hard facts about wizards wardrobe breaking the add-on terms and CoC

TheAgentNZ · May 12

OP is just trolling now, surely?!

No amount of reasoning is being listening to, and that WW is not in breach of any ToS. Responses across the board from multiple people pointing out flaws in the argument is just leading to more wild responses.

There is no value being added here by OP but regurgitated AI responses from snippets from the ToS and some low-key community bashing. This is no longer an objective argument, but a subjective one based his desire to have WW removed given his previous experiences with raid groups on console. The lack of targetting addons in general or other gear-switching addons further suggests a very narrow focus on just WW.

This thread should be locked.

CalamityCat · May 12

This again?

Here are some actual facts...

1. ZOS run the game
2. ZOS decide on the rules
3. ZOS decide what does or doesn't break those rules

It doesn't matter how we as players interpret the rules, ZOS decide what is allowed. Not us.

This add-on has been in the game for years, as have others. This "issue" isn't worth the repeated crusading, unless the goal is to get another locked thread or another ban against your name. I don't see anything to be gained from even another 100 threads on this issue (heaven help us...)

Psyphiman · May 12

Never mind.

CameraBeardThePirate · May 12

Poss wrote: »

LadyGP wrote: »

Don't have any "facts" to share but maybe my comments will spark something.

UI had heard rumors about this add-on having an exploit right now in Cyrodiil that allows people to "wear" 2x the amount of sets and multiple mundus stones simultaneously.

If anyone has more info please share... again just putting my "what I heard" comments here to bring awareness to a potential issue that may/maynot be legit.

Had to scroll through six pages of ridiculous back and forths before finally landing on the reason why this add-on SHOULD be removed.

Yes people are using WW to stack multiple mundus buffs which is an exploit. The fact people aren’t talking about it baffles me.

Thats still not a reason for the addon to be removed though, that's a reason for the bug to be fixed.

If the addon can cause it that means it could conceivably be reproduced by hand, which means there is a bug that allows for it. ZOS should thus fix the bug or modify the addon API, not remove the addon.

FlameDark · May 12

This is such a silly debate. You really do not understand how addons work and how ZOS actually bans them. If ESO didnt want Wizards and thought it was an unfair advantage on players they would simply change the API code to not allow addons to perform that function (which they have in the past). So the fact that Wizards is able to do any of what it does is because ZOS fully has allowed it on their end. Wizards is apart of Minion which and has been since 2021. Despite your belief, ZOS does actually monitor addons that come and go in ESOUI which minion pulls from. Minion only really uses UI altering add-ons and uses the API code that ZOS fully controls.

Wizards is not some secret Addon that ZOS is going to read this post and go "le gasp! How could we miss this!?" ... they are fully aware of it. You do realize that addons have at one point or another have caused real game mechanics to appear in ESO? ZOS fully supports and encourages UI Addons, and sees it as free player creations to improve the game. So this fight is just a waste of forum space tbh. Also trying to be an echo chamber and repeat TOS and twist it into what you want because you don't like addons will not change how ZOS interprets the TOS, and THEY are the final say. Not you. The real banned "addons" that are true harm to the game are the ones that try to use hidden malicious software in an attempt to retrieve account or computer information, or any scripts that creates autoplay (bots) not ui or inventory management. Addons are apart of the game as much as character creation and will remain. ZOS will adjust and step in when they feel there is a need, and for this, there clearly was no need.

heimdall14_9 · May 12

Add-on Terms of Use 1 (iii) undue or unfair burden to the Game, its Services, including customer service support, and/or to other users.

In the high-level trial community you've been a part of since day one, "voluntary" addons aren't actually voluntary. If a raid lead requires Wizard's Wardrobe for a speed run, a player who wants to play "vanilla" is effectively burdened with a choice: download a third-party automation tool or be excluded from the content. That is a social and gameplay burden created specifically by the addon’s existence.

If a group using wizard's to swap 12 people’s entire builds in 2.5 seconds, while a manual group takes 45 seconds, the manual players are at an unfair disadvantage. In a "Speed Run," time is the primary currency. Forcing manual players to compete against a 2.5-second swap is an "undue burden" because it makes manual skill irrelevant in a contest of speed.

ZOS designed the UI with certain limitations (like why they restricted the Armory in certain areas). When an addon bypasses those design choices, it creates a burden on the developers to either "balance" the game around the exploit or revert features (like the UI respec ) because the "gap" between addon users and non-users becomes too wide to manage.

Code of Conduct 5.2 In relation to online/competitive games, you will not exploit any bug, or abuse any game system (such as the scoring or award systems) in a ZeniMax game

A "system" isn't just the code; it’s the rules of the world.

ZOS built the game so that choosing your gear and skills is a tactical decision you make before a fight. They even restricted the Armory and UI respecs in trials to ensure you are locked into those choices for the duration of the scored run.

Using an addon to swap every piece of gear, every skill, and every CP point in 2.5 seconds between every trash pack is bypassing the intended limitation of the trial system. You are using the API to do something the game's own UI specifically blocks you from doing.
In Trials, your score is directly tied to your completion time.If a group using add-on saves 30–60 seconds per boss by not having to manually swap gear, they are "abusing the scoring system" by using external software to artificially inflate their speed.It’s no longer a competition of who is the better player; it’s a competition of who has the better add-on set up . That is a direct violation of the "competitive" part of Section 5.2.
ZOS explicitly calls out "competitive games" in this rule because they know that in a multiplayer environment, one person’s "convenience" is another person’s unfair disadvantage.

If you’re playing a single-player game, who cares?

But in ESO, where there are limited-time titles, leaderboards, using an addon to perform hundreds of manual actions in 2.5 seconds is the definition of an unfair competitive edge.
"Section 5.2 isn't just about 'bugs.' It’s about Abuse of Systems. ZOS designed Trials as a scored, timed event where they purposefully blocked the Armory to keep things fair. When you use an addon to bypass that restriction and swap your entire build in 2.5 seconds , you are abusing the scoring system to get a time advantage you didn't earn with skill.

It’s like bringing a calculator to a mental math competition and saying 'it’s not cheating because the proctor didn't take it away at the door.' You’re still abusing the system of the competition."

hopefully this helps put an understanding to them that keep trying to minimize the add-on terms and CoC violations that wizards is doing

ShutUpitsRed · May 12

While we're doing 100% original, researched, thought-out posts in which we've done our own research and formulated our own arguments, I'll add my two cents:

The central flaw in this argument is that it attempts to reinterpret policy language far beyond its actual scope and ignores the practical reality of how ESO’s addon ecosystem has functioned for years under ZOS oversight.

