Cheating vs exploits vs addons

Aznarb · August 2019

Donny_Vito wrote: »

I personally think add-ons are cheating and they just dumb the game down to help people who couldn't otherwise play at that level, but then again I'm a console pleb so I'm totally biased.

Raid notifier is clearly a cheat.
It tell you what to do and when. I've no respect for anyone using this.
A good player know pattern and mechanic, you don't need this "add-on".

That why most console player are more skill than the vast majority of Pc player.

mairwen85 · August 2019

Aznarb wrote: »

Donny_Vito wrote: »

I personally think add-ons are cheating and they just dumb the game down to help people who couldn't otherwise play at that level, but then again I'm a console pleb so I'm totally biased.

Raid notifier is clearly a cheat.
It tell you what to do and when. I've no respect for anyone using this.
A good player know pattern and mechanic, you don't need this "add-on".

That why most console player are more skill than the vast majority of Pc player.

Coming to pc from console, I have to disagree with the last part. Its true that weaving is easier on pc than console, but that is not related to addons. The console and pc communities are very different animals. Console play style is more intuitive, and there are a more diverse raiding scene that embrace shared support mechanics (where next patch seems to be headed)... Damage is higher across the board on pc, but survivability is preferred on console where the game is played in a more arcade game fashion. There are individuals and groups that embrace pc play too, and who work toward those goals, but that diversity is far from equivalent to higher actual skill and more a case of adapting to platform specific short falls.

aaisoaho · August 2019

I think the keyword here is 'cheat' and to achieve a state where almost everyone understands what we're talking about, we need to define it. Yes? I'd start the definition by looking at a dictionary and in this case, it is Merriam Webster. There's a lot of different definitions in it:

transitive verb

1 : to deprive of something valuable by the use of deceit or fraud
cheated the elderly couple out of their property
2 : to influence or lead by deceit, trick, or artifice
a young man who cheated young women into marrying him when he was already married
3 : to elude or thwart by or as if by outwitting
cheat death

intransitive verb

1a : to practice fraud or trickery
denied the accusation that he cheated
b : to violate rules dishonestly
cheat at cards
cheating on a test
2 : to be sexually unfaithful —usually used with on
was cheating on his wife
3 : to position oneself defensively near a particular area in anticipation of a play in that area
the shortstop was cheating toward second base

(Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cheat )
By looking at the examples, we can deduce that the intransitive verb definition 1b is closest to us. Just to be clear, we need to also think what games are.

I'd like to refer to one of my favorite books on this one, Rules of Play made by Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman. They have stated: "A game is a system in which players engage in an artificial conflict, defined by rules, that results in a quantifiable outcome.". So, we can certainly use cheat as a word for violating the rules in game.

From the definition of cheat, we can start to argue if add-ons are cheating. Now, the API is made by game developers, so can we assume the API follows the game rules? I think we can assume, so we can assume add-ons follows the game rules too, but there is also an edge case made by emergent nature of API and add-ons, in which add-ons could violate the rules of the game via emergency. The example of where the emergent nature of API lead to an add-on that could be considered to be bypassing/circumventing/violating the rules was the add-on which could alert players about stealth attacks in PVP - but as I said, this could be considered as cheating and I think it can be debated if it was indeed a cheat. (For the cheat argument we have the fact that ZoS made changes to the API to prevent the use of said add-on) The edge case on the other hand doesn't mean that all add-ons are cheating, because of course, not all add-ons are violating the in-game rules of game, and as such, I would not call all add-ons cheating.

Next to the issue of exploiting and hacking. Hacking is "to gain illegal access to (a computer network, system, etc.)"(source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hack ). And since it's illegal by definition, as in against the rules, it goes under the term 'cheat'. To be precise, the access in this definition seems to be access to data, memory etc. which is done via out-of-game software. For example: cheat engines which alters the client data and sent/received data. To me, add-ons doesn't seem to gain illegal access to any data or the client memory, or the sent/received data - so I wouldn't count them as hacking.

Exploiting can be understood as "to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage" (source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exploit ). What there is in game to exploit: bug or glitches, game system, rates, hit boxes, speed or level design etc. When exploiting these, you circumvent the rules and also violate the Terms of Service - so exploiting falls under the cheating. But can add-ons be considered as exploiting? I'd think not, because add-ons are tied to the platform and there is no cross-platform gameplay, to me, add-ons seems fair: everyone on the platform either has access to add-ons (PC) or doesn't have access to add-ons (consoles).

So, to me:
- Cheating is violating the rules.
- Not all add-ons are cheats.
- A singular add-on can be cheating, if it violates the rules of the game.
- Exploiting bug or glitches, game system etc. is cheating.
- Hacking (as in using software to gain access to the client program's data, networking etc.) is cheating.

Aznarb wrote: »

Donny_Vito wrote: »

I personally think add-ons are cheating and they just dumb the game down to help people who couldn't otherwise play at that level, but then again I'm a console pleb so I'm totally biased.

Raid notifier is clearly a cheat.
It tell you what to do and when. I've no respect for anyone using this.
A good player know pattern and mechanic, you don't need this "add-on".

That why most console player are more skill than the vast majority of Pc player.

Is telling a player what to do and when violating the rules of the game? You still need to follow the rules, it does not bypass the fact that the player using raid notifier needs to dodge the one hit attack. It does not allow you to go outside of the play area. It does not allow you to skip the boss fight. Is there a rule it is violating, and by doing such makes it a cheat? I do not think so, and so I do not think raid notifier is a cheat.

Aznarb · August 2019

aaisoaho wrote: »

I think the keyword here is 'cheat' and to achieve a state where almost everyone understands what we're talking about, we need to define it. Yes? I'd start the definition by looking at a dictionary and in this case, it is Merriam Webster. There's a lot of different definitions in it:

transitive verb

1 : to deprive of something valuable by the use of deceit or fraud
cheated the elderly couple out of their property
2 : to influence or lead by deceit, trick, or artifice
a young man who cheated young women into marrying him when he was already married
3 : to elude or thwart by or as if by outwitting
cheat death

intransitive verb

1a : to practice fraud or trickery
denied the accusation that he cheated
b : to violate rules dishonestly
cheat at cards
cheating on a test
2 : to be sexually unfaithful —usually used with on
was cheating on his wife
3 : to position oneself defensively near a particular area in anticipation of a play in that area
the shortstop was cheating toward second base

(Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cheat )
By looking at the examples, we can deduce that the intransitive verb definition 1b is closest to us. Just to be clear, we need to also think what games are.

I'd like to refer to one of my favorite books on this one, Rules of Play made by Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman. They have stated: "A game is a system in which players engage in an artificial conflict, defined by rules, that results in a quantifiable outcome.". So, we can certainly use cheat as a word for violating the rules in game.

From the definition of cheat, we can start to argue if add-ons are cheating. Now, the API is made by game developers, so can we assume the API follows the game rules? I think we can assume, so we can assume add-ons follows the game rules too, but there is also an edge case made by emergent nature of API and add-ons, in which add-ons could violate the rules of the game via emergency. The example of where the emergent nature of API lead to an add-on that could be considered to be bypassing/circumventing/violating the rules was the add-on which could alert players about stealth attacks in PVP - but as I said, this could be considered as cheating and I think it can be debated if it was indeed a cheat. (For the cheat argument we have the fact that ZoS made changes to the API to prevent the use of said add-on) The edge case on the other hand doesn't mean that all add-ons are cheating, because of course, not all add-ons are violating the in-game rules of game, and as such, I would not call all add-ons cheating.

Next to the issue of exploiting and hacking. Hacking is "to gain illegal access to (a computer network, system, etc.)"(source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hack ). And since it's illegal by definition, as in against the rules, it goes under the term 'cheat'. To be precise, the access in this definition seems to be access to data, memory etc. which is done via out-of-game software. For example: cheat engines which alters the client data and sent/received data. To me, add-ons doesn't seem to gain illegal access to any data or the client memory, or the sent/received data - so I wouldn't count them as hacking.

Exploiting can be understood as "to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage" (source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exploit ). What there is in game to exploit: bug or glitches, game system, rates, hit boxes, speed or level design etc. When exploiting these, you circumvent the rules and also violate the Terms of Service - so exploiting falls under the cheating. But can add-ons be considered as exploiting? I'd think not, because add-ons are tied to the platform and there is no cross-platform gameplay, to me, add-ons seems fair: everyone on the platform either has access to add-ons (PC) or doesn't have access to add-ons (consoles).

