Maintenance for the week of February 23:
· [IN PROGRESS] NA megaservers for maintenance – February 23, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
· [IN PROGRESS] EU megaservers for maintenance – February 23, 9:00 UTC (4:00AM EST) - 17:00 UTC (12:00PM EST)
· [IN PROGRESS] ESO Store and Account System for maintenance – February 23, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
· [IN PROGRESS] NA megaservers for maintenance – February 23, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
· [IN PROGRESS] EU megaservers for maintenance – February 23, 9:00 UTC (4:00AM EST) - 17:00 UTC (12:00PM EST)
· [IN PROGRESS] ESO Store and Account System for maintenance – February 23, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
The skill gap is too great due to twitch-based reflex type combat like weaving and animation cancel.
-
Feindrah✭✭✭They're making it an even bigger chunk of the combat now with these new changes, because it's now the new de facto way to sustain your resources.
Now how that translates into supposedly making light attack weaving less of a factor is anyone's guess.
After taking a look at these PTS changes I gotta say.. I really don't care for the idea of light attacks being the new sustain. I know that they want to do this to narrow the gap but I don't think that's the right solution and is still making you rely on LA. I haven't tested so I can't say for sure though.
I think there can be a middle ground between weavers and non weavers... I'm just not confident whats going on in the PTS is the best way.
PC/NA
Khajiit Magplar2 -
Jeremy✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭justaquickword wrote: »This is starting to remind me of the arguments over Brexit...
In reminds me of it too, but in the sense that no one wants to compromise. It's either all the way in or all the way out. And that's probably why this is still an unresolved problem nearly a half decade later.
Which is why I'm sympathetic to the suggestions of the OP.
If they put in an optional auto attack, this would give players who can't or won't weave a competitive option to help "narrow the skill gap" (which was supposedly the goal of these awful changes). Players who enjoy manual weaving and want to keep doing it may still do so.
What's wrong with that?
Is the "automated" attack going to do less damage than a normal LA? Otherwise who choose the dps loss?
LA are like 15% of dps (unless you're using a skill to specifically boost them, like Ele Weapon), that 15% doesn't account for the vast difference between "end-game" and "mid-tier"
Nerf LA damage by 30%. Boost skill damage by like 3%. Top tier people will pull the same DPS. mid-tier will gain dps. Sadly the LA spammers will lose dps.
Not sure what happened to my first response to you (it just vanished): but players who don't light attack weave would be the ones who would choose the automated attack. Because even if it would ultimately be less damage than players who manually did it - at least this way it wouldn't shut them out completely from the benefits of weaving light attacks into their rotations. So it would narrow the gap between players who can weave and those who can't, which if I read it correctly is the supposed goal.
To me that's a much better solution then implementing these terrible changes on the PTS.Edited by Jeremy on April 4, 2020 11:48PM2 -
justaquickword✭✭✭✭Unknown_Redemption wrote: »
Bar swapping I also have a problem with, mainly due to the appalling positioning of it on a controller.0 -
Jeremy✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭They're making it an even bigger chunk of the combat now with these new changes, because it's now the new de facto way to sustain your resources.
Now how that translates into supposedly making light attack weaving less of a factor is anyone's guess.
After taking a look at these PTS changes I gotta say.. I really don't care for the idea of light attacks being the new sustain. I know that they want to do this to narrow the gap but I don't think that's the right solution and is still making you rely on LA. I haven't tested so I can't say for sure though.
I think there can be a middle ground between weavers and non weavers... I'm just not confident whats going on in the PTS is the best way.
I completely agree. This is definitely not the right way to go about addressing this issue. I've tried these changes out on the PTS and it's every bit as bad as you suspect it is.2 -
tmbrinks✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭No, the skill gap is fine.justaquickword wrote: »This is starting to remind me of the arguments over Brexit...
In reminds me of it too, but in the sense that no one wants to compromise. It's either all the way in or all the way out. And that's probably why this is still an unresolved problem nearly a half decade later.
Which is why I'm sympathetic to the suggestions of the OP.
If they put in an optional auto attack, this would give players who can't or won't weave a competitive option to help "narrow the skill gap" (which was supposedly the goal of these awful changes). Players who enjoy manual weaving and want to keep doing it may still do so.
What's wrong with that?
Is the "automated" attack going to do less damage than a normal LA? Otherwise who choose the dps loss?
LA are like 15% of dps (unless you're using a skill to specifically boost them, like Ele Weapon), that 15% doesn't account for the vast difference between "end-game" and "mid-tier"
Nerf LA damage by 30%. Boost skill damage by like 3%. Top tier people will pull the same DPS. mid-tier will gain dps. Sadly the LA spammers will lose dps.
Not sure what happened to my first response to you (it just vanished): but players who don't light attack weave would be the ones who would choose this automated attack. Because even if it would ultimately be less damage than players who manually did it - at least this way it wouldn't shut them out completely from the benefits of weaving light attacks into their rotations. So it would narrow the gap between players who can weave and those who can't, which if I read it correctly is the supposed goal.
To me that's a much better solution then implementing these terrible changes on the PTS.
Yeah, that has been happening a lot of the forums lately. Whether it's due to overloaded servers, or stealth moderation, I don't know.
If the auto attack did like 50% of the dps of somebody who was a 0.7 LA/sec weaver, fine. But much more than that and it'll be too strong.The Unshattered - Tenacious Dreamer - Hurricane Herald - Xalvakka's Scourge - Godslayer - Dawnbringer - Gryphon Heart - Tick Tock Tormenter - Immortal Redeemer - Dro-m'Athra DestroyerThe Unchained - The Brilliant - Moth Trusted - The Just - Oathsworn - Bedlam's Disciple - Temporal Tempest - Curator's Champion - Fist of Tava - Invader's Bane - Land, Air, and Sea Supremacy - Zero Regrets - Battlespire's Best - Bastion Breaker - Ardent Bibliophile - Subterranean Smasher - Bane of Thorns - True Genius - In Defiance of Death - No Rest for the Wicked - Nature's Wrath - Undying Endurance - Relentless Raider - Depths Defier - Apex Predator - Pure Lunacy - Mountain God - Leave No Bone Unbroken - CoS/RoM/BF/FH Challenger71,140 achievement points4 -
Jeremy✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭justaquickword wrote: »This is starting to remind me of the arguments over Brexit...
In reminds me of it too, but in the sense that no one wants to compromise. It's either all the way in or all the way out. And that's probably why this is still an unresolved problem nearly a half decade later.
Which is why I'm sympathetic to the suggestions of the OP.
If they put in an optional auto attack, this would give players who can't or won't weave a competitive option to help "narrow the skill gap" (which was supposedly the goal of these awful changes). Players who enjoy manual weaving and want to keep doing it may still do so.
What's wrong with that?
Is the "automated" attack going to do less damage than a normal LA? Otherwise who choose the dps loss?
LA are like 15% of dps (unless you're using a skill to specifically boost them, like Ele Weapon), that 15% doesn't account for the vast difference between "end-game" and "mid-tier"
Nerf LA damage by 30%. Boost skill damage by like 3%. Top tier people will pull the same DPS. mid-tier will gain dps. Sadly the LA spammers will lose dps.