First, the “undue or unfair burden” clause in the Add-on Terms of Use does not prohibit efficiency or optimization. If it did, virtually every informational addon in ESO would violate the policy by creating advantages for users who install them. Combat alerts, raid timers, minimaps, inventory managers, trading tools, buff trackers, and encounter assistants all provide measurable advantages over the default UI. The existence of a performance gap between addon users and non-users has never, by itself, constituted a Terms of Service violation.

The argument also incorrectly frames social expectations as coercion. A raid leader requiring a particular addon for optimized score pushing is not an “undue burden” imposed by the addon developer or by ZOS; it is simply a voluntary organizational standard established by a player group. By that logic, requiring voice chat, optimized gear sets, parses, or specific classes would also qualify as “unfair burdens.” Competitive groups in MMORPGs have always established participation standards.

Second, the claim that Wizard’s Wardrobe “bypasses intended limitations” is not supported by ZOS’s own implementation of the API. ESO addons cannot execute arbitrary code or inject unauthorized functionality into the game client. They operate entirely within the API permissions explicitly exposed by ZOS themselves. If the addon can perform an action, it is because the game client permits that action through sanctioned API calls.

This distinction is critical.

An exploit involves circumventing restrictions through unintended behavior, bugs, packet manipulation, automation outside the client, or unauthorized software interaction. Wizard’s Wardrobe does none of these things. It merely automates sequences of actions that are already manually possible through the official UI. Reducing input repetition is not equivalent to bypassing game systems.

The comparison to “bringing a calculator to a mental math competition” is therefore inaccurate. A more accurate analogy would be using keyboard shortcuts in a typing competition instead of manually navigating every menu with a mouse. The underlying actions remain permitted by the system itself.

The scoring-system argument is similarly overstated. ESO score pushing has *always* revolved around optimization of time, coordination, routing, composition, and execution efficiency. Addons contribute to that ecosystem, but they do not replace player skill. An addon cannot perform mechanics, maintain rotations, coordinate positioning, execute damage phases, or prevent wipes. The addon merely reduces administrative downtime between encounters.

Additionally, if ZOS truly considered rapid build swapping during trials to be exploitative or abusive, they possess multiple straightforward methods to prevent it entirely:

* restricting gear swap API calls in instances,
* locking skill changes in score-enabled content,
* disabling addon access during active encounters,
* or altering the API endpoints directly.

ZOS has historically done exactly this whenever they determined addon functionality crossed an unacceptable line. The fact that addons like Wizard’s Wardrobe have remained operational through multiple patch cycles strongly suggests that ZOS does not classify their behavior as a Terms of Service violation.

Finally, Section 5.2 addresses exploitation of bugs and abuse of systems in the context of unintended manipulation. Using officially exposed API functionality exactly as designed is fundamentally different from exploiting broken mechanics or external automation tools. The argument attempts to redefine “system abuse” so broadly that nearly every addon-assisted optimization in ESO would become suspect.

At that point, the distinction between “quality-of-life improvement” and “cheating” becomes entirely subjective rather than policy-based.

The reality is simpler: ESO permits addons. Competitive players optimize around the tools available within the permitted ecosystem. Unless ZOS explicitly restricts or disables a functionality, using approved API-driven addons remains participation within the rules of the game, not abuse of them.

I hope this analysis helps clarify the distinction between sanctioned addon functionality, player-driven optimization standards, and genuine Terms of Service violations within ESO’s competitive environment.

If you would like, I can also assist with:

a shorter “forum-ready” version,
a more aggressive rebuttal,
a more diplomatic/community-manager tone,
a legalistic Terms-of-Service-focused breakdown,
a sarcastic Reddit-style response,
or a point-by-point deconstruction of each individual claim.

Please let me know how you would like to proceed.

Reginald_leBlem · May 12

If nothing else, this thread is an excellent example of how AI is designed to agree with you.

code65536 · May 12

heimdall14_9 wrote: »

It’s like bringing a calculator to a mental math competition and saying 'it’s not cheating because the proctor didn't take it away at the door.'

It's like going to the Olympic marathon barefoot, complaining about how everyone else with shoes have an unfair advantage, and when told that shoes are allowed, throwing a tantrum about how the ancient Greek Olympics were done with no shoes (or clothing of any sort) and so that that the current rules allowing shoes are invalid and that the organizers of the competition are wrong to not enforce your rules instead of their rules.

heimdall14_9 · May 12

ShutUpitsRed wrote: »

While we're doing 100% original, researched, thought-out posts in which we've done our own research and formulated our own arguments, I'll add my two cents:

The central flaw in this argument is that it attempts to reinterpret policy language far beyond its actual scope and ignores the practical reality of how ESO’s addon ecosystem has functioned for years under ZOS oversight.

First, the “undue or unfair burden” clause in the Add-on Terms of Use does not prohibit efficiency or optimization. If it did, virtually every informational addon in ESO would violate the policy by creating advantages for users who install them. Combat alerts, raid timers, minimaps, inventory managers, trading tools, buff trackers, and encounter assistants all provide measurable advantages over the default UI. The existence of a performance gap between addon users and non-users has never, by itself, constituted a Terms of Service violation.

The argument also incorrectly frames social expectations as coercion. A raid leader requiring a particular addon for optimized score pushing is not an “undue burden” imposed by the addon developer or by ZOS; it is simply a voluntary organizational standard established by a player group. By that logic, requiring voice chat, optimized gear sets, parses, or specific classes would also qualify as “unfair burdens.” Competitive groups in MMORPGs have always established participation standards.

Second, the claim that Wizard’s Wardrobe “bypasses intended limitations” is not supported by ZOS’s own implementation of the API. ESO addons cannot execute arbitrary code or inject unauthorized functionality into the game client. They operate entirely within the API permissions explicitly exposed by ZOS themselves. If the addon can perform an action, it is because the game client permits that action through sanctioned API calls.

This distinction is critical.

An exploit involves circumventing restrictions through unintended behavior, bugs, packet manipulation, automation outside the client, or unauthorized software interaction. Wizard’s Wardrobe does none of these things. It merely automates sequences of actions that are already manually possible through the official UI. Reducing input repetition is not equivalent to bypassing game systems.

The comparison to “bringing a calculator to a mental math competition” is therefore inaccurate. A more accurate analogy would be using keyboard shortcuts in a typing competition instead of manually navigating every menu with a mouse. The underlying actions remain permitted by the system itself.

The scoring-system argument is similarly overstated. ESO score pushing has *always* revolved around optimization of time, coordination, routing, composition, and execution efficiency. Addons contribute to that ecosystem, but they do not replace player skill. An addon cannot perform mechanics, maintain rotations, coordinate positioning, execute damage phases, or prevent wipes. The addon merely reduces administrative downtime between encounters.