So, to me:
- Cheating is violating the rules.
- Not all add-ons are cheats.
- A singular add-on can be cheating, if it violates the rules of the game.
- Exploiting bug or glitches, game system etc. is cheating.
- Hacking (as in using software to gain access to the client program's data, networking etc.) is cheating.

Aznarb wrote: »

Donny_Vito wrote: »

I personally think add-ons are cheating and they just dumb the game down to help people who couldn't otherwise play at that level, but then again I'm a console pleb so I'm totally biased.

Raid notifier is clearly a cheat.
It tell you what to do and when. I've no respect for anyone using this.
A good player know pattern and mechanic, you don't need this "add-on".

That why most console player are more skill than the vast majority of Pc player.

Is telling a player what to do and when violating the rules of the game? You still need to follow the rules, it does not bypass the fact that the player using raid notifier needs to dodge the one hit attack. It does not allow you to go outside of the play area. It does not allow you to skip the boss fight. Is there a rule it is violating, and by doing such makes it a cheat? I do not think so, and so I do not think raid notifier is a cheat.

It allow you to not pay attention to any mechanic since the add-on will do it for you, will tell you when to doge, when to block hell I've even see some stream where it told them when to drop ult...
Yeah, not a cheat at all.
It give you all info you've to work, learn and pay attention all along freely and w/o any downside.
It's an obvious advantage that why, for me, it's just a cheat.

I've yet see any "top" raid-group play totally w/o it.

But, hey, with the number of ppl using it cuz they don't want to learn to play, I know lot gonna disagree with me, it's ok, I can deal with it.
I don't need add-on to play at my place, unlike them.

SFDB · August 2019

I want to know when the real exploiting is going to be addressed. There are people out there with better computers, keyboards, mice, and internet connections than I have, yet what is being done about this gross imbalance in gameplay? I demand Zo$ do something about these people at once! Having a better mouse than me is no different than cheating, that's a Fact™!

Jack-0 · August 2019

Um, if addons were cheating then zos wouldn’t support them or provide us with the api info needed to make them. This just sounds like a way for jealous console players to make a dig about their inferior platforms 😘

worrallj · August 2019

aaisoaho wrote: »

I think the keyword here is 'cheat' and to achieve a state where almost everyone understands what we're talking about, we need to define it. Yes? I'd start the definition by looking at a dictionary and in this case, it is Merriam Webster. There's a lot of different definitions in it:

transitive verb

1 : to deprive of something valuable by the use of deceit or fraud
cheated the elderly couple out of their property
2 : to influence or lead by deceit, trick, or artifice
a young man who cheated young women into marrying him when he was already married
3 : to elude or thwart by or as if by outwitting
cheat death

intransitive verb

1a : to practice fraud or trickery
denied the accusation that he cheated
b : to violate rules dishonestly
cheat at cards
cheating on a test
2 : to be sexually unfaithful —usually used with on
was cheating on his wife
3 : to position oneself defensively near a particular area in anticipation of a play in that area
the shortstop was cheating toward second base

(Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cheat )
By looking at the examples, we can deduce that the intransitive verb definition 1b is closest to us. Just to be clear, we need to also think what games are.

I'd like to refer to one of my favorite books on this one, Rules of Play made by Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman. They have stated: "A game is a system in which players engage in an artificial conflict, defined by rules, that results in a quantifiable outcome.". So, we can certainly use cheat as a word for violating the rules in game.

From the definition of cheat, we can start to argue if add-ons are cheating. Now, the API is made by game developers, so can we assume the API follows the game rules? I think we can assume, so we can assume add-ons follows the game rules too, but there is also an edge case made by emergent nature of API and add-ons, in which add-ons could violate the rules of the game via emergency. The example of where the emergent nature of API lead to an add-on that could be considered to be bypassing/circumventing/violating the rules was the add-on which could alert players about stealth attacks in PVP - but as I said, this could be considered as cheating and I think it can be debated if it was indeed a cheat. (For the cheat argument we have the fact that ZoS made changes to the API to prevent the use of said add-on) The edge case on the other hand doesn't mean that all add-ons are cheating, because of course, not all add-ons are violating the in-game rules of game, and as such, I would not call all add-ons cheating.

Next to the issue of exploiting and hacking. Hacking is "to gain illegal access to (a computer network, system, etc.)"(source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hack ). And since it's illegal by definition, as in against the rules, it goes under the term 'cheat'. To be precise, the access in this definition seems to be access to data, memory etc. which is done via out-of-game software. For example: cheat engines which alters the client data and sent/received data. To me, add-ons doesn't seem to gain illegal access to any data or the client memory, or the sent/received data - so I wouldn't count them as hacking.

Exploiting can be understood as "to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage" (source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exploit ). What there is in game to exploit: bug or glitches, game system, rates, hit boxes, speed or level design etc. When exploiting these, you circumvent the rules and also violate the Terms of Service - so exploiting falls under the cheating. But can add-ons be considered as exploiting? I'd think not, because add-ons are tied to the platform and there is no cross-platform gameplay, to me, add-ons seems fair: everyone on the platform either has access to add-ons (PC) or doesn't have access to add-ons (consoles).

So, to me:
- Cheating is violating the rules.
- Not all add-ons are cheats.
- A singular add-on can be cheating, if it violates the rules of the game.
- Exploiting bug or glitches, game system etc. is cheating.
- Hacking (as in using software to gain access to the client program's data, networking etc.) is cheating.

Aznarb wrote: »

Donny_Vito wrote: »

I personally think add-ons are cheating and they just dumb the game down to help people who couldn't otherwise play at that level, but then again I'm a console pleb so I'm totally biased.

Raid notifier is clearly a cheat.
It tell you what to do and when. I've no respect for anyone using this.
A good player know pattern and mechanic, you don't need this "add-on".

That why most console player are more skill than the vast majority of Pc player.

Is telling a player what to do and when violating the rules of the game? You still need to follow the rules, it does not bypass the fact that the player using raid notifier needs to dodge the one hit attack. It does not allow you to go outside of the play area. It does not allow you to skip the boss fight. Is there a rule it is violating, and by doing such makes it a cheat? I do not think so, and so I do not think raid notifier is a cheat.

I was going more off of the Oxford definition which is a little more focused on the idea of fairness, but the merriam one that's purely rule based works too. In either case, what I'm advocating for is changing the rules to allow exploits. If you let the rules be defined by the game itself, you are guaranteed fair play so long as everyone is running the same game. When exploits are forbidden, you've got different people thinking different things are exploits and following that rule to different degrees. Just make them allowed, then everyone's on equal footing playing the same game.

Just as a contrast, I was pointing out that addons guarantee not everyone's playing "the same game." You've got different people playing slightly different variations of it (i.e. using different add-ons) that have varying degrees of difficulty. That's allowed in order to outsource UI design, but for some reason exploits are against the rules.

Sanguinor2 · August 2019

worrallj wrote: »

I was going more off of the Oxford definition which is a little more focused on the idea of fairness, but the merriam one that's purely rule based works too. In either case, what I'm advocating for is changing the rules to allow exploits. If you let the rules be defined by the game itself, you are guaranteed fair play so long as everyone is running the same game. When exploits are forbidden, you've got different people thinking different things are exploits and following that rule to different degrees. Just make them allowed, then everyone's on equal footing playing the same game.

Just as a contrast, I was pointing out that addons guarantee not everyone's playing "the same game." You've got different people playing slightly different variations of it (i.e. using different add-ons) that have varying degrees of difficulty. That's allowed in order to outsource UI design, but for some reason exploits are against the rules.

Your premise is wrong. You assume that every single Person knows every single exploit and how to use it and is willing to abuse Bugs to have an equal experience to everyone else. Unless there is some list with every single exploit possible in this game that gets updated with every patch and has extensive tutorials how to abuse each one of them that is not nor will it be the case. (Such a list would also be against TOS btw)
For example I know someone that can get werewolf passives to still be running while not in werewolf form, I myself dont know how to do it, nor do I care to. If exploits were made allowed then I would not be on equal Footing with that Person.
With exploits forbidden you have People thinking "hey sniping saint Olms to death without entering the fight sounds really sketchy, I really shouldnt do that since I might get banned for it" or you have People thinking "hell yeah finally I can get the asylum Skin I deserve even tho I couldnt clear the Content required by any legitimate means" and then wonder why they received a ban.
Personally Im not a fan of People getting stuff they are not supposed to, Winning a fight they are not supposed to or Clearing Content they are not supposed to by abusing Bugs/exploiting. How About you?
Because thats what will happen when you make exploits allowed. The People that dont care and would use cheat engine if they could would abuse every single bug they know of while other People might not care to or dont know said Bugs, hardly equal Footing or is it?

worrallj · August 2019

Sanguinor2 wrote: »

worrallj wrote: »

I was going more off of the Oxford definition which is a little more focused on the idea of fairness, but the merriam one that's purely rule based works too. In either case, what I'm advocating for is changing the rules to allow exploits. If you let the rules be defined by the game itself, you are guaranteed fair play so long as everyone is running the same game. When exploits are forbidden, you've got different people thinking different things are exploits and following that rule to different degrees. Just make them allowed, then everyone's on equal footing playing the same game.