Not sure what happened to my first response to you (it just vanished): but players who don't light attack weave would be the ones who would choose this automated attack. Because even if it would ultimately be less damage than players who manually did it - at least this way it wouldn't shut them out completely from the benefits of weaving light attacks into their rotations. So it would narrow the gap between players who can weave and those who can't, which if I read it correctly is the supposed goal.
To me that's a much better solution then implementing these terrible changes on the PTS.
Yeah, that has been happening a lot of the forums lately. Whether it's due to overloaded servers, or stealth moderation, I don't know.
If the auto attack did like 50% of the dps of somebody who was a 0.7 LA/sec weaver, fine. But much more than that and it'll be too strong.
50% sounds reasonable to me. That's still a significant "narrowing of the gap". Though anything to avert these awful changes on the PTS from going live I'm likely to support. lol ; ;0 -
Sylvermynx✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭No, the skill gap is fine.For someone like me, that "auto-attack" would likely make sense....0 -
farorae✭✭✭No, the skill gap is fine. Animation canceling/weaving is not difficult in the slightest and you don’t even need it to do 99% of the content. I’m pretty awful at this game myself and I learned weaving and animation cancelling on my own when I first started the game, and I learned to do it consistently in about 10 minutes after watching a tutorial video. If you can’t put in a few minutes (or max a few hours) to learn a simple mechanic then you shouldn’t be on the same level as those who did.Edited by farorae on April 5, 2020 1:21AM3 -
ZeroXFF✭✭✭✭✭
✭Yes, I think the skill gap is too great and should be addressedDusk_Coven wrote: »Allowing the use of an unintended combat feature instead of ZOS calling it what it is -- an exploit of programming deficiency -- led this to this debacle. Probably the worst combat design decision they ever made. Their short-sightedness has had repercussions ever since and is slowly coming to a head now.
Would you prefer waiting every time a light attack goes off so that it can finish it's animation and then you would be able to activate an ability? So you would choose whether to use another light attack or use an ability? You think that would be a fun game?
Why is it always only a choice between Turd A and Turd B, with you people?
They designed the game wrong.
Most games of this type (not made by this company!) have auto-attack.
Therefore, weaving/AC isn't an issue in those games and it shouldn't be an issue here.
Well thank god this isn't most games because most MMOs have mind numbingly slowcombat. And eso isn't that. Get over it, stop trying to change the game into something it isn't and just learn to press abutton 2 times per second. It's not too fast at all.
Yeah, that's not going to happen, babe.
I'm free to have my own opinion and will continue to express it.
...and by the way, I do weave, as I have stated repeatedly before.
I just don't like messy, amateurish design.
I think the design is ok, it's just vulnerable to macro use which can give players unfair advantages over others.
Maybe it's time they just added in-game macros like other MMORPGs have. That way everyone would be able to attach light attacks onto all their abilities and effortlessly weave while jumping around in circles without missing a beat. That would be a better solution than the current one - which is going to do nothing but make the problem worse.
In hardest game end content macros can be actually disadventageous. And if You think that all You need to compete in harder content is creating a macro that would tie light attack to Your abilities then You're very wrong. That is why I highly doubt there is more then some tiny percent of more experienced players using macros. Yes there can be few but vast majority is clicking 1 button for 1 action because You're simply better that way in real content.
No, in "real content" macros are not a disadvantage, only bad macros are. There is a way of designing a game so that only bad (or very situational) macros are possible, but that is not the case with ESO. I'd explain more, but I'm not eager to be banned.3 -
tmbrinks✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭No, the skill gap is fine.Dusk_Coven wrote: »Allowing the use of an unintended combat feature instead of ZOS calling it what it is -- an exploit of programming deficiency -- led this to this debacle. Probably the worst combat design decision they ever made. Their short-sightedness has had repercussions ever since and is slowly coming to a head now.
Would you prefer waiting every time a light attack goes off so that it can finish it's animation and then you would be able to activate an ability? So you would choose whether to use another light attack or use an ability? You think that would be a fun game?
Why is it always only a choice between Turd A and Turd B, with you people?
They designed the game wrong.
Most games of this type (not made by this company!) have auto-attack.
Therefore, weaving/AC isn't an issue in those games and it shouldn't be an issue here.
Well thank god this isn't most games because most MMOs have mind numbingly slowcombat. And eso isn't that. Get over it, stop trying to change the game into something it isn't and just learn to press abutton 2 times per second. It's not too fast at all.
Yeah, that's not going to happen, babe.
I'm free to have my own opinion and will continue to express it.
...and by the way, I do weave, as I have stated repeatedly before.
I just don't like messy, amateurish design.
I think the design is ok, it's just vulnerable to macro use which can give players unfair advantages over others.
Maybe it's time they just added in-game macros like other MMORPGs have. That way everyone would be able to attach light attacks onto all their abilities and effortlessly weave while jumping around in circles without missing a beat. That would be a better solution than the current one - which is going to do nothing but make the problem worse.
In hardest game end content macros can be actually disadventageous. And if You think that all You need to compete in harder content is creating a macro that would tie light attack to Your abilities then You're very wrong. That is why I highly doubt there is more then some tiny percent of more experienced players using macros. Yes there can be few but vast majority is clicking 1 button for 1 action because You're simply better that way in real content.
No, in "real content" macros are not a disadvantage, only bad macros are. There is a way of designing a game so that only bad (or very situational) macros are possible, but that is not the case with ESO. I'd explain more, but I'm not eager to be banned.
"I know it's happening" but.. "I'm not going to share". The mantra of those that exaggerate
The Unshattered - Tenacious Dreamer - Hurricane Herald - Xalvakka's Scourge - Godslayer - Dawnbringer - Gryphon Heart - Tick Tock Tormenter - Immortal Redeemer - Dro-m'Athra DestroyerThe Unchained - The Brilliant - Moth Trusted - The Just - Oathsworn - Bedlam's Disciple - Temporal Tempest - Curator's Champion - Fist of Tava - Invader's Bane - Land, Air, and Sea Supremacy - Zero Regrets - Battlespire's Best - Bastion Breaker - Ardent Bibliophile - Subterranean Smasher - Bane of Thorns - True Genius - In Defiance of Death - No Rest for the Wicked - Nature's Wrath - Undying Endurance - Relentless Raider - Depths Defier - Apex Predator - Pure Lunacy - Mountain God - Leave No Bone Unbroken - CoS/RoM/BF/FH Challenger71,140 achievement points2 -
Lysette✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Nomadic_Atmoran wrote: »Sometimes I can't help but feel anti-animation canceling peeps are the people that can't get the rotations down, get flustered, claim it has to be an exploit to do this, and then rage about cheaters instead of just accepting that they suck.
Actually, you almost certainly could help but feel that, you just choose not to.
Technically, it was an exploit of an unintended mechanic, which ZOS chose to "embrace", rather than find a proper fix for.
By "exploit", in this context, I don't mean the people doing it were doing something wrong.
Just that they had (innocently) stumbled across a (pretty obvious) loophole in the combat design and were, inevitably, using it to their (fairly massive) advantage.
Which means they were exploiting it...
Just because people call it what it is - an "exploit" - doesn't mean they think it's a nefarious exploit, that should have seen people using it be punished, or anything.
They're just, accurately, calling it what it, technically, is.
To exploit =/= to use an exploit. "Exploit" used as a verb have slightly different context from using that word as a noun.