Additionally, if ZOS truly considered rapid build swapping during trials to be exploitative or abusive, they possess multiple straightforward methods to prevent it entirely:

* restricting gear swap API calls in instances,
* locking skill changes in score-enabled content,
* disabling addon access during active encounters,
* or altering the API endpoints directly.

ZOS has historically done exactly this whenever they determined addon functionality crossed an unacceptable line. The fact that addons like Wizard’s Wardrobe have remained operational through multiple patch cycles strongly suggests that ZOS does not classify their behavior as a Terms of Service violation.

Finally, Section 5.2 addresses exploitation of bugs and abuse of systems in the context of unintended manipulation. Using officially exposed API functionality exactly as designed is fundamentally different from exploiting broken mechanics or external automation tools. The argument attempts to redefine “system abuse” so broadly that nearly every addon-assisted optimization in ESO would become suspect.

At that point, the distinction between “quality-of-life improvement” and “cheating” becomes entirely subjective rather than policy-based.

The reality is simpler: ESO permits addons. Competitive players optimize around the tools available within the permitted ecosystem. Unless ZOS explicitly restricts or disables a functionality, using approved API-driven addons remains participation within the rules of the game, not abuse of them.

I hope this analysis helps clarify the distinction between sanctioned addon functionality, player-driven optimization standards, and genuine Terms of Service violations within ESO’s competitive environment.

If you would like, I can also assist with:

a shorter “forum-ready” version,
a more aggressive rebuttal,
a more diplomatic/community-manager tone,
a legalistic Terms-of-Service-focused breakdown,
a sarcastic Reddit-style response,
or a point-by-point deconstruction of each individual claim.

Please let me know how you would like to proceed.

@ShutUpitsRed — I’ll skip the AI-generated menu at the bottom of your post and get straight to why your logic doesn't hold up for anyone who actually plays at a high level.
Comparing a script like Wizard’s Wardrobe to a "keyboard shortcut" is a massive reach. A shortcut is 1-to-1: you press a key, one action happens. This addon is a macro. One click performs dozens of manual actions—swapping every piece of gear, every skill, and every CP node in two seconds. That is the literal definition of automation, and it replaces player mastery with a script.
The developers purposefully restricted the Armory and UI respecs in Trials to ensure that your build is a tactical choice you have to live with during a scored run or pay the price ( time ) . Using a 3rd-party tool to bypass those restrictions and swap builds between every trash pack isn't "efficiency"—it’s abusing a system to gain a time advantage that the game's own UI specifically blocks you from having.
You claim social expectations aren't coercion. I’ve seen exactly how this works. When the "standard" for a group shifts from "be a good player" to "you must have this specific automation script," it becomes an unfair burden on other users. It gatekeeps content and forces players to choose between using a addon or being excluded from the community.
Just because a tool hasn't been nuked yet doesn't mean it's sanctioned. The rules are written so the devs have the right to step in when a tool starts devaluing the integrity of the game. If you need a script to handle your logistics just to keep up on a leaderboard, you aren't the one competing—the addon is.

The Bottom Line: You're arguing for "convenience," but I'm standing up for the integrity of the achievement. A "Godslayer" or a top leaderboard spot should be about who is the better player, not who has the most aggressive automation setup.

Reginald_leBlem · May 12

heimdall14_9 wrote: »

ShutUpitsRed wrote: »

While we're doing 100% original, researched, thought-out posts in which we've done our own research and formulated our own arguments, I'll add my two cents:

The central flaw in this argument is that it attempts to reinterpret policy language far beyond its actual scope and ignores the practical reality of how ESO’s addon ecosystem has functioned for years under ZOS oversight.

First, the “undue or unfair burden” clause in the Add-on Terms of Use does not prohibit efficiency or optimization. If it did, virtually every informational addon in ESO would violate the policy by creating advantages for users who install them. Combat alerts, raid timers, minimaps, inventory managers, trading tools, buff trackers, and encounter assistants all provide measurable advantages over the default UI. The existence of a performance gap between addon users and non-users has never, by itself, constituted a Terms of Service violation.

The argument also incorrectly frames social expectations as coercion. A raid leader requiring a particular addon for optimized score pushing is not an “undue burden” imposed by the addon developer or by ZOS; it is simply a voluntary organizational standard established by a player group. By that logic, requiring voice chat, optimized gear sets, parses, or specific classes would also qualify as “unfair burdens.” Competitive groups in MMORPGs have always established participation standards.

Second, the claim that Wizard’s Wardrobe “bypasses intended limitations” is not supported by ZOS’s own implementation of the API. ESO addons cannot execute arbitrary code or inject unauthorized functionality into the game client. They operate entirely within the API permissions explicitly exposed by ZOS themselves. If the addon can perform an action, it is because the game client permits that action through sanctioned API calls.

This distinction is critical.

An exploit involves circumventing restrictions through unintended behavior, bugs, packet manipulation, automation outside the client, or unauthorized software interaction. Wizard’s Wardrobe does none of these things. It merely automates sequences of actions that are already manually possible through the official UI. Reducing input repetition is not equivalent to bypassing game systems.

The comparison to “bringing a calculator to a mental math competition” is therefore inaccurate. A more accurate analogy would be using keyboard shortcuts in a typing competition instead of manually navigating every menu with a mouse. The underlying actions remain permitted by the system itself.

The scoring-system argument is similarly overstated. ESO score pushing has *always* revolved around optimization of time, coordination, routing, composition, and execution efficiency. Addons contribute to that ecosystem, but they do not replace player skill. An addon cannot perform mechanics, maintain rotations, coordinate positioning, execute damage phases, or prevent wipes. The addon merely reduces administrative downtime between encounters.

Additionally, if ZOS truly considered rapid build swapping during trials to be exploitative or abusive, they possess multiple straightforward methods to prevent it entirely:

* restricting gear swap API calls in instances,
* locking skill changes in score-enabled content,
* disabling addon access during active encounters,
* or altering the API endpoints directly.

ZOS has historically done exactly this whenever they determined addon functionality crossed an unacceptable line. The fact that addons like Wizard’s Wardrobe have remained operational through multiple patch cycles strongly suggests that ZOS does not classify their behavior as a Terms of Service violation.

Finally, Section 5.2 addresses exploitation of bugs and abuse of systems in the context of unintended manipulation. Using officially exposed API functionality exactly as designed is fundamentally different from exploiting broken mechanics or external automation tools. The argument attempts to redefine “system abuse” so broadly that nearly every addon-assisted optimization in ESO would become suspect.