Just as a contrast, I was pointing out that addons guarantee not everyone's playing "the same game." You've got different people playing slightly different variations of it (i.e. using different add-ons) that have varying degrees of difficulty. That's allowed in order to outsource UI design, but for some reason exploits are against the rules.

Your premise is wrong. You assume that every single Person knows every single exploit and how to use it and is willing to abuse Bugs to have an equal experience to everyone else. Unless there is some list with every single exploit possible in this game that gets updated with every patch and has extensive tutorials how to abuse each one of them that is not nor will it be the case. (Such a list would also be against TOS btw)
For example I know someone that can get werewolf passives to still be running while not in werewolf form, I myself dont know how to do it, nor do I care to. If exploits were made allowed then I would not be on equal Footing with that Person.
With exploits forbidden you have People thinking "hey sniping saint Olms to death without entering the fight sounds really sketchy, I really shouldnt do that since I might get banned for it" or you have People thinking "hell yeah finally I can get the asylum Skin I deserve even tho I couldnt clear the Content required by any legitimate means" and then wonder why they received a ban.
Personally Im not a fan of People getting stuff they are not supposed to, Winning a fight they are not supposed to or Clearing Content they are not supposed to by abusing Bugs/exploiting. How About you?
Because thats what will happen when you make exploits allowed. The People that dont care and would use cheat engine if they could would abuse every single bug they know of while other People might not care to or dont know said Bugs, hardly equal Footing or is it?

If exploits were allowed, im sure websites would start tracking them, the same way they track skyshard locations or boss fight tips. It would probably make it easier for zos to patch the exploits out too.

Personally, yeah I agree exploits are annoying as hell.... Bugs are annoying as hell! But I think banning people for incorporating those bugs into their play is a bad solution.

Sanguinor2 · August 2019

worrallj wrote: »

If exploits were allowed, im sure websites would start tracking them, the same way they track skyshard locations or boss fight tips. It would probably make it easier for zos to patch the exploits out too.

Personally, yeah I agree exploits are annoying as hell.... Bugs are annoying as hell! But I think banning people for incorporating those bugs into their play is a bad solution.

But why is it a bad solution? Those People that "incorporate Bugs in their Play" are actively abusing stuff to gain Advantages, gear, collectibles, Achievements etc. they should not have Access to. It sends a very very bad message to People out there when abusing every bug is fair game because None of your Progress or Training to for example clear a vet dlc Trial matters anymore because you just couldve spent that time searching and abusing a bug.
Allowing exploits will simply drown legit Gameplay because nearly everyone will just abuse bug after bug after bug instead of playing the game like they are supposed to. If someone doesnt care to learn mechanics in a vet dlc Trial and Train a dps Rotation or staying alive as a tank they should not be able to clear said Content plain and simple, if you allow exploits they wont do that and just search for the easiest bug, this devalues every Content in this game. This is not a Reputation you want to have for a multiplayer game, especially one that also offers PvP.

worrallj · August 2019

Sanguinor2 wrote: »

worrallj wrote: »

If exploits were allowed, im sure websites would start tracking them, the same way they track skyshard locations or boss fight tips. It would probably make it easier for zos to patch the exploits out too.

Personally, yeah I agree exploits are annoying as hell.... Bugs are annoying as hell! But I think banning people for incorporating those bugs into their play is a bad solution.

But why is it a bad solution? Those People that "incorporate Bugs in their Play" are actively abusing stuff to gain Advantages, gear, collectibles, Achievements etc. they should not have Access to. It sends a very very bad message to People out there when abusing every bug is fair game because None of your Progress or Training to for example clear a vet dlc Trial matters anymore because you just couldve spent that time searching and abusing a bug.
Allowing exploits will simply drown legit Gameplay because nearly everyone will just abuse bug after bug after bug instead of playing the game like they are supposed to. If someone doesnt care to learn mechanics in a vet dlc Trial and Train a dps Rotation or staying alive as a tank they should not be able to clear said Content plain and simple, if you allow exploits they wont do that and just search for the easiest bug, this devalues every Content in this game. This is not a Reputation you want to have for a multiplayer game, especially one that also offers PvP.

Its a bad solution because

A ) it passes the buck from zos onto their customers. They screwed up and let the bug into production. No shame in that things slip through. But then they punish paying customers for playing with it. Many players likely don't even realize exploits are a thing or a bannable offense having not read the full TOS (because be honest those things are 99% legal boilerplate we all click through) and they're just playing with what they were sold. It's just bad customer service imo.

B ) it guarentees imbalance because while some people get banned, plenty don't. Others disagree about what constitutes an exploit. My solution is to level the playing field and say if the game let's you do it, you can do it. Its up to zos to make sure that what the game let's you do facilitates a quality game experience.

I appreciate your comment that rampant exploits would devalue the game. That's a very good point and certainly a drawback of my proposal. But in terms of responsibility I really think it *should* be up to zos to fix the bugs, and not on the players to avoid them.

Edit: Just imagine how our experience would change over the next year if exploits were suddenly allowed. There would be an initial period of trama, for sure, where things were just kinda crazy. But I bet you that zos would quickly reorient and start to view bugs as a higher priority. Wouldn't it be nice if fixing a buggy cyrodiil or a glitched trial was suddenly a higher priority than cranking out chapter after chapter?

Gilvoth · August 2019

Aznarb wrote: »

aaisoaho wrote: »

I think the keyword here is 'cheat' and to achieve a state where almost everyone understands what we're talking about, we need to define it. Yes? I'd start the definition by looking at a dictionary and in this case, it is Merriam Webster. There's a lot of different definitions in it:

transitive verb

1 : to deprive of something valuable by the use of deceit or fraud
cheated the elderly couple out of their property
2 : to influence or lead by deceit, trick, or artifice
a young man who cheated young women into marrying him when he was already married
3 : to elude or thwart by or as if by outwitting
cheat death

intransitive verb

1a : to practice fraud or trickery
denied the accusation that he cheated
b : to violate rules dishonestly
cheat at cards
cheating on a test
2 : to be sexually unfaithful —usually used with on
was cheating on his wife
3 : to position oneself defensively near a particular area in anticipation of a play in that area
the shortstop was cheating toward second base

(Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cheat )
By looking at the examples, we can deduce that the intransitive verb definition 1b is closest to us. Just to be clear, we need to also think what games are.

I'd like to refer to one of my favorite books on this one, Rules of Play made by Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman. They have stated: "A game is a system in which players engage in an artificial conflict, defined by rules, that results in a quantifiable outcome.". So, we can certainly use cheat as a word for violating the rules in game.

From the definition of cheat, we can start to argue if add-ons are cheating. Now, the API is made by game developers, so can we assume the API follows the game rules? I think we can assume, so we can assume add-ons follows the game rules too, but there is also an edge case made by emergent nature of API and add-ons, in which add-ons could violate the rules of the game via emergency. The example of where the emergent nature of API lead to an add-on that could be considered to be bypassing/circumventing/violating the rules was the add-on which could alert players about stealth attacks in PVP - but as I said, this could be considered as cheating and I think it can be debated if it was indeed a cheat. (For the cheat argument we have the fact that ZoS made changes to the API to prevent the use of said add-on) The edge case on the other hand doesn't mean that all add-ons are cheating, because of course, not all add-ons are violating the in-game rules of game, and as such, I would not call all add-ons cheating.

Next to the issue of exploiting and hacking. Hacking is "to gain illegal access to (a computer network, system, etc.)"(source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hack ). And since it's illegal by definition, as in against the rules, it goes under the term 'cheat'. To be precise, the access in this definition seems to be access to data, memory etc. which is done via out-of-game software. For example: cheat engines which alters the client data and sent/received data. To me, add-ons doesn't seem to gain illegal access to any data or the client memory, or the sent/received data - so I wouldn't count them as hacking.