And technically light attack weaving was part of intended mechanic which ZoS acknowledged the day they discovered it's possible to do. Animation cancelling was always intended in ESO that's a fact. Light attack weaving was byproduct of it. Unexpected at the beggining but still it was not breaking rules of the combat that developers created in any way. ZoS was simply not expecting that people will take it to the next level and turn it into important part of the rotations but the moment they've realized it they were completly fine with it because it was not breaking any rule of combat they've made.
What kind of logic is that - if you intend something you do not discover it later on - you put it there to be there, but if you had to discover it, it was clearly not intended1 -
idk✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭No, the skill gap is fine.What is funny is everyone answering "NO" is specifically saying combat in ESO is not skill-based by twitch-based.
It seems Knowledge purposely chose to word the question this way to get people to actually acknowledge that combat in ESO si twitch-based. LMAO. Smart play on words there.1 -
ZeroXFF✭✭✭✭✭
✭Yes, I think the skill gap is too great and should be addressedDusk_Coven wrote: »Allowing the use of an unintended combat feature instead of ZOS calling it what it is -- an exploit of programming deficiency -- led this to this debacle. Probably the worst combat design decision they ever made. Their short-sightedness has had repercussions ever since and is slowly coming to a head now.
Would you prefer waiting every time a light attack goes off so that it can finish it's animation and then you would be able to activate an ability? So you would choose whether to use another light attack or use an ability? You think that would be a fun game?
Why is it always only a choice between Turd A and Turd B, with you people?
They designed the game wrong.
Most games of this type (not made by this company!) have auto-attack.
Therefore, weaving/AC isn't an issue in those games and it shouldn't be an issue here.
Well thank god this isn't most games because most MMOs have mind numbingly slowcombat. And eso isn't that. Get over it, stop trying to change the game into something it isn't and just learn to press abutton 2 times per second. It's not too fast at all.
Yeah, that's not going to happen, babe.
I'm free to have my own opinion and will continue to express it.
...and by the way, I do weave, as I have stated repeatedly before.
I just don't like messy, amateurish design.
I think the design is ok, it's just vulnerable to macro use which can give players unfair advantages over others.
Maybe it's time they just added in-game macros like other MMORPGs have. That way everyone would be able to attach light attacks onto all their abilities and effortlessly weave while jumping around in circles without missing a beat. That would be a better solution than the current one - which is going to do nothing but make the problem worse.
In hardest game end content macros can be actually disadventageous. And if You think that all You need to compete in harder content is creating a macro that would tie light attack to Your abilities then You're very wrong. That is why I highly doubt there is more then some tiny percent of more experienced players using macros. Yes there can be few but vast majority is clicking 1 button for 1 action because You're simply better that way in real content.
It depends on the macros being used. There is no disadvantage in using short macros that combine light attacks with skills, and yes - a lot of players do use them. I've used similar macros on other games myself - and they are helpful and advantageous.
But anyway, macro use is a real problem on this game and me saying that shouldn't offend you or take away from your feeling of accomplishment on the "harder content". So there is no reason for you to become defensive here. I'm not accusing you personally of using macros.
Well if You assume that You'll create multiple macros for multiple situations that You'll be dynamically switching inbetween during combat then at certain point managing Your macros wil be harder then light attack weaving. As for making la+skill macro is ESO it is disadventageous. How do You know lot of players is using them in ESO ? Any data behind Your claim ? Because from what knowledge I was able to gather rarely anyone is in hardest game end content is even considering macros as usefull or adventageous. They're just making players weaker because someone who cannot click fast can't think fast and someone who can;t think fast will simply die when things will not go as planned. Making Yourself weaker deliberately will not get You accomplishments in hardest content in ESO. Don't compare using macros in other games to using them in ESO. Comparison like that is out of context.
Macros are not real problem. Barely anyone is using them and those who are using them and I know of are usually average players with or without them. People beliving that macros are massively used in ESO game end content are problem because they refuse to acknowledge real reasons of skill qap between players.
How about traffic data from a github page of just ONE of those macros? This aims at people who are comfortable installing some unknown stuff from random github pages for this purpose. And this is completely ignoring those who just program their gaming mice to do the same thing.
And the date of the release of the first publically available version:
Wanna do the math and compare the result to the numbers on Steam?Edited by ZeroXFF on April 5, 2020 3:56AM3 -
ZeroXFF✭✭✭✭✭
✭Yes, I think the skill gap is too great and should be addressedjustaquickword wrote: »This is starting to remind me of the arguments over Brexit...
In reminds me of it too, but in the sense that no one wants to compromise. It's either all the way in or all the way out. And that's probably why this is still an unresolved problem nearly a half decade later.
Which is why I'm sympathetic to the suggestions of the OP.
If they put in an optional auto attack, this would give players who can't or won't weave a competitive option to help "narrow the skill gap" (which was supposedly the goal of these awful changes). Players who enjoy manual weaving and want to keep doing it may still do so.
What's wrong with that?
Is the "automated" attack going to do less damage than a normal LA? Otherwise who choose the dps loss?
LA are like 15% of dps (unless you're using a skill to specifically boost them, like Ele Weapon), that 15% doesn't account for the vast difference between "end-game" and "mid-tier"
Nerf LA damage by 30%. Boost skill damage by like 3%. Top tier people will pull the same DPS. mid-tier will gain dps. Sadly the LA spammers will lose dps.
For the same reason people say that if you don't like LA weaving, you can just skip it and simply use skills - you find it more fun that way.
I've been hearing the exact same argument from the pro-AC crowd since the first time this argument was brought up. It would be cosmic justice if these people ended up on the other side of this debate.4 -
ZeroXFF✭✭✭✭✭
✭Yes, I think the skill gap is too great and should be addressedDusk_Coven wrote: »Allowing the use of an unintended combat feature instead of ZOS calling it what it is -- an exploit of programming deficiency -- led this to this debacle. Probably the worst combat design decision they ever made. Their short-sightedness has had repercussions ever since and is slowly coming to a head now.
Would you prefer waiting every time a light attack goes off so that it can finish it's animation and then you would be able to activate an ability? So you would choose whether to use another light attack or use an ability? You think that would be a fun game?
Why is it always only a choice between Turd A and Turd B, with you people?
They designed the game wrong.
Most games of this type (not made by this company!) have auto-attack.
Therefore, weaving/AC isn't an issue in those games and it shouldn't be an issue here.
Well thank god this isn't most games because most MMOs have mind numbingly slowcombat. And eso isn't that. Get over it, stop trying to change the game into something it isn't and just learn to press abutton 2 times per second. It's not too fast at all.
Yeah, that's not going to happen, babe.
I'm free to have my own opinion and will continue to express it.
...and by the way, I do weave, as I have stated repeatedly before.
I just don't like messy, amateurish design.
I think the design is ok, it's just vulnerable to macro use which can give players unfair advantages over others.
Maybe it's time they just added in-game macros like other MMORPGs have. That way everyone would be able to attach light attacks onto all their abilities and effortlessly weave while jumping around in circles without missing a beat. That would be a better solution than the current one - which is going to do nothing but make the problem worse.