At that point, the distinction between “quality-of-life improvement” and “cheating” becomes entirely subjective rather than policy-based.

The reality is simpler: ESO permits addons. Competitive players optimize around the tools available within the permitted ecosystem. Unless ZOS explicitly restricts or disables a functionality, using approved API-driven addons remains participation within the rules of the game, not abuse of them.

I hope this analysis helps clarify the distinction between sanctioned addon functionality, player-driven optimization standards, and genuine Terms of Service violations within ESO’s competitive environment.

If you would like, I can also assist with:

a shorter “forum-ready” version,
a more aggressive rebuttal,
a more diplomatic/community-manager tone,
a legalistic Terms-of-Service-focused breakdown,
a sarcastic Reddit-style response,
or a point-by-point deconstruction of each individual claim.

Please let me know how you would like to proceed.

@ShutUpitsRed — I’ll skip the AI-generated menu at the bottom of your post and get straight to why your logic doesn't hold up for anyone who actually plays at a high level.
Comparing a script like Wizard’s Wardrobe to a "keyboard shortcut" is a massive reach. A shortcut is 1-to-1: you press a key, one action happens. This addon is a macro. One click performs dozens of manual actions—swapping every piece of gear, every skill, and every CP node in two seconds. That is the literal definition of automation, and it replaces player mastery with a script.
The developers purposefully restricted the Armory and UI respecs in Trials to ensure that your build is a tactical choice you have to live with during a scored run or pay the price ( time ) . Using a 3rd-party tool to bypass those restrictions and swap builds between every trash pack isn't "efficiency"—it’s abusing a system to gain a time advantage that the game's own UI specifically blocks you from having.
You claim social expectations aren't coercion. I’ve seen exactly how this works. When the "standard" for a group shifts from "be a good player" to "you must have this specific automation script," it becomes an unfair burden on other users. It gatekeeps content and forces players to choose between using a addon or being excluded from the community.
Just because a tool hasn't been nuked yet doesn't mean it's sanctioned. The rules are written so the devs have the right to step in when a tool starts devaluing the integrity of the game. If you need a script to handle your logistics just to keep up on a leaderboard, you aren't the one competing—the addon is.

The Bottom Line: You're arguing for "convenience," but I'm standing up for the integrity of the achievement. A "Godslayer" or a top leaderboard spot should be about who is the better player, not who has the most aggressive automation setup.

Before you start another topic on the subject you really need to actually download and use the addon. You are severely overestimating what it can do, and the impact it has.

heimdall14_9 · May 12

Reginald_leBlem wrote: »

heimdall14_9 wrote: »

ShutUpitsRed wrote: »

While we're doing 100% original, researched, thought-out posts in which we've done our own research and formulated our own arguments, I'll add my two cents:

The central flaw in this argument is that it attempts to reinterpret policy language far beyond its actual scope and ignores the practical reality of how ESO’s addon ecosystem has functioned for years under ZOS oversight.

First, the “undue or unfair burden” clause in the Add-on Terms of Use does not prohibit efficiency or optimization. If it did, virtually every informational addon in ESO would violate the policy by creating advantages for users who install them. Combat alerts, raid timers, minimaps, inventory managers, trading tools, buff trackers, and encounter assistants all provide measurable advantages over the default UI. The existence of a performance gap between addon users and non-users has never, by itself, constituted a Terms of Service violation.

The argument also incorrectly frames social expectations as coercion. A raid leader requiring a particular addon for optimized score pushing is not an “undue burden” imposed by the addon developer or by ZOS; it is simply a voluntary organizational standard established by a player group. By that logic, requiring voice chat, optimized gear sets, parses, or specific classes would also qualify as “unfair burdens.” Competitive groups in MMORPGs have always established participation standards.

Second, the claim that Wizard’s Wardrobe “bypasses intended limitations” is not supported by ZOS’s own implementation of the API. ESO addons cannot execute arbitrary code or inject unauthorized functionality into the game client. They operate entirely within the API permissions explicitly exposed by ZOS themselves. If the addon can perform an action, it is because the game client permits that action through sanctioned API calls.

This distinction is critical.

An exploit involves circumventing restrictions through unintended behavior, bugs, packet manipulation, automation outside the client, or unauthorized software interaction. Wizard’s Wardrobe does none of these things. It merely automates sequences of actions that are already manually possible through the official UI. Reducing input repetition is not equivalent to bypassing game systems.

The comparison to “bringing a calculator to a mental math competition” is therefore inaccurate. A more accurate analogy would be using keyboard shortcuts in a typing competition instead of manually navigating every menu with a mouse. The underlying actions remain permitted by the system itself.

The scoring-system argument is similarly overstated. ESO score pushing has *always* revolved around optimization of time, coordination, routing, composition, and execution efficiency. Addons contribute to that ecosystem, but they do not replace player skill. An addon cannot perform mechanics, maintain rotations, coordinate positioning, execute damage phases, or prevent wipes. The addon merely reduces administrative downtime between encounters.

Additionally, if ZOS truly considered rapid build swapping during trials to be exploitative or abusive, they possess multiple straightforward methods to prevent it entirely:

* restricting gear swap API calls in instances,
* locking skill changes in score-enabled content,
* disabling addon access during active encounters,
* or altering the API endpoints directly.

ZOS has historically done exactly this whenever they determined addon functionality crossed an unacceptable line. The fact that addons like Wizard’s Wardrobe have remained operational through multiple patch cycles strongly suggests that ZOS does not classify their behavior as a Terms of Service violation.

Finally, Section 5.2 addresses exploitation of bugs and abuse of systems in the context of unintended manipulation. Using officially exposed API functionality exactly as designed is fundamentally different from exploiting broken mechanics or external automation tools. The argument attempts to redefine “system abuse” so broadly that nearly every addon-assisted optimization in ESO would become suspect.

At that point, the distinction between “quality-of-life improvement” and “cheating” becomes entirely subjective rather than policy-based.

The reality is simpler: ESO permits addons. Competitive players optimize around the tools available within the permitted ecosystem. Unless ZOS explicitly restricts or disables a functionality, using approved API-driven addons remains participation within the rules of the game, not abuse of them.

I hope this analysis helps clarify the distinction between sanctioned addon functionality, player-driven optimization standards, and genuine Terms of Service violations within ESO’s competitive environment.

If you would like, I can also assist with:

a shorter “forum-ready” version,
a more aggressive rebuttal,
a more diplomatic/community-manager tone,
a legalistic Terms-of-Service-focused breakdown,
a sarcastic Reddit-style response,
or a point-by-point deconstruction of each individual claim.

Please let me know how you would like to proceed.