Exploiting can be understood as "to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage" (source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exploit ). What there is in game to exploit: bug or glitches, game system, rates, hit boxes, speed or level design etc. When exploiting these, you circumvent the rules and also violate the Terms of Service - so exploiting falls under the cheating. But can add-ons be considered as exploiting? I'd think not, because add-ons are tied to the platform and there is no cross-platform gameplay, to me, add-ons seems fair: everyone on the platform either has access to add-ons (PC) or doesn't have access to add-ons (consoles).

So, to me:
- Cheating is violating the rules.
- Not all add-ons are cheats.
- A singular add-on can be cheating, if it violates the rules of the game.
- Exploiting bug or glitches, game system etc. is cheating.
- Hacking (as in using software to gain access to the client program's data, networking etc.) is cheating.

Aznarb wrote: »

Donny_Vito wrote: »

I personally think add-ons are cheating and they just dumb the game down to help people who couldn't otherwise play at that level, but then again I'm a console pleb so I'm totally biased.

Raid notifier is clearly a cheat.
It tell you what to do and when. I've no respect for anyone using this.
A good player know pattern and mechanic, you don't need this "add-on".

That why most console player are more skill than the vast majority of Pc player.

Is telling a player what to do and when violating the rules of the game? You still need to follow the rules, it does not bypass the fact that the player using raid notifier needs to dodge the one hit attack. It does not allow you to go outside of the play area. It does not allow you to skip the boss fight. Is there a rule it is violating, and by doing such makes it a cheat? I do not think so, and so I do not think raid notifier is a cheat.

It allow you to not pay attention to any mechanic since the add-on will do it for you, will tell you when to doge, when to block hell I've even see some stream where it told them when to drop ult...
Yeah, not a cheat at all.
It give you all info you've to work, learn and pay attention all along freely and w/o any downside.
It's an obvious advantage that why, for me, it's just a cheat.

I've yet see any "top" raid-group play totally w/o it.

But, hey, with the number of ppl using it cuz they don't want to learn to play, I know lot gonna disagree with me, it's ok, I can deal with it.
I don't need add-on to play at my place, unlike them.

only zenimax can make the final decision and statement on what is a cheat.
but thier decisions are allways tainted by the suits and what brings them more income in the long run.

Gilvoth · August 2019

Jack-0 wrote: »

Um, if addons were cheating then zos wouldn’t support them or provide us with the api info needed to make them. This just sounds like a way for jealous console players to make a dig about their inferior platforms 😘

and again this is simply not true because those decisions are made by the developers and their decisions are based on what will bring them more income in the long run.
if they blocked all access to add-ons it would give them less income in the long run because people wouldnt stay.
they wanted the wow crowd and that going to happen is if they allowed add-ons.

Sanguinor2 · August 2019

worrallj wrote: »

Its a bad solution because

A ) it passes the buck from zos onto their customers. They screwed up and let the bug into production. No shame in that things slip through. But then they punish paying customers for playing with it. Many players likely don't even realize exploits are a thing or a bannable offense having not read the full TOS (because be honest those things are 99% legal boilerplate we all click through) and they're just playing with what they were sold. It's just bad customer service imo.

B ) it guarentees imbalance because while some people get banned, plenty don't. Others disagree about what constitutes an exploit. My solution is to level the playing field and say if the game let's you do it, you can do it. Its up to zos to make sure that what the game let's you do facilitates a quality game experience.

I appreciate your comment that rampant exploits would devalue the game. That's a very good point and certainly a drawback of my proposal. But in terms of responsibility I really think it *should* be up to zos to fix the bugs, and not on the players to avoid them.

Edit: Just imagine how our experience would change over the next year if exploits were suddenly allowed. There would be an initial period of trama, for sure, where things were just kinda crazy. But I bet you that zos would quickly reorient and start to view bugs as a higher priority. Wouldn't it be nice if fixing a buggy cyrodiil or a glitched trial was suddenly a higher priority than cranking out chapter after chapter?

Towards A: Fair Point About TOS many dont read it and initially I didnt aswell. But you cant tell me that People are not Aware that abusing/exploiting a bug is bad behavior, no one is that naive. Personally I knew that exploiting Bugs is punishable before reading TOS because thats simply common sense.
You know whats also bad customer Service? To let someone get away without any warning or punishment after he exploited a bug to get something instantly when you spent days to get it in a normal way. I would Mention vAS+2 snipe exploit as an example again since People got banned for it, if anyone finds a way to do it now its still a bannable offense and Clearing vAS+2 for the first time requires a lot of Training and Progression for you and your Group.

Towards B: Some People dont get banned because they might have done it accidentaly and stopped doing whatever it is they did after noticing that something is not Right. Example here the IC XP bug. There were People that killed Mobs in IC because why not? But after discovering that they give over 1 mil XP each they stopped because they recognized that this was a bug and abusing it could end up in them getting a ban, others didnt, thats one reason why some People get banned and others dont.
Or some People might exploit a bug that has no actual Advantage in anything Combat related and Zos might decide that hypothetically speaking there is a bug that makes your weapon glow from advancing yokeda or other sets permanent instead of it dissapearing some time after drawing them that this is not a bannable offense since you are not getting any actual Advantage out of it.

It is up to Zos to fix the Bugs, that doesnt give anyone the Right to abuse any bug that makes it life in order to gain an Advantage over someone that doesnt. Or lets put it this way. Would you agree to the Statement that because Zos didnt have a working anti cheat protection shortly after the game launched anyone using cheat engine to make themselves immortal, able to fly, have infinite ult and gain higher scores in for example maelstrom Arena than shouldve been actually possible was not wrong because its not Player responsibility to make anit cheat work?
They also might not have read the TOS that forbids them from cheating so fair game Right? Afterall anyone could download cheat engine to make an even playing field. Because it certainly was up to Zos to make anticheat work but it was also Player responsibility to not use any external program to cheat.

If exploits were allowed I and surely many others would leave the game, personally I am not interested in a "who can exploit or cheat better" contest so to speak. Some might be but I can assure you that those would be a minority.
I wouldnt be willing to take the Chance that Zos MIGHT fix Bugs faster because the game turned into an exploiters or cheaters paradise because anyone is free to do as they wish.
To Zos it matters more that People buy stuff and Keep their subscriptions up, the People making the decisions at Zos wont care if People exploit so Long as it does not hurt their numbers, if somehow exploits being allowed would allow for higher Revenue you can be assured that Zos would allow them in a heartbeat, they are not after a good Player experience Primary, they are after Money, it just so happens that a good Player experience is a very good way of making sure someone spends Money on the game they enjoy and that exploits and cheating running rampart are bad press and bad press hurts revenue.

Donny_Vito · August 2019

Jack-0 wrote: »

Um, if addons were cheating then zos wouldn’t support them or provide us with the api info needed to make them. This just sounds like a way for jealous console players to make a dig about their inferior platforms 😘

Lol! You definitely get an Inisghtful for that one. Keep up those amazingly intelligent responses!

Ogou · August 2019

Aznarb wrote: »

aaisoaho wrote: »

I think the keyword here is 'cheat' and to achieve a state where almost everyone understands what we're talking about, we need to define it. Yes? I'd start the definition by looking at a dictionary and in this case, it is Merriam Webster. There's a lot of different definitions in it:

transitive verb

1 : to deprive of something valuable by the use of deceit or fraud
cheated the elderly couple out of their property
2 : to influence or lead by deceit, trick, or artifice
a young man who cheated young women into marrying him when he was already married
3 : to elude or thwart by or as if by outwitting
cheat death

intransitive verb

1a : to practice fraud or trickery
denied the accusation that he cheated
b : to violate rules dishonestly
cheat at cards
cheating on a test
2 : to be sexually unfaithful —usually used with on
was cheating on his wife
3 : to position oneself defensively near a particular area in anticipation of a play in that area
the shortstop was cheating toward second base

(Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cheat )
By looking at the examples, we can deduce that the intransitive verb definition 1b is closest to us. Just to be clear, we need to also think what games are.

I'd like to refer to one of my favorite books on this one, Rules of Play made by Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman. They have stated: "A game is a system in which players engage in an artificial conflict, defined by rules, that results in a quantifiable outcome.". So, we can certainly use cheat as a word for violating the rules in game.

From the definition of cheat, we can start to argue if add-ons are cheating. Now, the API is made by game developers, so can we assume the API follows the game rules? I think we can assume, so we can assume add-ons follows the game rules too, but there is also an edge case made by emergent nature of API and add-ons, in which add-ons could violate the rules of the game via emergency. The example of where the emergent nature of API lead to an add-on that could be considered to be bypassing/circumventing/violating the rules was the add-on which could alert players about stealth attacks in PVP - but as I said, this could be considered as cheating and I think it can be debated if it was indeed a cheat. (For the cheat argument we have the fact that ZoS made changes to the API to prevent the use of said add-on) The edge case on the other hand doesn't mean that all add-ons are cheating, because of course, not all add-ons are violating the in-game rules of game, and as such, I would not call all add-ons cheating.