In hardest game end content macros can be actually disadventageous. And if You think that all You need to compete in harder content is creating a macro that would tie light attack to Your abilities then You're very wrong. That is why I highly doubt there is more then some tiny percent of more experienced players using macros. Yes there can be few but vast majority is clicking 1 button for 1 action because You're simply better that way in real content.
No, in "real content" macros are not a disadvantage, only bad macros are. There is a way of designing a game so that only bad (or very situational) macros are possible, but that is not the case with ESO. I'd explain more, but I'm not eager to be banned.
"I know it's happening" but.. "I'm not going to share". The mantra of those that exaggerate
In what you quoted I made no quantitative statement about its prevalence, only a qualitative statement about the experience IF you were to use them. But I suggest you read a bit further below your post, because I still do back it up.Edited by ZeroXFF on April 5, 2020 4:01AM3 -
Juhasow✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Nomadic_Atmoran wrote: »Sometimes I can't help but feel anti-animation canceling peeps are the people that can't get the rotations down, get flustered, claim it has to be an exploit to do this, and then rage about cheaters instead of just accepting that they suck.
Actually, you almost certainly could help but feel that, you just choose not to.
Technically, it was an exploit of an unintended mechanic, which ZOS chose to "embrace", rather than find a proper fix for.
By "exploit", in this context, I don't mean the people doing it were doing something wrong.
Just that they had (innocently) stumbled across a (pretty obvious) loophole in the combat design and were, inevitably, using it to their (fairly massive) advantage.
Which means they were exploiting it...
Just because people call it what it is - an "exploit" - doesn't mean they think it's a nefarious exploit, that should have seen people using it be punished, or anything.
They're just, accurately, calling it what it, technically, is.
To exploit =/= to use an exploit. "Exploit" used as a verb have slightly different context from using that word as a noun.
And technically light attack weaving was part of intended mechanic which ZoS acknowledged the day they discovered it's possible to do. Animation cancelling was always intended in ESO that's a fact. Light attack weaving was byproduct of it. Unexpected at the beggining but still it was not breaking rules of the combat that developers created in any way. ZoS was simply not expecting that people will take it to the next level and turn it into important part of the rotations but the moment they've realized it they were completly fine with it because it was not breaking any rule of combat they've made.
What kind of logic is that - if you intend something you do not discover it later on - you put it there to be there, but if you had to discover it, it was clearly not intended
Logic is pretty simple here. But to understand it You need to first know the difference between terms "animation cancelling" and "light attack weaving". Looks like You don't.2 -
Juhasow✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Dusk_Coven wrote: »Allowing the use of an unintended combat feature instead of ZOS calling it what it is -- an exploit of programming deficiency -- led this to this debacle. Probably the worst combat design decision they ever made. Their short-sightedness has had repercussions ever since and is slowly coming to a head now.
Would you prefer waiting every time a light attack goes off so that it can finish it's animation and then you would be able to activate an ability? So you would choose whether to use another light attack or use an ability? You think that would be a fun game?
Why is it always only a choice between Turd A and Turd B, with you people?
They designed the game wrong.
Most games of this type (not made by this company!) have auto-attack.
Therefore, weaving/AC isn't an issue in those games and it shouldn't be an issue here.
Well thank god this isn't most games because most MMOs have mind numbingly slowcombat. And eso isn't that. Get over it, stop trying to change the game into something it isn't and just learn to press abutton 2 times per second. It's not too fast at all.
Yeah, that's not going to happen, babe.
I'm free to have my own opinion and will continue to express it.
...and by the way, I do weave, as I have stated repeatedly before.
I just don't like messy, amateurish design.
I think the design is ok, it's just vulnerable to macro use which can give players unfair advantages over others.
Maybe it's time they just added in-game macros like other MMORPGs have. That way everyone would be able to attach light attacks onto all their abilities and effortlessly weave while jumping around in circles without missing a beat. That would be a better solution than the current one - which is going to do nothing but make the problem worse.
In hardest game end content macros can be actually disadventageous. And if You think that all You need to compete in harder content is creating a macro that would tie light attack to Your abilities then You're very wrong. That is why I highly doubt there is more then some tiny percent of more experienced players using macros. Yes there can be few but vast majority is clicking 1 button for 1 action because You're simply better that way in real content.
It depends on the macros being used. There is no disadvantage in using short macros that combine light attacks with skills, and yes - a lot of players do use them. I've used similar macros on other games myself - and they are helpful and advantageous.
But anyway, macro use is a real problem on this game and me saying that shouldn't offend you or take away from your feeling of accomplishment on the "harder content". So there is no reason for you to become defensive here. I'm not accusing you personally of using macros.
Well if You assume that You'll create multiple macros for multiple situations that You'll be dynamically switching inbetween during combat then at certain point managing Your macros wil be harder then light attack weaving. As for making la+skill macro is ESO it is disadventageous. How do You know lot of players is using them in ESO ? Any data behind Your claim ? Because from what knowledge I was able to gather rarely anyone is in hardest game end content is even considering macros as usefull or adventageous. They're just making players weaker because someone who cannot click fast can't think fast and someone who can;t think fast will simply die when things will not go as planned. Making Yourself weaker deliberately will not get You accomplishments in hardest content in ESO. Don't compare using macros in other games to using them in ESO. Comparison like that is out of context.
Macros are not real problem. Barely anyone is using them and those who are using them and I know of are usually average players with or without them. People beliving that macros are massively used in ESO game end content are problem because they refuse to acknowledge real reasons of skill qap between players.
How about traffic data from a github page of just ONE of those macros? This aims at people who are comfortable installing some unknown stuff from random github pages for this purpose. And this is completely ignoring those who just program their gaming mice to do the same thing.
And the date of the release of the first publically available version:
Wanna do the math and compare the result to the numbers on Steam?
And what does that graph says actually ? Providing random screen without context or explaining it is hardy an evidence for anything. You could atleast provide some links. For now it's just random graph that looks like it's being shown just to sound smart.Edited by Juhasow on April 5, 2020 4:04AM3 -
Lysette✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Nomadic_Atmoran wrote: »Sometimes I can't help but feel anti-animation canceling peeps are the people that can't get the rotations down, get flustered, claim it has to be an exploit to do this, and then rage about cheaters instead of just accepting that they suck.
Actually, you almost certainly could help but feel that, you just choose not to.
Technically, it was an exploit of an unintended mechanic, which ZOS chose to "embrace", rather than find a proper fix for.
By "exploit", in this context, I don't mean the people doing it were doing something wrong.
Just that they had (innocently) stumbled across a (pretty obvious) loophole in the combat design and were, inevitably, using it to their (fairly massive) advantage.
Which means they were exploiting it...
Just because people call it what it is - an "exploit" - doesn't mean they think it's a nefarious exploit, that should have seen people using it be punished, or anything.
They're just, accurately, calling it what it, technically, is.
To exploit =/= to use an exploit. "Exploit" used as a verb have slightly different context from using that word as a noun.
And technically light attack weaving was part of intended mechanic which ZoS acknowledged the day they discovered it's possible to do. Animation cancelling was always intended in ESO that's a fact. Light attack weaving was byproduct of it. Unexpected at the beggining but still it was not breaking rules of the combat that developers created in any way. ZoS was simply not expecting that people will take it to the next level and turn it into important part of the rotations but the moment they've realized it they were completly fine with it because it was not breaking any rule of combat they've made.