@ShutUpitsRed — I’ll skip the AI-generated menu at the bottom of your post and get straight to why your logic doesn't hold up for anyone who actually plays at a high level.
Comparing a script like Wizard’s Wardrobe to a "keyboard shortcut" is a massive reach. A shortcut is 1-to-1: you press a key, one action happens. This addon is a macro. One click performs dozens of manual actions—swapping every piece of gear, every skill, and every CP node in two seconds. That is the literal definition of automation, and it replaces player mastery with a script.
The developers purposefully restricted the Armory and UI respecs in Trials to ensure that your build is a tactical choice you have to live with during a scored run or pay the price ( time ) . Using a 3rd-party tool to bypass those restrictions and swap builds between every trash pack isn't "efficiency"—it’s abusing a system to gain a time advantage that the game's own UI specifically blocks you from having.
You claim social expectations aren't coercion. I’ve seen exactly how this works. When the "standard" for a group shifts from "be a good player" to "you must have this specific automation script," it becomes an unfair burden on other users. It gatekeeps content and forces players to choose between using a addon or being excluded from the community.
Just because a tool hasn't been nuked yet doesn't mean it's sanctioned. The rules are written so the devs have the right to step in when a tool starts devaluing the integrity of the game. If you need a script to handle your logistics just to keep up on a leaderboard, you aren't the one competing—the addon is.

The Bottom Line: You're arguing for "convenience," but I'm standing up for the integrity of the achievement. A "Godslayer" or a top leaderboard spot should be about who is the better player, not who has the most aggressive automation setup.

Before you start another topic on the subject you really need to actually download and use the addon. You are severely overestimating what it can do, and the impact it has.

i have tested the addon in 8 VMA runs and 6 trials ive seen enough to see what it does and tho others say the automatic change can bug out i had 0 issues with it changing out my builds 100% of the time , even going as far as to play dps tank and healer for different fights ( boss tank ,trash dps, boss healer, trash dps, boss off tank/heals,) using my templar

heimdall14_9 · May 12

code65536 wrote: »

heimdall14_9 wrote: »

It’s like bringing a calculator to a mental math competition and saying 'it’s not cheating because the proctor didn't take it away at the door.'

It's like going to the Olympic marathon barefoot, complaining about how everyone else with shoes have an unfair advantage, and when told that shoes are allowed, throwing a tantrum about how the ancient Greek Olympics were done with no shoes (or clothing of any sort) and so that that the current rules allowing shoes are invalid and that the organizers of the competition are wrong to not enforce your rules instead of their rules.

Your "shoes" analogy is a joke and you know it. Shoes are an expected part of the sport; they don't run the race for you. What we’re talking about with Wizard’s Wardrobe isn't "shoes"—it’s a motorized scooter in a marathon.
You’re trying to claim that because the API allows it, it’s just a "tool." But as an add-on dev, you know exactly what’s happening. ZOS built a UI that forces you to make tactical choices. When an addon bypasses those choices to swap every piece of gear and CP node in 2.5 seconds, it’s not "wearing shoes"—it’s automating a system to gain a time advantage that the developers specifically blocked in the base UI.
I’ve tested this thing in 8 vMA runs and 6 Trials on my Templar. I’ve seen it swap me from DPS to Tank to Healer instantly between fights. If you think that doesn't devalue the effort of players who actually have to manage their builds manually, then you’ve lost touch with what "competitive" means.
You keep hiding behind "if it's in the API, it's legal." Read the Code of Conduct 5.2 and the Add-on Terms 1(iii). ZOS doesn't have to "nuke the API" for an addon to be an unfair burden on other users. When high-level raiding becomes about who has the best script instead of who is the best player, the integrity of the game is gone.

I’ve been here since Day 1 with 16 accounts. I’ve seen the game before these scripts took over. You can keep defending your "scooters," but don't pretend they're just "shoes." You’re devaluing the very game you claim to be "improving."

Dack_Janiels · May 12

At this point the issue is simple:

ZOS has already said what’s allowed.
– Automating gameplay = not allowed
– Automating menu navigation = allowed
WW only automates menu navigation. That’s it.

Nothing is being exploited.
No bug, no scoring system, no armory system, no respec system.
It equips gear and skills you already have, outside of combat, using the same UI functions every player can click manually.

Leaderboard scoring isn’t based on how fast you open menus.
If it were, then PC players with a mouse, players with faster SSDs, or players with higher FPS would all be “exploiting” too.

If ZOS thought WW broke the rules, the API call would already be gone.
They’ve removed functions before. They didn’t remove this one.

You can dislike the addon, but disliking something doesn’t make it a ToS or CoC violation.

Alp · May 12

TheAgentNZ wrote: »

OP is just trolling now, surely?!

No amount of reasoning is being listening to, and that WW is not in breach of any ToS. Responses across the board from multiple people pointing out flaws in the argument is just leading to more wild responses.

There is no value being added here by OP but regurgitated AI responses from snippets from the ToS and some low-key community bashing. This is no longer an objective argument, but a subjective one based his desire to have WW removed given his previous experiences with raid groups on console. The lack of targetting addons in general or other gear-switching addons further suggests a very narrow focus on just WW.

This thread should be locked.

You can't change the mind of someone who believes they are right. If the logic that got them there is flawed no amount of logic is going to get them out of there.

heimdall14_9 · May 12

Dack_Janiels wrote: »

At this point the issue is simple:

ZOS has already said what’s allowed.
– Automating gameplay = not allowed
– Automating menu navigation = allowed
WW only automates menu navigation. That’s it.

Nothing is being exploited.
No bug, no scoring system, no armory system, no respec system.
It equips gear and skills you already have, outside of combat, using the same UI functions every player can click manually.

Leaderboard scoring isn’t based on how fast you open menus.
If it were, then PC players with a mouse, players with faster SSDs, or players with higher FPS would all be “exploiting” too.

If ZOS thought WW broke the rules, the API call would already be gone.
They’ve removed functions before. They didn’t remove this one.

You can dislike the addon, but disliking something doesn’t make it a ToS or CoC violation.