Next to the issue of exploiting and hacking. Hacking is "to gain illegal access to (a computer network, system, etc.)"(source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hack ). And since it's illegal by definition, as in against the rules, it goes under the term 'cheat'. To be precise, the access in this definition seems to be access to data, memory etc. which is done via out-of-game software. For example: cheat engines which alters the client data and sent/received data. To me, add-ons doesn't seem to gain illegal access to any data or the client memory, or the sent/received data - so I wouldn't count them as hacking.

Exploiting can be understood as "to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage" (source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exploit ). What there is in game to exploit: bug or glitches, game system, rates, hit boxes, speed or level design etc. When exploiting these, you circumvent the rules and also violate the Terms of Service - so exploiting falls under the cheating. But can add-ons be considered as exploiting? I'd think not, because add-ons are tied to the platform and there is no cross-platform gameplay, to me, add-ons seems fair: everyone on the platform either has access to add-ons (PC) or doesn't have access to add-ons (consoles).

So, to me:
- Cheating is violating the rules.
- Not all add-ons are cheats.
- A singular add-on can be cheating, if it violates the rules of the game.
- Exploiting bug or glitches, game system etc. is cheating.
- Hacking (as in using software to gain access to the client program's data, networking etc.) is cheating.

Aznarb wrote: »

Donny_Vito wrote: »

I personally think add-ons are cheating and they just dumb the game down to help people who couldn't otherwise play at that level, but then again I'm a console pleb so I'm totally biased.

Raid notifier is clearly a cheat.
It tell you what to do and when. I've no respect for anyone using this.
A good player know pattern and mechanic, you don't need this "add-on".

That why most console player are more skill than the vast majority of Pc player.

Is telling a player what to do and when violating the rules of the game? You still need to follow the rules, it does not bypass the fact that the player using raid notifier needs to dodge the one hit attack. It does not allow you to go outside of the play area. It does not allow you to skip the boss fight. Is there a rule it is violating, and by doing such makes it a cheat? I do not think so, and so I do not think raid notifier is a cheat.

It allow you to not pay attention to any mechanic since the add-on will do it for you, will tell you when to doge, when to block hell I've even see some stream where it told them when to drop ult...
Yeah, not a cheat at all.
It give you all info you've to work, learn and pay attention all along freely and w/o any downside.
It's an obvious advantage that why, for me, it's just a cheat.

I've yet see any "top" raid-group play totally w/o it.

But, hey, with the number of ppl using it cuz they don't want to learn to play, I know lot gonna disagree with me, it's ok, I can deal with it.
I don't need add-on to play at my place, unlike them.

You know someone has to write the add-ons, right? They don't spring up by themselves and update automatically with each patch? Someone has to run the content, learn the mechanics then from that, update their add-ons.
So yes, the top raid guilds can definitely run without add-ons and they actually have to do that any time new content comes out on the PTS.

worrallj · August 2019

Sanguinor2 wrote: »

worrallj wrote: »

Its a bad solution because

A ) it passes the buck from zos onto their customers. They screwed up and let the bug into production. No shame in that things slip through. But then they punish paying customers for playing with it. Many players likely don't even realize exploits are a thing or a bannable offense having not read the full TOS (because be honest those things are 99% legal boilerplate we all click through) and they're just playing with what they were sold. It's just bad customer service imo.

B ) it guarentees imbalance because while some people get banned, plenty don't. Others disagree about what constitutes an exploit. My solution is to level the playing field and say if the game let's you do it, you can do it. Its up to zos to make sure that what the game let's you do facilitates a quality game experience.

I appreciate your comment that rampant exploits would devalue the game. That's a very good point and certainly a drawback of my proposal. But in terms of responsibility I really think it *should* be up to zos to fix the bugs, and not on the players to avoid them.

Edit: Just imagine how our experience would change over the next year if exploits were suddenly allowed. There would be an initial period of trama, for sure, where things were just kinda crazy. But I bet you that zos would quickly reorient and start to view bugs as a higher priority. Wouldn't it be nice if fixing a buggy cyrodiil or a glitched trial was suddenly a higher priority than cranking out chapter after chapter?

Towards A: Fair Point About TOS many dont read it and initially I didnt aswell. But you cant tell me that People are not Aware that abusing/exploiting a bug is bad behavior, no one is that naive. Personally I knew that exploiting Bugs is punishable before reading TOS because thats simply common sense.
You know whats also bad customer Service? To let someone get away without any warning or punishment after he exploited a bug to get something instantly when you spent days to get it in a normal way. I would Mention vAS+2 snipe exploit as an example again since People got banned for it, if anyone finds a way to do it now its still a bannable offense and Clearing vAS+2 for the first time requires a lot of Training and Progression for you and your Group.

Towards B: Some People dont get banned because they might have done it accidentaly and stopped doing whatever it is they did after noticing that something is not Right. Example here the IC XP bug. There were People that killed Mobs in IC because why not? But after discovering that they give over 1 mil XP each they stopped because they recognized that this was a bug and abusing it could end up in them getting a ban, others didnt, thats one reason why some People get banned and others dont.
Or some People might exploit a bug that has no actual Advantage in anything Combat related and Zos might decide that hypothetically speaking there is a bug that makes your weapon glow from advancing yokeda or other sets permanent instead of it dissapearing some time after drawing them that this is not a bannable offense since you are not getting any actual Advantage out of it.

It is up to Zos to fix the Bugs, that doesnt give anyone the Right to abuse any bug that makes it life in order to gain an Advantage over someone that doesnt. Or lets put it this way. Would you agree to the Statement that because Zos didnt have a working anti cheat protection shortly after the game launched anyone using cheat engine to make themselves immortal, able to fly, have infinite ult and gain higher scores in for example maelstrom Arena than shouldve been actually possible was not wrong because its not Player responsibility to make anit cheat work?
They also might not have read the TOS that forbids them from cheating so fair game Right? Afterall anyone could download cheat engine to make an even playing field. Because it certainly was up to Zos to make anticheat work but it was also Player responsibility to not use any external program to cheat.

If exploits were allowed I and surely many others would leave the game, personally I am not interested in a "who can exploit or cheat better" contest so to speak. Some might be but I can assure you that those would be a minority.
I wouldnt be willing to take the Chance that Zos MIGHT fix Bugs faster because the game turned into an exploiters or cheaters paradise because anyone is free to do as they wish.
To Zos it matters more that People buy stuff and Keep their subscriptions up, the People making the decisions at Zos wont care if People exploit so Long as it does not hurt their numbers, if somehow exploits being allowed would allow for higher Revenue you can be assured that Zos would allow them in a heartbeat, they are not after a good Player experience Primary, they are after Money, it just so happens that a good Player experience is a very good way of making sure someone spends Money on the game they enjoy and that exploits and cheating running rampart are bad press and bad press hurts revenue.

I'm going to answer first your question about cheat engines. To summarize what you ask: couldn't the exploits argument I'm making apply to cheat engines if ZOS doesn't "cyberfight" cheat engines well enough? The answer is no, that's a totally different ballgame. There you have a case of someone downloading & installing outside software to change the way ESO plays. That's a clear case of fraudulent behavior, where you are corrupting/hacking the product that zenimax distributed in order to gain advantage. With exploits, on the other hand, your just playing the game as it was sold. That's why I started talking about add-ons being on the continuum, but I guess that was a couter productive point that just made people erupt.

On point A, First of all you only addressed a single aspect of the point: reading the TOS. There was a bit more to that point. But to respond to what you said, I can and am telling you that people are unaware. Yeah MMO vets will know that exploits are generally forbidden, but anyone who's a little newer probably wouldn't. In fact I remember when recently you could do a random dungeon que and then teleport to FG1 and do that dungeon instead for super fast random dungeon rewards. It honestly never occured to me that that might be a bannable offense until someone pointed out that it might be. In my mind it was just "oh that's a neat little trick." To this day I don't know if that was considered an exploit or if anyone got banned for it. And I've been around the block a bit so if I didn't realize that imagine where most people are.

On point B, neither of us really know what the numbers are in terms of banning people for exploits. What we do know is that people continue to use exploits and we see it all the time. And people argue about what an exploit is. So the imbalance is manifestly already present. Ending the ban of exploits would be an equalizer, and the imbalance would disappear. Banning exploits is a vague rule that is punishing players in a vain attempt to paper over the fact that 5 years in the game still needs debugging.

