethics, not necessarily TOS violating, because one can negatively view the add-on creator but ZOS wont be punishing the creator. And the addon creator can say things like "the API had it, so I didn't think it was broken".

Also things can exist in the game which aren't formally reviewed as exploits because they haven't been formally "/bug" for the team to review.

Ok, this looks like the major point of disagreement.

Seeing attacks of stealthed enemies.

I assume the argument goes something like 'they are stealthed. Invisible. You're not supposed to see the invisible, duh!.

Is it correct?

If it is, then i have a counterargument right there:

Stealth/invisibility is this game (and many other games) has a very distinct property. That is 'you will immediately lose stealth if you are attacked or if you attack anybody'.

I don't think we're arguing if stealth has to be broken on instant attack against anybody, right?

So the only question that needs resolution is 'do we consider prechannel to be an attack or not'.

if we think about the prechannel as a necessary part of specific attacks, then starting this channel should be considered an attack and thus break stealth.

And since in this game prechannels don't break stealth i'd argue that that is a glitch and this glitch should be reported instead of exploiting it, making builds based on this exploit and even defending the builds that are enabled by this exploit.

Now the argument that prechannels should bring stealth by design (not by my desire):

1. Skills with prechannel are considerably more effective that skills without it.
2. This additional power has to be offset with a drawback to be balanced against instant skills.
3. This drawback is the channel time itself.
4. The channel time is a drawback, because it allows for the target to notice the channeling skill and react accordingly.
5. Channeled skills can only be balanced against instant skills, if channel itself is clearly visible to the target.
6. Therefore any attempts to make the channel invisible (either by animation cancel glitch or by deliberately channeling it from stealth) is an exploit of the intended design and lead to imbalancing channels vs instant skill relative power.
7. The fact that this exploit has been in the game for so long can't be an argument towards its legitimization for the same reasons as 'Double Mundus exploit or Sharp Mace exploit' were still considered exploits over the whole time of their existence (as DDuke teaches us).
8. Additionally only nightblades can effectively exploit this property of channeled skills. This imbalances the whole situation even stronger creating an unfair advantage that is available to one class only.

Ergo, channels from stealth should break stealth at the start of the channel. The fact that they don't constitutes an exploit of skill design paradigm. Making builds based of the exploit should be shunned and prevented.

Cheers!:P

If I am hit by a stealth attack, but did not anticipate it's arrival or use, I should be punished as I failed to react or anticipate its use. If I am hit by a cast time ability outside of stealth and I fail to react, is it not the same result? Yes, I am punished for not reacting.

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't your addon display a cast time bar showing the duration of the ability being used, prior to it leaving the enemy, against you regardless of your situational awareness or if the enemy is in stealth? Even if the ability is out of stealth,the vanila UI requires that I be situational aware before I can react to the enemy. Your addon displays a cast time regardless of stealth or non-stealth, and punishes the player that doesn't run the addon since the players that react outside of the addon must rely on their sight and hearing to react to most stealth attacks.

Rest I will not comment on. Addons should not replace game/skill balance by devs; only expand on the game experience within official review against the dev's design intent. If abilities do not function as you feel are not lining up with the intent, please showcase the information to ZOS and suggest they make those changes.

Maikon wrote: »

Would you say getting hit from stealth by 5 snipes almost instantly is an unfair advantage? I would.

Yes I would and it should be addressed by the Devs for a change , not by a player and at the same time breaking all attacks from stealth . Because stealth was a apart of the development .

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

Maikon wrote: »

Would you say getting hit from stealth by 5 snipes almost instantly is an unfair advantage? I would.

Yes I would and it should be addressed by the Devs for a change , not by a player and at the same time breaking all attacks from stealth . Because stealth was a apart of the development .

It has been addressed, thousands of times since the live release of TESO, but since 95% of the population has insisted it's an "intended" feature and want to continue abusing it, ZOS has left it alone. If they remove it, I have no problem with them completely restricting miat's.

DDuke wrote: »

Maikon wrote: »

Would you say getting hit from stealth by 5 snipes from the same player almost instantly is an unfair advantage? I would.