What kind of logic is that - if you intend something you do not discover it later on - you put it there to be there, but if you had to discover it, it was clearly not intended
Logic is pretty simple here. But to understand it You need to first know the difference between terms "animation cancelling" and "light attack weaving". Looks like You don't.
You just try to cover up your illogical statement - you cannot discover something what you intentionally put there.2 -
Juhasow✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Nomadic_Atmoran wrote: »Sometimes I can't help but feel anti-animation canceling peeps are the people that can't get the rotations down, get flustered, claim it has to be an exploit to do this, and then rage about cheaters instead of just accepting that they suck.
Actually, you almost certainly could help but feel that, you just choose not to.
Technically, it was an exploit of an unintended mechanic, which ZOS chose to "embrace", rather than find a proper fix for.
By "exploit", in this context, I don't mean the people doing it were doing something wrong.
Just that they had (innocently) stumbled across a (pretty obvious) loophole in the combat design and were, inevitably, using it to their (fairly massive) advantage.
Which means they were exploiting it...
Just because people call it what it is - an "exploit" - doesn't mean they think it's a nefarious exploit, that should have seen people using it be punished, or anything.
They're just, accurately, calling it what it, technically, is.
To exploit =/= to use an exploit. "Exploit" used as a verb have slightly different context from using that word as a noun.
And technically light attack weaving was part of intended mechanic which ZoS acknowledged the day they discovered it's possible to do. Animation cancelling was always intended in ESO that's a fact. Light attack weaving was byproduct of it. Unexpected at the beggining but still it was not breaking rules of the combat that developers created in any way. ZoS was simply not expecting that people will take it to the next level and turn it into important part of the rotations but the moment they've realized it they were completly fine with it because it was not breaking any rule of combat they've made.
What kind of logic is that - if you intend something you do not discover it later on - you put it there to be there, but if you had to discover it, it was clearly not intended
Logic is pretty simple here. But to understand it You need to first know the difference between terms "animation cancelling" and "light attack weaving". Looks like You don't.
You just try to cover up your illogical statement - you cannot discover something what you intentionally put there.
I am trying to cover up the fact I cannot take You seriously if You don't see the difference between animation cnacelling and light attack weaving.2 -
Lysette✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Nomadic_Atmoran wrote: »Sometimes I can't help but feel anti-animation canceling peeps are the people that can't get the rotations down, get flustered, claim it has to be an exploit to do this, and then rage about cheaters instead of just accepting that they suck.
Actually, you almost certainly could help but feel that, you just choose not to.
Technically, it was an exploit of an unintended mechanic, which ZOS chose to "embrace", rather than find a proper fix for.
By "exploit", in this context, I don't mean the people doing it were doing something wrong.
Just that they had (innocently) stumbled across a (pretty obvious) loophole in the combat design and were, inevitably, using it to their (fairly massive) advantage.
Which means they were exploiting it...
Just because people call it what it is - an "exploit" - doesn't mean they think it's a nefarious exploit, that should have seen people using it be punished, or anything.
They're just, accurately, calling it what it, technically, is.
To exploit =/= to use an exploit. "Exploit" used as a verb have slightly different context from using that word as a noun.
And technically light attack weaving was part of intended mechanic which ZoS acknowledged the day they discovered it's possible to do. Animation cancelling was always intended in ESO that's a fact. Light attack weaving was byproduct of it. Unexpected at the beggining but still it was not breaking rules of the combat that developers created in any way. ZoS was simply not expecting that people will take it to the next level and turn it into important part of the rotations but the moment they've realized it they were completly fine with it because it was not breaking any rule of combat they've made.
What kind of logic is that - if you intend something you do not discover it later on - you put it there to be there, but if you had to discover it, it was clearly not intended
Logic is pretty simple here. But to understand it You need to first know the difference between terms "animation cancelling" and "light attack weaving". Looks like You don't.
You just try to cover up your illogical statement - you cannot discover something what you intentionally put there.
I am trying to cover up the fact I cannot take You seriously if You don't see the difference between animation cnacelling and light attack weaving.
Then try to explain it in logical terms this time - to me that are just different terms for the same thing.1 -
ZeroXFF✭✭✭✭✭
✭Yes, I think the skill gap is too great and should be addressedDusk_Coven wrote: »Allowing the use of an unintended combat feature instead of ZOS calling it what it is -- an exploit of programming deficiency -- led this to this debacle. Probably the worst combat design decision they ever made. Their short-sightedness has had repercussions ever since and is slowly coming to a head now.
Would you prefer waiting every time a light attack goes off so that it can finish it's animation and then you would be able to activate an ability? So you would choose whether to use another light attack or use an ability? You think that would be a fun game?
Why is it always only a choice between Turd A and Turd B, with you people?
They designed the game wrong.
Most games of this type (not made by this company!) have auto-attack.
Therefore, weaving/AC isn't an issue in those games and it shouldn't be an issue here.
Well thank god this isn't most games because most MMOs have mind numbingly slowcombat. And eso isn't that. Get over it, stop trying to change the game into something it isn't and just learn to press abutton 2 times per second. It's not too fast at all.
Yeah, that's not going to happen, babe.
I'm free to have my own opinion and will continue to express it.
...and by the way, I do weave, as I have stated repeatedly before.
I just don't like messy, amateurish design.
I think the design is ok, it's just vulnerable to macro use which can give players unfair advantages over others.
Maybe it's time they just added in-game macros like other MMORPGs have. That way everyone would be able to attach light attacks onto all their abilities and effortlessly weave while jumping around in circles without missing a beat. That would be a better solution than the current one - which is going to do nothing but make the problem worse.
In hardest game end content macros can be actually disadventageous. And if You think that all You need to compete in harder content is creating a macro that would tie light attack to Your abilities then You're very wrong. That is why I highly doubt there is more then some tiny percent of more experienced players using macros. Yes there can be few but vast majority is clicking 1 button for 1 action because You're simply better that way in real content.
It depends on the macros being used. There is no disadvantage in using short macros that combine light attacks with skills, and yes - a lot of players do use them. I've used similar macros on other games myself - and they are helpful and advantageous.
But anyway, macro use is a real problem on this game and me saying that shouldn't offend you or take away from your feeling of accomplishment on the "harder content". So there is no reason for you to become defensive here. I'm not accusing you personally of using macros.
Well if You assume that You'll create multiple macros for multiple situations that You'll be dynamically switching inbetween during combat then at certain point managing Your macros wil be harder then light attack weaving. As for making la+skill macro is ESO it is disadventageous. How do You know lot of players is using them in ESO ? Any data behind Your claim ? Because from what knowledge I was able to gather rarely anyone is in hardest game end content is even considering macros as usefull or adventageous. They're just making players weaker because someone who cannot click fast can't think fast and someone who can;t think fast will simply die when things will not go as planned. Making Yourself weaker deliberately will not get You accomplishments in hardest content in ESO. Don't compare using macros in other games to using them in ESO. Comparison like that is out of context.
Macros are not real problem. Barely anyone is using them and those who are using them and I know of are usually average players with or without them. People beliving that macros are massively used in ESO game end content are problem because they refuse to acknowledge real reasons of skill qap between players.
How about traffic data from a github page of just ONE of those macros? This aims at people who are comfortable installing some unknown stuff from random github pages for this purpose. And this is completely ignoring those who just program their gaming mice to do the same thing.