Thorvik_Tyrson · August 2019

worrallj wrote: »

idk wrote: »

worrallj wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

worrallj wrote: »

Players who don't download that third party software to manipulate the information the game gives them are at a genuine disadvantage.

They are only at an disadvantage because they choose not to use these addons. ZOS allows the addons, hence it is not cheating.

And if ZOS changed the TOS to allow exploits, that would not be cheating either. So why don't they do that it would make a lot of cheating go away.

You have to craft unlikely hypotheticals to try to defend your comments. Stick with facts and you will begin to understand why everyone disagrees with your fake definitions.

Ok I'm gonna try. This is tough lol.

Fact 1: add-ons allow for imbalanced gameplay, unless "gameplay" is taken to include the acquisition of the best add-ons. Some might think it is, but I don't buy that personally.

Fact 5: add-ons, even though they are allowed by the TOS and so do not involve any "dishonest" behavior, can still be argued to fall under the umbrella of "unfair" since, as stated in fact 1, they grant advantage to players with better add-ons.

Where are you supposed to get these "Better add-ons" that everyone else cant get? This argument, I don't buy. If your using addons, then your using addons. There are no "Better" addons.

Given that you don't buy it, and I dont buy your argument, I think that we may need to agree to disagree about the addon's as I dont think we will be able to reach common ground here.

Note: My opinion about addons in general is also based on the fact that every major MMO game that I have raided in over the last 15+ years has had addons available for use by the player base. The MMO releases with an API for the users to make addons. and there are normally addons available at game release time for the players to start using with that game. I'm using this as a reference, and not just ESO/ZOS specific.

It's this past history which is why I think of an MMO game and its associated addons as a package deal.

worrallj · August 2019

Oh oh just got an idea that night please both sides. What if instead of a generic statement that exploits are banned, zos takes on the responsibility of maintaining a public list of known exploits that w

Thorvik_Tyrson wrote: »

worrallj wrote: »

idk wrote: »

worrallj wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

worrallj wrote: »

Players who don't download that third party software to manipulate the information the game gives them are at a genuine disadvantage.

They are only at an disadvantage because they choose not to use these addons. ZOS allows the addons, hence it is not cheating.

And if ZOS changed the TOS to allow exploits, that would not be cheating either. So why don't they do that it would make a lot of cheating go away.

You have to craft unlikely hypotheticals to try to defend your comments. Stick with facts and you will begin to understand why everyone disagrees with your fake definitions.

Ok I'm gonna try. This is tough lol.

Fact 1: add-ons allow for imbalanced gameplay, unless "gameplay" is taken to include the acquisition of the best add-ons. Some might think it is, but I don't buy that personally.

Fact 5: add-ons, even though they are allowed by the TOS and so do not involve any "dishonest" behavior, can still be argued to fall under the umbrella of "unfair" since, as stated in fact 1, they grant advantage to players with better add-ons.

Where are you supposed to get these "Better add-ons" that everyone else cant get? This argument, I don't buy. If your using addons, then your using addons. There are no "Better" addons.

Given that you don't buy it, and I dont buy your argument, I think that we may need to agree to disagree about the addon's as I dont think we will be able to reach common ground here.

Note: My opinion about addons in general is also based on the fact that every major MMO game that I have raided in over the last 15+ years has had addons available for use by the player base. The MMO releases with an API for the users to make addons. and there are normally addons available at game release time for the players to start using with that game. I'm using this as a reference, and not just ESO/ZOS specific.

It's this past history which is why I think of an MMO game and its associated addons as a package deal.

And a lot of people do see add-ons and the game as a package deal. And that's fine. But a couple things to consider. Several have pointed out in this thread:
1. Not all add-ons are available from the most popular sources, such as minion.
2. In fact, it's totally possible for someone who knows the API really well to script up their own ultimate pvp add-on and just keep it for themselves, similar to how the best pvpers might not share the full details of their best builds. Many do, but some don't.
3. Even if all add-ons were available to all users, curating the best possible set of add-ons and getting them all up and running smoothly is actually a kind of intensive process that's almost a meta-game in itself.

Again none of this is a problem if you take the acquisition of add-ons itself as part of the game, and that's just a difference of opinion that, as you say, one would just agree to disagree.

Aznarb · August 2019

Ogou wrote: »

Aznarb wrote: »

aaisoaho wrote: »

I think the keyword here is 'cheat' and to achieve a state where almost everyone understands what we're talking about, we need to define it. Yes? I'd start the definition by looking at a dictionary and in this case, it is Merriam Webster. There's a lot of different definitions in it:

transitive verb

1 : to deprive of something valuable by the use of deceit or fraud
cheated the elderly couple out of their property
2 : to influence or lead by deceit, trick, or artifice
a young man who cheated young women into marrying him when he was already married
3 : to elude or thwart by or as if by outwitting
cheat death

intransitive verb

1a : to practice fraud or trickery
denied the accusation that he cheated
b : to violate rules dishonestly
cheat at cards
cheating on a test
2 : to be sexually unfaithful —usually used with on
was cheating on his wife
3 : to position oneself defensively near a particular area in anticipation of a play in that area
the shortstop was cheating toward second base

(Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cheat )
By looking at the examples, we can deduce that the intransitive verb definition 1b is closest to us. Just to be clear, we need to also think what games are.

I'd like to refer to one of my favorite books on this one, Rules of Play made by Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman. They have stated: "A game is a system in which players engage in an artificial conflict, defined by rules, that results in a quantifiable outcome.". So, we can certainly use cheat as a word for violating the rules in game.

From the definition of cheat, we can start to argue if add-ons are cheating. Now, the API is made by game developers, so can we assume the API follows the game rules? I think we can assume, so we can assume add-ons follows the game rules too, but there is also an edge case made by emergent nature of API and add-ons, in which add-ons could violate the rules of the game via emergency. The example of where the emergent nature of API lead to an add-on that could be considered to be bypassing/circumventing/violating the rules was the add-on which could alert players about stealth attacks in PVP - but as I said, this could be considered as cheating and I think it can be debated if it was indeed a cheat. (For the cheat argument we have the fact that ZoS made changes to the API to prevent the use of said add-on) The edge case on the other hand doesn't mean that all add-ons are cheating, because of course, not all add-ons are violating the in-game rules of game, and as such, I would not call all add-ons cheating.

Next to the issue of exploiting and hacking. Hacking is "to gain illegal access to (a computer network, system, etc.)"(source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hack ). And since it's illegal by definition, as in against the rules, it goes under the term 'cheat'. To be precise, the access in this definition seems to be access to data, memory etc. which is done via out-of-game software. For example: cheat engines which alters the client data and sent/received data. To me, add-ons doesn't seem to gain illegal access to any data or the client memory, or the sent/received data - so I wouldn't count them as hacking.

Exploiting can be understood as "to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage" (source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exploit ). What there is in game to exploit: bug or glitches, game system, rates, hit boxes, speed or level design etc. When exploiting these, you circumvent the rules and also violate the Terms of Service - so exploiting falls under the cheating. But can add-ons be considered as exploiting? I'd think not, because add-ons are tied to the platform and there is no cross-platform gameplay, to me, add-ons seems fair: everyone on the platform either has access to add-ons (PC) or doesn't have access to add-ons (consoles).

So, to me:
- Cheating is violating the rules.
- Not all add-ons are cheats.
- A singular add-on can be cheating, if it violates the rules of the game.
- Exploiting bug or glitches, game system etc. is cheating.
- Hacking (as in using software to gain access to the client program's data, networking etc.) is cheating.

Aznarb wrote: »

Donny_Vito wrote: »

I personally think add-ons are cheating and they just dumb the game down to help people who couldn't otherwise play at that level, but then again I'm a console pleb so I'm totally biased.

Raid notifier is clearly a cheat.
It tell you what to do and when. I've no respect for anyone using this.
A good player know pattern and mechanic, you don't need this "add-on".

That why most console player are more skill than the vast majority of Pc player.

Is telling a player what to do and when violating the rules of the game? You still need to follow the rules, it does not bypass the fact that the player using raid notifier needs to dodge the one hit attack. It does not allow you to go outside of the play area. It does not allow you to skip the boss fight. Is there a rule it is violating, and by doing such makes it a cheat? I do not think so, and so I do not think raid notifier is a cheat.