You’re trying to oversimplify this to protect the status quo, but your "menu navigation" argument falls apart the second you look at the actual impact on the game.Opening a menu is a player action. Clicking a button to have a script instantly swap 12 pieces of gear, 10+ skills, and multiple CP nodes in 2 seconds isn't "navigating a menu"—it's automating a sequence of dozens of actions. If I have to click 30 times to do what your addon does in 1 click, that isn't "efficiency," it's a macro.Comparing a script-driven gear swap to "having a faster SSD" is a joke. A faster SSD loads the textures faster; it doesn't play the game for you. Having high FPS doesn't automatically reconfigure your entire build to cheese a boss encounter. You’re comparing hardware performance to software automation, and they aren't the same thing.You claim nothing is being exploited because "the API call exists." Go read the Code of Conduct 5.2 again. It prohibits the abuse of systems, including scoring. ZOS purposefully restricted the Armory in Trials to lock in your tactical choices. Using a 3rd party tool to bypass that intent and shave time off a leaderboard run is a direct abuse of the scoring system. I’ve run the tests. I’ve seen WW swap me from Tank to DPS to Healer instantly between pulls. If you think the "spirit of the game" is about who can run the best automated logistics script instead of who is the best at managing their character, then you don't care about the integrity of the game at all.

JavaRen · May 12

OP: what was the response to your ticket when you reported this issue to ZoS?

spartaxoxo · May 12

Nvm

HatchetHaro · May 12

heimdall14_9 wrote: »

tmbrinks wrote: »

heimdall14_9 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

heimdall14_9 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Ardriel wrote: »

Your argument is that WW is an exploit because it gives an unfair advantage in end-game content. It’s been said several times in this thread that it’s not an unfair advantage because every player can use this add-on if they want to.

And that point has been wrong every time. OP is a console user and everyone cannot use it there.

Additionally, if that was the metric of fairness then subclassing would be fair. And trials players wouldn't have asked for respecs to be disabled from leaderboard content before the feature even released. But it's not the case.

If Add-ons are practically mandatory and everyone uses them then that shows that the difference between using one and not is enough to be an uneven playing field same as any other balance issue.

That being said, this does not mean that add-ons should be banned.

OP could be equally asking for a free version of the armory assistant or to at the least allow it to be used in leaderboard content since WW is an add-on.

OP could be equally asking for combat tells to be more reasonably visible instead of telling users with bad eye sight they gain an unfair advantage by making them bigger.

OP could equally asking for speed run times in the newer trials to be extended to that which is realistic without the use of add-ons.

OP could be equally asking for the add-on developers to get a paycheck and their add-ons become base game.

But instead they just keep fighting against one add-on and that's unfortunate imo. Because ZOS has clearly already decided that WW does not violate the tos. If it did, then they would have disabled years ago. This crusade just completely undermines valid concerns about the disparity on consoles between those who can use add-ons and those who cannot.

But they should also do an honest assessment of the design choices that make add-ons so practically mandatory as there are a lot of player unfriendly UI choices that have made them so necessary. There's no reason for the interrupt symbol to be so difficult to see, for example.

you know you are right about what you say and maybe if for years others wouldnt try bashing me belittleing me i might have came off differently on how to change up some of these issues but i have no love nor loyalty to this community by their own choices to insult me instead of focusing on the facts being put forth , but no its my writing, its my use of AI , its me being jealous , its always something other than facts

Okay but how you present an argument greatly impacts how people react to it. Nobody is ever going to win everyone over. But you can't fight negativity with more negativity. Haters don't care some of them even enjoy watching crash outs. And you lose new people who may otherwise have been on your side.

The best way to change something that you don't like on here is to make good arguments that are designed to explained your issue clearly and figure out solutions that work for as many people as you can. Everything can't be for every body but if you attack a system, then people who might otherwise agree have to defend the gameplay systems they like instead.

Like I have bad eyesight (but am not legally blind or anything like that). Add-ons have been a massive help for me. I'm never going back to not having them because I used to find doing certain activities much more annoying than I do now simply because not being able to see things negatively impacted my gameplay and now I can. So, now, I gotta push back against this post when I actually agree with your underlying sentiment.

again you give whats been given and from the gate ive been given nothing but hate by the community here . but hey im glad to hear that add-ons any add-on has helped you out im not against players getting help im just not for players being held down eather

People not unequivocally agreeing with you does not equal "hate". False equivalencies do nothing to advance your premise.

ive been bashed about my writing ive been bashed about trying to use AI like asked , ive been insulted left and right without reasoning guess you just aint seen it or cared to look its nothing to do with disagrees or not its about actual personal attacks and belittlement over personal things that i speak of TBH i could careless how many agrees with me as long as they stay to facts about the topic but 85% or more dont

People dislike you

for derailing other threads

and tripling down on your bad takes?

Oh noooooooooo!

Gabriel_H · May 12

heimdall14_9 wrote: »

Add-on Terms of Use 1 (iii) undue or unfair burden to the Game, its Services, including customer service support, and/or to other users.

In the high-level trial community you've been a part of since day one, "voluntary" addons aren't actually voluntary. If a raid lead requires Wizard's Wardrobe for a speed run, a player who wants to play "vanilla" is effectively burdened with a choice: download a third-party automation tool or be excluded from the content. That is a social and gameplay burden created specifically by the addon’s existence.

If a group using wizard's to swap 12 people’s entire builds in 2.5 seconds, while a manual group takes 45 seconds, the manual players are at an unfair disadvantage. In a "Speed Run," time is the primary currency. Forcing manual players to compete against a 2.5-second swap is an "undue burden" because it makes manual skill irrelevant in a contest of speed.

ZOS designed the UI with certain limitations (like why they restricted the Armory in certain areas). When an addon bypasses those design choices, it creates a burden on the developers to either "balance" the game around the exploit or revert features (like the UI respec ) because the "gap" between addon users and non-users becomes too wide to manage.

Code of Conduct 5.2 In relation to online/competitive games, you will not exploit any bug, or abuse any game system (such as the scoring or award systems) in a ZeniMax game

A "system" isn't just the code; it’s the rules of the world.

ZOS built the game so that choosing your gear and skills is a tactical decision you make before a fight. They even restricted the Armory and UI respecs in trials to ensure you are locked into those choices for the duration of the scored run.

Using an addon to swap every piece of gear, every skill, and every CP point in 2.5 seconds between every trash pack is bypassing the intended limitation of the trial system. You are using the API to do something the game's own UI specifically blocks you from doing.
In Trials, your score is directly tied to your completion time.If a group using add-on saves 30–60 seconds per boss by not having to manually swap gear, they are "abusing the scoring system" by using external software to artificially inflate their speed.It’s no longer a competition of who is the better player; it’s a competition of who has the better add-on set up . That is a direct violation of the "competitive" part of Section 5.2.
ZOS explicitly calls out "competitive games" in this rule because they know that in a multiplayer environment, one person’s "convenience" is another person’s unfair disadvantage.

If you’re playing a single-player game, who cares?