And the date of the release of the first publically available version:
Wanna do the math and compare the result to the numbers on Steam?
And what does that graph says actually ? Providing random screen without context or explaining it is hardy an evidence for anything. You could atleast provide some links. For now it's just random graph that looks like it's being shown just to sound smart.
I do provide context. If you don't believe me, too bad, that's about as far as I can go without violating the TOS. I will also provide links if ZOS says it's ok, but unless I see a green text reply or a PM from a mod saying so, you'll have to be creative about searching for the answers.4 -
ZeroXFF✭✭✭✭✭
✭Yes, I think the skill gap is too great and should be addressedNomadic_Atmoran wrote: »Sometimes I can't help but feel anti-animation canceling peeps are the people that can't get the rotations down, get flustered, claim it has to be an exploit to do this, and then rage about cheaters instead of just accepting that they suck.
Actually, you almost certainly could help but feel that, you just choose not to.
Technically, it was an exploit of an unintended mechanic, which ZOS chose to "embrace", rather than find a proper fix for.
By "exploit", in this context, I don't mean the people doing it were doing something wrong.
Just that they had (innocently) stumbled across a (pretty obvious) loophole in the combat design and were, inevitably, using it to their (fairly massive) advantage.
Which means they were exploiting it...
Just because people call it what it is - an "exploit" - doesn't mean they think it's a nefarious exploit, that should have seen people using it be punished, or anything.
They're just, accurately, calling it what it, technically, is.
To exploit =/= to use an exploit. "Exploit" used as a verb have slightly different context from using that word as a noun.
And technically light attack weaving was part of intended mechanic which ZoS acknowledged the day they discovered it's possible to do. Animation cancelling was always intended in ESO that's a fact. Light attack weaving was byproduct of it. Unexpected at the beggining but still it was not breaking rules of the combat that developers created in any way. ZoS was simply not expecting that people will take it to the next level and turn it into important part of the rotations but the moment they've realized it they were completly fine with it because it was not breaking any rule of combat they've made.
What kind of logic is that - if you intend something you do not discover it later on - you put it there to be there, but if you had to discover it, it was clearly not intended
Logic is pretty simple here. But to understand it You need to first know the difference between terms "animation cancelling" and "light attack weaving". Looks like You don't.
You just try to cover up your illogical statement - you cannot discover something what you intentionally put there.
I am trying to cover up the fact I cannot take You seriously if You don't see the difference between animation cnacelling and light attack weaving.
Then try to explain it in logical terms this time - to me that are just different terms for the same thing.
LA weaving is a subset of AC. LA weaving (specifically in ESO, as it is possible to weave without AC in other games) only implies cancelling animations on light attacks. AC in general also implies cancelling skills or basically any kind of animation in the game. You can walk while animation-cancelling the leg movements for example.Edited by ZeroXFF on April 5, 2020 4:17AM2 -
Lysette✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Nomadic_Atmoran wrote: »Sometimes I can't help but feel anti-animation canceling peeps are the people that can't get the rotations down, get flustered, claim it has to be an exploit to do this, and then rage about cheaters instead of just accepting that they suck.
Actually, you almost certainly could help but feel that, you just choose not to.
Technically, it was an exploit of an unintended mechanic, which ZOS chose to "embrace", rather than find a proper fix for.
By "exploit", in this context, I don't mean the people doing it were doing something wrong.
Just that they had (innocently) stumbled across a (pretty obvious) loophole in the combat design and were, inevitably, using it to their (fairly massive) advantage.
Which means they were exploiting it...
Just because people call it what it is - an "exploit" - doesn't mean they think it's a nefarious exploit, that should have seen people using it be punished, or anything.
They're just, accurately, calling it what it, technically, is.
To exploit =/= to use an exploit. "Exploit" used as a verb have slightly different context from using that word as a noun.
And technically light attack weaving was part of intended mechanic which ZoS acknowledged the day they discovered it's possible to do. Animation cancelling was always intended in ESO that's a fact. Light attack weaving was byproduct of it. Unexpected at the beggining but still it was not breaking rules of the combat that developers created in any way. ZoS was simply not expecting that people will take it to the next level and turn it into important part of the rotations but the moment they've realized it they were completly fine with it because it was not breaking any rule of combat they've made.
What kind of logic is that - if you intend something you do not discover it later on - you put it there to be there, but if you had to discover it, it was clearly not intended
Logic is pretty simple here. But to understand it You need to first know the difference between terms "animation cancelling" and "light attack weaving". Looks like You don't.
You just try to cover up your illogical statement - you cannot discover something what you intentionally put there.
I am trying to cover up the fact I cannot take You seriously if You don't see the difference between animation cnacelling and light attack weaving.
Then try to explain it in logical terms this time - to me that are just different terms for the same thing.
LA weaving is a subset of AC. LA weaving (specifically in ESO, as it is possible to weave without AC in other games) only implies cancelling animations on light attacks. AC in general also implies cancelling skills or basically any kind of animation in the game. You can walk while animation-cancelling the leg movements for example.
Ah yes, I see - thank you.1 -
Juhasow✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Nomadic_Atmoran wrote: »Sometimes I can't help but feel anti-animation canceling peeps are the people that can't get the rotations down, get flustered, claim it has to be an exploit to do this, and then rage about cheaters instead of just accepting that they suck.
Actually, you almost certainly could help but feel that, you just choose not to.
Technically, it was an exploit of an unintended mechanic, which ZOS chose to "embrace", rather than find a proper fix for.
By "exploit", in this context, I don't mean the people doing it were doing something wrong.
Just that they had (innocently) stumbled across a (pretty obvious) loophole in the combat design and were, inevitably, using it to their (fairly massive) advantage.
Which means they were exploiting it...
Just because people call it what it is - an "exploit" - doesn't mean they think it's a nefarious exploit, that should have seen people using it be punished, or anything.
They're just, accurately, calling it what it, technically, is.
To exploit =/= to use an exploit. "Exploit" used as a verb have slightly different context from using that word as a noun.
And technically light attack weaving was part of intended mechanic which ZoS acknowledged the day they discovered it's possible to do. Animation cancelling was always intended in ESO that's a fact. Light attack weaving was byproduct of it. Unexpected at the beggining but still it was not breaking rules of the combat that developers created in any way. ZoS was simply not expecting that people will take it to the next level and turn it into important part of the rotations but the moment they've realized it they were completly fine with it because it was not breaking any rule of combat they've made.
What kind of logic is that - if you intend something you do not discover it later on - you put it there to be there, but if you had to discover it, it was clearly not intended
Logic is pretty simple here. But to understand it You need to first know the difference between terms "animation cancelling" and "light attack weaving". Looks like You don't.
You just try to cover up your illogical statement - you cannot discover something what you intentionally put there.
I am trying to cover up the fact I cannot take You seriously if You don't see the difference between animation cnacelling and light attack weaving.
Then try to explain it in logical terms this time - to me that are just different terms for the same thing.
I already explained it. Problem is You simply don't understand it. You should read more carefully my 1st post You've responded to. Especially part saying "light attack weaving was part of intended mechanic". That intended mechanic was animation cancelling.1 -
Lysette✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Nomadic_Atmoran wrote: »Sometimes I can't help but feel anti-animation canceling peeps are the people that can't get the rotations down, get flustered, claim it has to be an exploit to do this, and then rage about cheaters instead of just accepting that they suck.