It allow you to not pay attention to any mechanic since the add-on will do it for you, will tell you when to doge, when to block hell I've even see some stream where it told them when to drop ult...
Yeah, not a cheat at all.
It give you all info you've to work, learn and pay attention all along freely and w/o any downside.
It's an obvious advantage that why, for me, it's just a cheat.

I've yet see any "top" raid-group play totally w/o it.

But, hey, with the number of ppl using it cuz they don't want to learn to play, I know lot gonna disagree with me, it's ok, I can deal with it.
I don't need add-on to play at my place, unlike them.

You know someone has to write the add-ons, right? They don't spring up by themselves and update automatically with each patch? Someone has to run the content, learn the mechanics then from that, update their add-ons.
So yes, the top raid guilds can definitely run without add-ons and they actually have to do that any time new content comes out on the PTS.

So by your weird logic, if X write the add-on after learning the run (which it's not how we make this kind of add-on, but let it be..), all other player magically become good and know all mech' ?

Yeah, strong logic. It's ok dude, Idc how you gonna try to justify your use of this, ZoS allow it anyway, go for it.
And then don't come on forum like some guy crying how easy is this game will using all these add-on.
And don't present yourself as good player.

Like I said, with the number of player relying on this to do content, I've saw this kind of poor excuse coming, I can live with it, I don't blame players using it, I blame ZoS to allowing this kind of mod.

Have a good day.

aaisoaho · August 2019

worrallj wrote: »

aaisoaho wrote: »

I think the keyword here is 'cheat' and to achieve a state where almost everyone understands what we're talking about, we need to define it. Yes? I'd start the definition by looking at a dictionary and in this case, it is Merriam Webster. There's a lot of different definitions in it:

transitive verb

1 : to deprive of something valuable by the use of deceit or fraud
cheated the elderly couple out of their property
2 : to influence or lead by deceit, trick, or artifice
a young man who cheated young women into marrying him when he was already married
3 : to elude or thwart by or as if by outwitting
cheat death

intransitive verb

1a : to practice fraud or trickery
denied the accusation that he cheated
b : to violate rules dishonestly
cheat at cards
cheating on a test
2 : to be sexually unfaithful —usually used with on
was cheating on his wife
3 : to position oneself defensively near a particular area in anticipation of a play in that area
the shortstop was cheating toward second base

(Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cheat )
By looking at the examples, we can deduce that the intransitive verb definition 1b is closest to us. Just to be clear, we need to also think what games are.

I'd like to refer to one of my favorite books on this one, Rules of Play made by Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman. They have stated: "A game is a system in which players engage in an artificial conflict, defined by rules, that results in a quantifiable outcome.". So, we can certainly use cheat as a word for violating the rules in game.

From the definition of cheat, we can start to argue if add-ons are cheating. Now, the API is made by game developers, so can we assume the API follows the game rules? I think we can assume, so we can assume add-ons follows the game rules too, but there is also an edge case made by emergent nature of API and add-ons, in which add-ons could violate the rules of the game via emergency. The example of where the emergent nature of API lead to an add-on that could be considered to be bypassing/circumventing/violating the rules was the add-on which could alert players about stealth attacks in PVP - but as I said, this could be considered as cheating and I think it can be debated if it was indeed a cheat. (For the cheat argument we have the fact that ZoS made changes to the API to prevent the use of said add-on) The edge case on the other hand doesn't mean that all add-ons are cheating, because of course, not all add-ons are violating the in-game rules of game, and as such, I would not call all add-ons cheating.

Next to the issue of exploiting and hacking. Hacking is "to gain illegal access to (a computer network, system, etc.)"(source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hack ). And since it's illegal by definition, as in against the rules, it goes under the term 'cheat'. To be precise, the access in this definition seems to be access to data, memory etc. which is done via out-of-game software. For example: cheat engines which alters the client data and sent/received data. To me, add-ons doesn't seem to gain illegal access to any data or the client memory, or the sent/received data - so I wouldn't count them as hacking.

Exploiting can be understood as "to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage" (source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exploit ). What there is in game to exploit: bug or glitches, game system, rates, hit boxes, speed or level design etc. When exploiting these, you circumvent the rules and also violate the Terms of Service - so exploiting falls under the cheating. But can add-ons be considered as exploiting? I'd think not, because add-ons are tied to the platform and there is no cross-platform gameplay, to me, add-ons seems fair: everyone on the platform either has access to add-ons (PC) or doesn't have access to add-ons (consoles).

So, to me:
- Cheating is violating the rules.
- Not all add-ons are cheats.
- A singular add-on can be cheating, if it violates the rules of the game.
- Exploiting bug or glitches, game system etc. is cheating.
- Hacking (as in using software to gain access to the client program's data, networking etc.) is cheating.

Aznarb wrote: »

Donny_Vito wrote: »

I personally think add-ons are cheating and they just dumb the game down to help people who couldn't otherwise play at that level, but then again I'm a console pleb so I'm totally biased.

Raid notifier is clearly a cheat.
It tell you what to do and when. I've no respect for anyone using this.
A good player know pattern and mechanic, you don't need this "add-on".

That why most console player are more skill than the vast majority of Pc player.

Is telling a player what to do and when violating the rules of the game? You still need to follow the rules, it does not bypass the fact that the player using raid notifier needs to dodge the one hit attack. It does not allow you to go outside of the play area. It does not allow you to skip the boss fight. Is there a rule it is violating, and by doing such makes it a cheat? I do not think so, and so I do not think raid notifier is a cheat.

I was going more off of the Oxford definition which is a little more focused on the idea of fairness, but the merriam one that's purely rule based works too. In either case, what I'm advocating for is changing the rules to allow exploits. If you let the rules be defined by the game itself, you are guaranteed fair play so long as everyone is running the same game. When exploits are forbidden, you've got different people thinking different things are exploits and following that rule to different degrees. Just make them allowed, then everyone's on equal footing playing the same game.

Just as a contrast, I was pointing out that addons guarantee not everyone's playing "the same game." You've got different people playing slightly different variations of it (i.e. using different add-ons) that have varying degrees of difficulty. That's allowed in order to outsource UI design, but for some reason exploits are against the rules.

I think I was a bit unclear about what I meant when I used the word 'rule', I didn't specifically mean ToS and CoC documents - I meant rules as in rules defining the flow chart of the system (games as a system), how the player switches play states in game, what limitations there are in game etc. Like for example: random normal dungeon in ESO. You can see the rule for reward in the group finder, it goes something like: completing a random normal dungeon or a random veteran dungeon will give you a bonus reward once a day. It states that you get a reward by following the rules:
- once a day
- complete a dungeon
- dungeon needs to be random
- dungeon can be either normal or veteran version
If you some how managed to get the reward by not following the rules (either you got multiple rewards on a same character in a day, you didn't complete a dungeon or the dungeon you completed wasn't random) you'd be exploiting.

Of course, not every situation has as clear rule sets as the example, like for example PvE combat in general. The rules are unwritten, but they are rules nevertheless.
- Enemy is defeated by lowering its health points to zero
- Player is defeated if the health points reaches zero
- Mechanic X happens on condition Y
- Enemy has a chance to drop loot when defeated.
- Defeating an enemy rewards the player by Z amount of experience points
Etc.

Allowing exploits would not be good in my opinion. It would signal "cheating is good" and it would make the game more unpredictable. There's also competitive aspects in ESO, like gold economy, PvP leaderboards and PvE leaderboards. By allowing breaking the rules, you *** off the players interested in the competitive side.

Sergykid · August 2019

do you know why Raid Notifier addon exists and why people use it? because the game fails at clearly indicating what is happening. Mechanics are not clearly shown and bosses usually do not clearly state what they are going to do. This game has the bad design of trial and error type of learning. You go there, you die a few times to see what happened, then you make a plan, then you die a few times while you exercise your plan, until finally succeed. Lack of information drives players to google guides or use addons.

mairwen85 · August 2019

Fact: the moon is made of cheese and inhabited by invisible super-intelligent mice evolved from test rodents put there by the Russians in the mid 50s.

Fact: putting'Fact' before a statement, does not make it a fact.