Yes, if that were actually possible

See, Snipe has a 1.1s cast time and 0-3s travel time depending on distance - the most you can land (roughly) at the same time is two Snipes and that requires Major+Minor Expedition & moving towards the target while casting the 2nd Snipe.

What might've happened to you is a lag spike (of 5+ seconds) - I've certainly had my share of those.

Snipe has a cast time, unless you animation cancel it, then it's insta-cast. And as much as you insist that it was "intended", no one should be able to insta-cast any ability that has a cast time. That's what I consider exploiting.

DDuke wrote: »

For example, what you mention is true: you lose stealth when you attack someone in this game (not the case in all games, e.g. Blade&Soul).

Yep, that's why i said 'generally'. Some games have additional mechanics to attack without losing stealth.

Those mechanics are explicitly tied to the relevant skills.

Which is not the case in eso.

DDuke wrote: »

However, casting a skill isn't attacking someone until the skill lands, nor is a heavy attack from stealth/cloak.

This is true for instant cast ranged attacks as well - your stealth isn't removed until the attack actually hits a target (you can test this with skills like Poison Injection or bow/staff light attack).

And i argue that this behavior itself is an exploit when applied to channeled attacks.

In case of instant attacks it might be treated as either, but at best in the case of instant attacks you will get a free stealthed weaponswap. While being an advantage it's arguable whether to consider it an exploit of stealth mechanics or not. I personally wouldn't.

And if in the case of instant attack this behavior is tolerable, in the case of channels it leads to over-emphesizing channeled attacks by one class mostly. Again i'd rather see channels buffed with reduced drawbacks and slightly reduced effects instead.

Right right, as you rightfully mentioned, channeled attacks underperform without stealth and overperform in the stealth. I don't think that this state of channels justifies using class specific exploits. Especially, since none of nightblade class skills is a channel, so we can't justify their unique place by their class design.

DDuke wrote: »

Ah, but this isn't the case - not if you pay attention to visual/audio cues present at the end of a channel.

And here is the problem. The exploit happens when you start requiring people to react to the end of the channel instead of the beginning of the channel as (and that i argued) it is intended in channels vs instants relative balance design.

Especially, since in some cases (ds) you can't react to the end of the channel at all.

DDuke wrote: »

It also doesn't result in any of these other builds being unviable in PvP.

Stamblades are more than viable in pvp without reliance on exploits from stealth.

I've been playing one for years like that.

Thus i can't agree with this argument both on personal experience grounds and on the grounds that if stamblades underperform without stealth channels exploit, the solution would be to buff stamblades. For instance by fixing cloak.

DDuke wrote: »

This "exploit" (sorry, I chuckle a bit every time I read that) is available to everybody, regardless of the character archetype they play. Anyone can sneak in this game and anyone can use cast time abilities if they choose to (dark flare, crystal blast, snipe, inferno heavy, bow heavy - lots to choose from).

Yes, other classes has a limited access to this exploit (once per fight). Which is generally irrelevant compared to nightblades that can literally build around it and use it many times during one fight.

DDuke wrote: »

See, you could make a thread and suggest such changes.

Maybe ZOS and other players will agree with you. Maybe they won't. Who knows.

I personally, would love to reduce the drawbacks of the channels. So it wouldn't be that much of a problem to be hit by one and at the same time it would be much easier to actually hit with them:)

DDuke wrote: »

Mmh.. there's still a channel time though (even if you don't see it). This is obvious to anyone who has ever 1vX'd with a cast time build.

What you see as an "exploit", I see as a stealth opener (strong when not detected, but rather weak otherwise).

Most (MMO)RPGs have these kinds of stealth openers that deal large portion of the "rogue" or "assassin" character's burst.

Since the target it unaware about the channel time, from the target perspective the skill didn't have any channel time. Just an instant attack that hits for much higher than 'normal' instant attacks.

Yes, many mmos have the concept of the opener. But there the 'opener' is a class specific highly regulated skill, that can't be modified by exploits like this one.

For instance SA from stealth is the 'opener' since it has specific benefits by being cast from stealth. And ha into sa is not, because ha part is not both class and stealth specific.

Idc how it's pronounced, I call him Dorito boy lel