Actually, you almost certainly could help but feel that, you just choose not to.
Technically, it was an exploit of an unintended mechanic, which ZOS chose to "embrace", rather than find a proper fix for.
By "exploit", in this context, I don't mean the people doing it were doing something wrong.
Just that they had (innocently) stumbled across a (pretty obvious) loophole in the combat design and were, inevitably, using it to their (fairly massive) advantage.
Which means they were exploiting it...
Just because people call it what it is - an "exploit" - doesn't mean they think it's a nefarious exploit, that should have seen people using it be punished, or anything.
They're just, accurately, calling it what it, technically, is.
To exploit =/= to use an exploit. "Exploit" used as a verb have slightly different context from using that word as a noun.
And technically light attack weaving was part of intended mechanic which ZoS acknowledged the day they discovered it's possible to do. Animation cancelling was always intended in ESO that's a fact. Light attack weaving was byproduct of it. Unexpected at the beggining but still it was not breaking rules of the combat that developers created in any way. ZoS was simply not expecting that people will take it to the next level and turn it into important part of the rotations but the moment they've realized it they were completly fine with it because it was not breaking any rule of combat they've made.
What kind of logic is that - if you intend something you do not discover it later on - you put it there to be there, but if you had to discover it, it was clearly not intended
Logic is pretty simple here. But to understand it You need to first know the difference between terms "animation cancelling" and "light attack weaving". Looks like You don't.
You just try to cover up your illogical statement - you cannot discover something what you intentionally put there.
I am trying to cover up the fact I cannot take You seriously if You don't see the difference between animation cnacelling and light attack weaving.
Then try to explain it in logical terms this time - to me that are just different terms for the same thing.
I already explained it. Problem is You simply don't understand it. You should read more carefully my 1st post You've responded to. Especially part saying "light attack weaving was part of intended mechanic". That intended mechanic was animation cancelling.
Well, ZeroXFF was so kind to put it in terms which can be understood - instead to just state that i cannot understand it. What you cannot understand though is, that you said it was intentional and still they had to discover it - this doesn't fit together, it is either or, not both. Either put there by intend, or discovered later on.Edited by Lysette on April 5, 2020 4:23AM2 -
Juhasow✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Dusk_Coven wrote: »Allowing the use of an unintended combat feature instead of ZOS calling it what it is -- an exploit of programming deficiency -- led this to this debacle. Probably the worst combat design decision they ever made. Their short-sightedness has had repercussions ever since and is slowly coming to a head now.
Would you prefer waiting every time a light attack goes off so that it can finish it's animation and then you would be able to activate an ability? So you would choose whether to use another light attack or use an ability? You think that would be a fun game?
Why is it always only a choice between Turd A and Turd B, with you people?
They designed the game wrong.
Most games of this type (not made by this company!) have auto-attack.
Therefore, weaving/AC isn't an issue in those games and it shouldn't be an issue here.
Well thank god this isn't most games because most MMOs have mind numbingly slowcombat. And eso isn't that. Get over it, stop trying to change the game into something it isn't and just learn to press abutton 2 times per second. It's not too fast at all.
Yeah, that's not going to happen, babe.
I'm free to have my own opinion and will continue to express it.
...and by the way, I do weave, as I have stated repeatedly before.
I just don't like messy, amateurish design.
I think the design is ok, it's just vulnerable to macro use which can give players unfair advantages over others.
Maybe it's time they just added in-game macros like other MMORPGs have. That way everyone would be able to attach light attacks onto all their abilities and effortlessly weave while jumping around in circles without missing a beat. That would be a better solution than the current one - which is going to do nothing but make the problem worse.
In hardest game end content macros can be actually disadventageous. And if You think that all You need to compete in harder content is creating a macro that would tie light attack to Your abilities then You're very wrong. That is why I highly doubt there is more then some tiny percent of more experienced players using macros. Yes there can be few but vast majority is clicking 1 button for 1 action because You're simply better that way in real content.
It depends on the macros being used. There is no disadvantage in using short macros that combine light attacks with skills, and yes - a lot of players do use them. I've used similar macros on other games myself - and they are helpful and advantageous.
But anyway, macro use is a real problem on this game and me saying that shouldn't offend you or take away from your feeling of accomplishment on the "harder content". So there is no reason for you to become defensive here. I'm not accusing you personally of using macros.
Well if You assume that You'll create multiple macros for multiple situations that You'll be dynamically switching inbetween during combat then at certain point managing Your macros wil be harder then light attack weaving. As for making la+skill macro is ESO it is disadventageous. How do You know lot of players is using them in ESO ? Any data behind Your claim ? Because from what knowledge I was able to gather rarely anyone is in hardest game end content is even considering macros as usefull or adventageous. They're just making players weaker because someone who cannot click fast can't think fast and someone who can;t think fast will simply die when things will not go as planned. Making Yourself weaker deliberately will not get You accomplishments in hardest content in ESO. Don't compare using macros in other games to using them in ESO. Comparison like that is out of context.
Macros are not real problem. Barely anyone is using them and those who are using them and I know of are usually average players with or without them. People beliving that macros are massively used in ESO game end content are problem because they refuse to acknowledge real reasons of skill qap between players.
How about traffic data from a github page of just ONE of those macros? This aims at people who are comfortable installing some unknown stuff from random github pages for this purpose. And this is completely ignoring those who just program their gaming mice to do the same thing.
And the date of the release of the first publically available version:
Wanna do the math and compare the result to the numbers on Steam?
And what does that graph says actually ? Providing random screen without context or explaining it is hardy an evidence for anything. You could atleast provide some links. For now it's just random graph that looks like it's being shown just to sound smart.
I do provide context. If you don't believe me, too bad, that's about as far as I can go without violating the TOS. I will also provide links if ZOS says it's ok, but unless I see a green text reply or a PM from a mod saying so, you'll have to be creative about searching for the answers.
There is no context for this graph. I can't belive or not belive in some random graph. Explain it and then we can talk about my beliefs. And No You're not violating ToS in any shape or form by saying what that graph is showing. So unless You explain what You just linked You have literally zero arguments. Tell me atleast how many people according to that website You're using downloaded said macro and what that macro was doing.Edited by Juhasow on April 5, 2020 4:27AM2 -
Juhasow✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Nomadic_Atmoran wrote: »Sometimes I can't help but feel anti-animation canceling peeps are the people that can't get the rotations down, get flustered, claim it has to be an exploit to do this, and then rage about cheaters instead of just accepting that they suck.
Actually, you almost certainly could help but feel that, you just choose not to.
Technically, it was an exploit of an unintended mechanic, which ZOS chose to "embrace", rather than find a proper fix for.
By "exploit", in this context, I don't mean the people doing it were doing something wrong.
Just that they had (innocently) stumbled across a (pretty obvious) loophole in the combat design and were, inevitably, using it to their (fairly massive) advantage.
Which means they were exploiting it...
Just because people call it what it is - an "exploit" - doesn't mean they think it's a nefarious exploit, that should have seen people using it be punished, or anything.
They're just, accurately, calling it what it, technically, is.