Ogou · August 2019

Aznarb wrote: »

Ogou wrote: »

Aznarb wrote: »

aaisoaho wrote: »

I think the keyword here is 'cheat' and to achieve a state where almost everyone understands what we're talking about, we need to define it. Yes? I'd start the definition by looking at a dictionary and in this case, it is Merriam Webster. There's a lot of different definitions in it:

transitive verb

1 : to deprive of something valuable by the use of deceit or fraud
cheated the elderly couple out of their property
2 : to influence or lead by deceit, trick, or artifice
a young man who cheated young women into marrying him when he was already married
3 : to elude or thwart by or as if by outwitting
cheat death

intransitive verb

1a : to practice fraud or trickery
denied the accusation that he cheated
b : to violate rules dishonestly
cheat at cards
cheating on a test
2 : to be sexually unfaithful —usually used with on
was cheating on his wife
3 : to position oneself defensively near a particular area in anticipation of a play in that area
the shortstop was cheating toward second base

(Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cheat )
By looking at the examples, we can deduce that the intransitive verb definition 1b is closest to us. Just to be clear, we need to also think what games are.

I'd like to refer to one of my favorite books on this one, Rules of Play made by Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman. They have stated: "A game is a system in which players engage in an artificial conflict, defined by rules, that results in a quantifiable outcome.". So, we can certainly use cheat as a word for violating the rules in game.

From the definition of cheat, we can start to argue if add-ons are cheating. Now, the API is made by game developers, so can we assume the API follows the game rules? I think we can assume, so we can assume add-ons follows the game rules too, but there is also an edge case made by emergent nature of API and add-ons, in which add-ons could violate the rules of the game via emergency. The example of where the emergent nature of API lead to an add-on that could be considered to be bypassing/circumventing/violating the rules was the add-on which could alert players about stealth attacks in PVP - but as I said, this could be considered as cheating and I think it can be debated if it was indeed a cheat. (For the cheat argument we have the fact that ZoS made changes to the API to prevent the use of said add-on) The edge case on the other hand doesn't mean that all add-ons are cheating, because of course, not all add-ons are violating the in-game rules of game, and as such, I would not call all add-ons cheating.

Next to the issue of exploiting and hacking. Hacking is "to gain illegal access to (a computer network, system, etc.)"(source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hack ). And since it's illegal by definition, as in against the rules, it goes under the term 'cheat'. To be precise, the access in this definition seems to be access to data, memory etc. which is done via out-of-game software. For example: cheat engines which alters the client data and sent/received data. To me, add-ons doesn't seem to gain illegal access to any data or the client memory, or the sent/received data - so I wouldn't count them as hacking.

Exploiting can be understood as "to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage" (source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exploit ). What there is in game to exploit: bug or glitches, game system, rates, hit boxes, speed or level design etc. When exploiting these, you circumvent the rules and also violate the Terms of Service - so exploiting falls under the cheating. But can add-ons be considered as exploiting? I'd think not, because add-ons are tied to the platform and there is no cross-platform gameplay, to me, add-ons seems fair: everyone on the platform either has access to add-ons (PC) or doesn't have access to add-ons (consoles).

So, to me:
- Cheating is violating the rules.
- Not all add-ons are cheats.
- A singular add-on can be cheating, if it violates the rules of the game.
- Exploiting bug or glitches, game system etc. is cheating.
- Hacking (as in using software to gain access to the client program's data, networking etc.) is cheating.

Aznarb wrote: »

Donny_Vito wrote: »

I personally think add-ons are cheating and they just dumb the game down to help people who couldn't otherwise play at that level, but then again I'm a console pleb so I'm totally biased.

Raid notifier is clearly a cheat.
It tell you what to do and when. I've no respect for anyone using this.
A good player know pattern and mechanic, you don't need this "add-on".

That why most console player are more skill than the vast majority of Pc player.

Is telling a player what to do and when violating the rules of the game? You still need to follow the rules, it does not bypass the fact that the player using raid notifier needs to dodge the one hit attack. It does not allow you to go outside of the play area. It does not allow you to skip the boss fight. Is there a rule it is violating, and by doing such makes it a cheat? I do not think so, and so I do not think raid notifier is a cheat.

It allow you to not pay attention to any mechanic since the add-on will do it for you, will tell you when to doge, when to block hell I've even see some stream where it told them when to drop ult...
Yeah, not a cheat at all.
It give you all info you've to work, learn and pay attention all along freely and w/o any downside.
It's an obvious advantage that why, for me, it's just a cheat.

I've yet see any "top" raid-group play totally w/o it.

But, hey, with the number of ppl using it cuz they don't want to learn to play, I know lot gonna disagree with me, it's ok, I can deal with it.
I don't need add-on to play at my place, unlike them.

You know someone has to write the add-ons, right? They don't spring up by themselves and update automatically with each patch? Someone has to run the content, learn the mechanics then from that, update their add-ons.
So yes, the top raid guilds can definitely run without add-ons and they actually have to do that any time new content comes out on the PTS.

So by your weird logic, if X write the add-on after learning the run (which it's not how we make this kind of add-on, but let it be..), all other player magically become good and know all mech' ?

Yeah, strong logic. It's ok dude, Idc how you gonna try to justify your use of this, ZoS allow it anyway, go for it.
And then don't come on forum like some guy crying how easy is this game will using all these add-on.
And don't present yourself as good player.

Like I said, with the number of player relying on this to do content, I've saw this kind of poor excuse coming, I can live with it, I don't blame players using it, I blame ZoS to allowing this kind of mod.

Have a good day.

*Facepalm*

You're the one claiming only bad players use add-ons, meanwhile those top raiding guilds still use add-ons even though they had to learn the mechanics before the add-ons got updated.
But it's ok, if not using add-ons makes you feel better than us plebes, who am I to stop you?

Have a good one.

kendellking_chaosb14_ESO · August 2019

idk wrote: »

The difference between the two terms is splitting hairs and really comes down to what Zos says in the end. Some things are pretty obvious and when you exploit something that is pretty obvious not intended then it is usually cheating.

Most players are not dumb. They just try to use excuses when they get caught using something that is pretty obviously an exploit that is cheating. Great example is the vAS+2 exploit. The people even advertised it. Hopefully the ring leaders and those that ran multiple characters through with the exploits are still banned as they deserve it.

But yes, AC is not exploiting and is formally blessed by Zos though some players still falsely try to call it exploiting merely because they do not like it1 for one reason or another.

Just to be clear ZoS has came out in the pass that they were trying to “fix” AC so they did in fact see it as an exploit after many failed attempts to fix it they simply said it was part of the game and was okay. So they couldn’t fix/stop it and just gave up.

So I can understand people still feeling like it’s still an exploit.

Sanguinor2 · August 2019

kendellking_chaosb14_ESO wrote: »

Just to be clear ZoS has came out in the pass that they were trying to “fix” AC so they did in fact see it as an exploit after many failed attempts to fix it they simply said it was part of the game and was okay. So they couldn’t fix/stop it and just gave up.

So I can understand people still feeling like it’s still an exploit.

While it is true that it wasnt initially intended I cant understand why People still say its an exploit. Anything that Zos officially deems not to be an exploit is not an exploit in their game, quite simple honestly.
People are free to perceive it as an exploit but it is factually wrong to say it actually is one.

kendellking_chaosb14_ESO · August 2019

Just to be clear I don’t think AC in 2019 is an exploit.

kendellking_chaosb14_ESO · August 2019

Double post

kendellking_chaosb14_ESO · August 2019

Sanguinor2 wrote: »

kendellking_chaosb14_ESO wrote: »

Just to be clear ZoS has came out in the pass that they were trying to “fix” AC so they did in fact see it as an exploit after many failed attempts to fix it they simply said it was part of the game and was okay. So they couldn’t fix/stop it and just gave up.

So I can understand people still feeling like it’s still an exploit.

While it is true that it wasnt initially intended I cant understand why People still say its an exploit. Anything that Zos officially deems not to be an exploit is not an exploit in their game, quite simple honestly.
People are free to perceive it as an exploit but it is factually wrong to say it actually is one.

I can understand that I’m in the camp of they couldn’t fix it and called it a feature which lines up more with their history. AC is a kind of cool down if you break the other cool downs and they realize they can’t fix the cool down if they started to just call that a feature would you view it as an exploit?

mairwen85 · August 2019

kendellking_chaosb14_ESO wrote: »

Just to be clear I don’t think AC in 2019 is an exploit.

Implies you think it was an exploit pre 2019.

AC and weaving are an initially unintended side effect of the combat system in that skills, and light attacks operate on individual cool downs, with defensive maneuvers having none for reactive gameplay. Individual cool downs can overlap by that design in the same way that blocking interrupts casting. It isn't a design flaw per se, as each is an independent entity for calculation. Players using it was not exploiting a bug or broken code, but leveraging a combat design quirk... Attempts to mitigate (because you can't fix what isn't broken) ruined the combat fluidity unique to eso. So here we are.

Is it an exploit, was it an exploit? Who really cares - - it isn't now, and we have skills designed for it. That isn't going to change.