But in ESO, where there are limited-time titles, leaderboards, using an addon to perform hundreds of manual actions in 2.5 seconds is the definition of an unfair competitive edge.
"Section 5.2 isn't just about 'bugs.' It’s about Abuse of Systems. ZOS designed Trials as a scored, timed event where they purposefully blocked the Armory to keep things fair. When you use an addon to bypass that restriction and swap your entire build in 2.5 seconds , you are abusing the scoring system to get a time advantage you didn't earn with skill.

It’s like bringing a calculator to a mental math competition and saying 'it’s not cheating because the proctor didn't take it away at the door.' You’re still abusing the system of the competition."

hopefully this helps put an understanding to them that keep trying to minimize the add-on terms and CoC violations that wizards is doing

That's a lot of words to say you don't know what "Burden" or "Abuse" means.

Edit: And just to add to the growing chorus of people who have told you this - No addon, including WW, lets you change your entire build in non-IA scored content.

spartaxoxo · May 12

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Poss wrote: »

LadyGP wrote: »

Don't have any "facts" to share but maybe my comments will spark something.

UI had heard rumors about this add-on having an exploit right now in Cyrodiil that allows people to "wear" 2x the amount of sets and multiple mundus stones simultaneously.

If anyone has more info please share... again just putting my "what I heard" comments here to bring awareness to a potential issue that may/maynot be legit.

Had to scroll through six pages of ridiculous back and forths before finally landing on the reason why this add-on SHOULD be removed.

Yes people are using WW to stack multiple mundus buffs which is an exploit. The fact people aren’t talking about it baffles me.

Thats still not a reason for the addon to be removed though, that's a reason for the bug to be fixed.

If the addon can cause it that means it could conceivably be reproduced by hand, which means there is a bug that allows for it. ZOS should thus fix the bug or modify the addon API, not remove the addon.

Agreed. Also their own armory assistant has an exploit (or so I have heard from multiple sources including ESO content creators) that allows double mundus stones somehow so whatever is bugging out for WW might also be bugging out for AA. It's worth them investigating but I wouldn't even know where to start. They should probably contact the content creators trying to get attention to it, maybe one of them would know.

Gabriel_H · May 12

heimdall14_9 wrote: »

The Bottom Line: You're arguing for "convenience," but I'm standing up for the integrity of the achievement. A "Godslayer" or a top leaderboard spot should be about who is the better player, not who has the most aggressive automation setup.

A Godslayer time requirement can be met with a mid-tier trial group not running WW with about 5 minutes to spare. The players who are doing it with 10 minutes to spare are not getting that because of WW.

code65536 · May 12

Gabriel_H wrote: »

A Godslayer time requirement can be met with a mid-tier trial group not running WW with about 5 minutes to spare. The players who are doing it with 10 minutes to spare are not getting that because of WW.

Well, back when Sunspire was new and we didn't have today's power levels, coming in under that 30 minute mark was legitimately hard. In the Council of Raiders (a feedback group of players who communicated directly with Finn), the people from console specifically pointed out that one of the biggest reasons why nobody console had gotten Godslayer yet was the lack of Dressing Room (which was the premiere gear swap addon back in those days). They could swap manually, which takes time, or they could not swap, and lose time due to less optimized setups.

These players from console never suggested that these addons should be restricted on PC. What they wanted was the same capability on console, and they were also expressing their concern about just how tight the time requirements were back in the days of 2019 power levels. Despite this being communicated directly to the person in charge of trials content at ZOS, no action of any sort was taken (no action against the use of addons on PC, no action to facilitate swaps on console, and no action regarding the time constraint), and as players got better and power levels crept up, this problem with Sunspire just naturally faded away.

spartaxoxo · May 12

code65536 wrote: »

Gabriel_H wrote: »

A Godslayer time requirement can be met with a mid-tier trial group not running WW with about 5 minutes to spare. The players who are doing it with 10 minutes to spare are not getting that because of WW.

Well, back when Sunspire was new and we didn't have today's power levels, coming in under that 30 minute mark was legitimately hard. In the Council of Raiders (a feedback group of players who communicated directly with Finn), the people from console specifically pointed out that one of the biggest reasons why nobody console had gotten Godslayer yet was the lack of Dressing Room (which was the premiere gear swap addon back in those days). They could swap manually, which takes time, or they could not swap, and lose time due to less optimized setups.

These players from console never suggested that these addons should be restricted on PC. What they wanted was the same capability on console, and they were also expressing their concern about just how tight the time requirements were back in the days of 2019 power levels. Despite this being communicated directly to the person in charge of trials content at ZOS, no action of any sort was taken (no action against the use of addons on PC, no action to facilitate swaps on console, and no action regarding the time constraint), and as players got better and power levels crept up, this problem with Sunspire just naturally faded away.

I think it is still a problem for PS4/Xbox users (idk for sure as I upgraded long ago but OP is not the first I've heard of these types of complaints but I'm not an elite raider) but they're slowly and silently upgrading their hardware or quitting. Very few console players post on the forums (PC is already a small percentage of its population and I'd bet money the console total install base vs active forum user ratio is even worse).

M0R_Gaming · 12:17AM

If you are so passionate about this topic and how addons ruin leaderboards, then why don't you take a page out of speedrun.com's book? Create a new leaderboard which only allows runs done without addons. Right now, the ESO leaderboards are an any% category, just make a no addons category which people can submit their runs to.

Why do you want to try to change an already existing leaderboard, potentially wiping out several historical scores, rather than making your own leaderboard?

People have already done similar stuff with making their own leaderboards, ie nexus has a leaderboard of all world records/previous world records. The only thing stopping you from making your own is if you do not want to do any work and just complain.

heimdall14_9 · 12:22AM

Gabriel_H wrote: »

heimdall14_9 wrote: »

The Bottom Line: You're arguing for "convenience," but I'm standing up for the integrity of the achievement. A "Godslayer" or a top leaderboard spot should be about who is the better player, not who has the most aggressive automation setup.

A Godslayer time requirement can be met with a mid-tier trial group not running WW with about 5 minutes to spare. The players who are doing it with 10 minutes to spare are not getting that because of WW.

before add-ons / subclass power creep top psn time was 28 minutes now with power creep and add-ons top times is 18 minutes at my last look/talk with raid guild , before power creep /subclassing pc times was 18 minutes now with power creep its 11-12 minutes so its hard to say was it the add-ons or the power creep of subclasssing ?????

FlameDark · 12:28AM

Okay honestly I am very bored, have some free time to kill, and it seem that the OP is just determined to hang onto AI and let it do the thinking. So I will play the AI game to show just how awful that is to do. Just as fyi I absolutely hate using AI in arguments and prefer people use their actual brains, then rely on some bot that cant even accurately tell me what happens when I let go of a pen with one hand while still holding it in the other hand. So I took OP's post that he made directly after my post, took it through an AI, and asked it to tell me everything wrong with that argument. So here we go...