To exploit =/= to use an exploit. "Exploit" used as a verb have slightly different context from using that word as a noun.
And technically light attack weaving was part of intended mechanic which ZoS acknowledged the day they discovered it's possible to do. Animation cancelling was always intended in ESO that's a fact. Light attack weaving was byproduct of it. Unexpected at the beggining but still it was not breaking rules of the combat that developers created in any way. ZoS was simply not expecting that people will take it to the next level and turn it into important part of the rotations but the moment they've realized it they were completly fine with it because it was not breaking any rule of combat they've made.
What kind of logic is that - if you intend something you do not discover it later on - you put it there to be there, but if you had to discover it, it was clearly not intended
Logic is pretty simple here. But to understand it You need to first know the difference between terms "animation cancelling" and "light attack weaving". Looks like You don't.
You just try to cover up your illogical statement - you cannot discover something what you intentionally put there.
I am trying to cover up the fact I cannot take You seriously if You don't see the difference between animation cnacelling and light attack weaving.
Then try to explain it in logical terms this time - to me that are just different terms for the same thing.
I already explained it. Problem is You simply don't understand it. You should read more carefully my 1st post You've responded to. Especially part saying "light attack weaving was part of intended mechanic". That intended mechanic was animation cancelling.
Well, ZeroXFF was so kind to put it in terms which can be understood - instead to just state that i cannot understand it. What you cannot understand though is, that you said it was intentional and still they had to discover it - this doesn't fit together, it is either or, not both. Either put there by intend, or discovered later on.
I've said that animation cancelling was intentional and part of it which is light attack weaving was discovered later. If You had issues to understand it that's not my fault. You should read things more carefully.Edited by Juhasow on April 5, 2020 4:43AM4 -
Lysette✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Nomadic_Atmoran wrote: »Sometimes I can't help but feel anti-animation canceling peeps are the people that can't get the rotations down, get flustered, claim it has to be an exploit to do this, and then rage about cheaters instead of just accepting that they suck.
Actually, you almost certainly could help but feel that, you just choose not to.
Technically, it was an exploit of an unintended mechanic, which ZOS chose to "embrace", rather than find a proper fix for.
By "exploit", in this context, I don't mean the people doing it were doing something wrong.
Just that they had (innocently) stumbled across a (pretty obvious) loophole in the combat design and were, inevitably, using it to their (fairly massive) advantage.
Which means they were exploiting it...
Just because people call it what it is - an "exploit" - doesn't mean they think it's a nefarious exploit, that should have seen people using it be punished, or anything.
They're just, accurately, calling it what it, technically, is.
To exploit =/= to use an exploit. "Exploit" used as a verb have slightly different context from using that word as a noun.
And technically light attack weaving was part of intended mechanic which ZoS acknowledged the day they discovered it's possible to do. Animation cancelling was always intended in ESO that's a fact. Light attack weaving was byproduct of it. Unexpected at the beggining but still it was not breaking rules of the combat that developers created in any way. ZoS was simply not expecting that people will take it to the next level and turn it into important part of the rotations but the moment they've realized it they were completly fine with it because it was not breaking any rule of combat they've made.
What kind of logic is that - if you intend something you do not discover it later on - you put it there to be there, but if you had to discover it, it was clearly not intended
Logic is pretty simple here. But to understand it You need to first know the difference between terms "animation cancelling" and "light attack weaving". Looks like You don't.
You just try to cover up your illogical statement - you cannot discover something what you intentionally put there.
I am trying to cover up the fact I cannot take You seriously if You don't see the difference between animation cnacelling and light attack weaving.
Then try to explain it in logical terms this time - to me that are just different terms for the same thing.
I already explained it. Problem is You simply don't understand it. You should read more carefully my 1st post You've responded to. Especially part saying "light attack weaving was part of intended mechanic". That intended mechanic was animation cancelling.
Well, ZeroXFF was so kind to put it in terms which can be understood - instead to just state that i cannot understand it. What you cannot understand though is, that you said it was intentional and still they had to discover it - this doesn't fit together, it is either or, not both. Either put there by intend, or discovered later on.
I've said that animation cancelling was intentional and part of it which is light attack weaving was discovered later. If You had issues to understand it that's not my fault. You should read things more carefully.
And you think they create nice animations just to get them cancelled later on - why have them at all then?6 -
Juhasow✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Nomadic_Atmoran wrote: »Sometimes I can't help but feel anti-animation canceling peeps are the people that can't get the rotations down, get flustered, claim it has to be an exploit to do this, and then rage about cheaters instead of just accepting that they suck.
Actually, you almost certainly could help but feel that, you just choose not to.
Technically, it was an exploit of an unintended mechanic, which ZOS chose to "embrace", rather than find a proper fix for.
By "exploit", in this context, I don't mean the people doing it were doing something wrong.
Just that they had (innocently) stumbled across a (pretty obvious) loophole in the combat design and were, inevitably, using it to their (fairly massive) advantage.
Which means they were exploiting it...
Just because people call it what it is - an "exploit" - doesn't mean they think it's a nefarious exploit, that should have seen people using it be punished, or anything.
They're just, accurately, calling it what it, technically, is.
To exploit =/= to use an exploit. "Exploit" used as a verb have slightly different context from using that word as a noun.
And technically light attack weaving was part of intended mechanic which ZoS acknowledged the day they discovered it's possible to do. Animation cancelling was always intended in ESO that's a fact. Light attack weaving was byproduct of it. Unexpected at the beggining but still it was not breaking rules of the combat that developers created in any way. ZoS was simply not expecting that people will take it to the next level and turn it into important part of the rotations but the moment they've realized it they were completly fine with it because it was not breaking any rule of combat they've made.
What kind of logic is that - if you intend something you do not discover it later on - you put it there to be there, but if you had to discover it, it was clearly not intended
Logic is pretty simple here. But to understand it You need to first know the difference between terms "animation cancelling" and "light attack weaving". Looks like You don't.
You just try to cover up your illogical statement - you cannot discover something what you intentionally put there.
I am trying to cover up the fact I cannot take You seriously if You don't see the difference between animation cnacelling and light attack weaving.
Then try to explain it in logical terms this time - to me that are just different terms for the same thing.
I already explained it. Problem is You simply don't understand it. You should read more carefully my 1st post You've responded to. Especially part saying "light attack weaving was part of intended mechanic". That intended mechanic was animation cancelling.
Well, ZeroXFF was so kind to put it in terms which can be understood - instead to just state that i cannot understand it. What you cannot understand though is, that you said it was intentional and still they had to discover it - this doesn't fit together, it is either or, not both. Either put there by intend, or discovered later on.
I've said that animation cancelling was intentional and part of it which is light attack weaving was discovered later. If You had issues to understand it that's not my fault. You should read things more carefully.
And you think they create nice animations just to get them cancelled later on - why have them at all then?
And You think light attack weaving means that Your character is standing still and performing no animations at all ? I would hardly compare cliping the end of each animation to completly cancelling it. Light attack weaving is not removing animations completly. Most important components of each animation are played out. People using argument that weaving is removing animations are simply overdramatic.
As for other ways of cancelling animations well I would rather not see animation of something then die due to not dodge/block/bash/swap cancelling.Edited by Juhasow on April 5, 2020 5:39PM5
This discussion has been closed.