Gemini! I choose you!

---- The following is AI slop

While this argument is structured to highlight the "spirit of competition," it faces several significant hurdles when viewed through the lens of how Zenimax Online Studios (ZOS) actually manages The Elder Scrolls Online (ESO) and its API.

Here is a breakdown of why this argument is technically and legally flawed according to the current landscape of the game:
1. The "Permitted Use" Fallacy (The API Argument)

The strongest counter-argument is that the API itself allows these actions.

Intentional Design: ZOS provides the functions in the API that allow gear and skill swapping. If they considered swapping gear between combat encounters to be an exploit, they would "taint" those functions (lock them) while a Trial timer is active, just as they do when a player is "In Combat."

The Armory Distinction: The argument equates the Armory Station (which allows for free attribute/curse/CP resets) with Gear Swapping. ZOS restricted the Armory in Trials to prevent mid-run respecs, but they never restricted the ability to manually change gear or skills. Because the API allows the addon to do only what a player can do manually (just faster), it is generally viewed as a UI enhancement, not a bypass.

2. Efficiency vs. Automation

The Terms of Service (ToS) generally prohibit "automation" that plays the game for you (macros/bots).

One Action, One Result: Addons like Wizard's Wardrobe do not "play" the fight. A player must still manually trigger the swap while out of combat.

The "Calculator" Analogy: The argument calls it a "calculator in a math meet." A better analogy in the context of ESO's history would be "using a better pair of running shoes in a race." ZOS has historically viewed UI efficiency as a part of the "PC experience," which is why the PC world records are treated as a separate category from Console records.

3. The "Social Burden" is not a "Service Burden"

The argument claims that "voluntary" addons aren't voluntary because of social pressure.

User-Driven vs. Developer-Driven: Section 1 (iii) refers to burdens on the Game and its Services (like crashing servers or flooding support tickets).

Player Agency: A Raid Lead requiring an addon is a "social contract" between players, not a mechanical burden imposed by the software on ZOS. ZOS has traditionally stayed out of how players organize their groups, citing that players have the right to form groups with whoever they choose, based on whatever criteria they set.

4. Violation of "Competitive Integrity" (Section 5.2)

The argument suggests this is an "abuse of the scoring system."

Precedent: If ZOS agreed that fast-swapping was an abuse of the scoring system, they would have banned it years ago, as "AlphaGear" and "Dressing Room" have existed for nearly a decade.

The "Skill" Definition: In high-level Trials, ZOS tends to define "skill" as execution during the encounter (DPS, healing, mechanics). Preparation between pulls (swapping gear) is seen as "management." Since every PC player has access to the same API, the "unfair" advantage is mitigated by the fact that the tool is free and available to all competitors on that platform.

5. The "API Limitations" Logic

The argument says ZOS "designed the UI with certain limitations."

Actually: ZOS designed the API to be more powerful than the standard UI. They purposefully allow addon developers to create better inventory management and gear-swapping tools because it offloads the development cost of UI 2.0 from ZOS to the community.

The "Gap": ZOS acknowledges the gap between PC and Console. Their solution has been to keep the leaderboards separate, rather than banning the tools that create the gap on PC.

Summary of the Flaw

The core issue with the argument is Intent vs. Permission. The argument assumes ZOS intends for you to spend 45 seconds clicking items. However, by providing a public API that includes EquipItem() functions that work inside Trials, ZOS has effectively given explicit permission for that process to be optimized.

In legal and ToS terms: If the developer provides the door and the key (the API), using it cannot be defined as breaking and entering (an exploit).

End of AI Slop

So ya, I can make AI agree with ME and think your points are wrong too! Next time dont let it do the thinking for you.

heimdall14_9 · 12:52AM

FlameDark wrote: »

Okay honestly I am very bored, have some free time to kill, and it seem that the OP is just determined to hang onto AI and let it do the thinking. So I will play the AI game to show just how awful that is to do. Just as fyi I absolutely hate using AI in arguments and prefer people use their actual brains, then rely on some bot that cant even accurately tell me what happens when I let go of a pen with one hand while still holding it in the other hand. So I took OP's post that he made directly after my post, took it through an AI, and asked it to tell me everything wrong with that argument. So here we go...

Gemini! I choose you!

---- The following is AI slop

While this argument is structured to highlight the "spirit of competition," it faces several significant hurdles when viewed through the lens of how Zenimax Online Studios (ZOS) actually manages The Elder Scrolls Online (ESO) and its API.

Here is a breakdown of why this argument is technically and legally flawed according to the current landscape of the game:
1. The "Permitted Use" Fallacy (The API Argument)

The strongest counter-argument is that the API itself allows these actions.

Intentional Design: ZOS provides the functions in the API that allow gear and skill swapping. If they considered swapping gear between combat encounters to be an exploit, they would "taint" those functions (lock them) while a Trial timer is active, just as they do when a player is "In Combat."

The Armory Distinction: The argument equates the Armory Station (which allows for free attribute/curse/CP resets) with Gear Swapping. ZOS restricted the Armory in Trials to prevent mid-run respecs, but they never restricted the ability to manually change gear or skills. Because the API allows the addon to do only what a player can do manually (just faster), it is generally viewed as a UI enhancement, not a bypass.

2. Efficiency vs. Automation

The Terms of Service (ToS) generally prohibit "automation" that plays the game for you (macros/bots).

One Action, One Result: Addons like Wizard's Wardrobe do not "play" the fight. A player must still manually trigger the swap while out of combat.

The "Calculator" Analogy: The argument calls it a "calculator in a math meet." A better analogy in the context of ESO's history would be "using a better pair of running shoes in a race." ZOS has historically viewed UI efficiency as a part of the "PC experience," which is why the PC world records are treated as a separate category from Console records.

3. The "Social Burden" is not a "Service Burden"

The argument claims that "voluntary" addons aren't voluntary because of social pressure.

User-Driven vs. Developer-Driven: Section 1 (iii) refers to burdens on the Game and its Services (like crashing servers or flooding support tickets).

Player Agency: A Raid Lead requiring an addon is a "social contract" between players, not a mechanical burden imposed by the software on ZOS. ZOS has traditionally stayed out of how players organize their groups, citing that players have the right to form groups with whoever they choose, based on whatever criteria they set.

4. Violation of "Competitive Integrity" (Section 5.2)

The argument suggests this is an "abuse of the scoring system."

Precedent: If ZOS agreed that fast-swapping was an abuse of the scoring system, they would have banned it years ago, as "AlphaGear" and "Dressing Room" have existed for nearly a decade.

The "Skill" Definition: In high-level Trials, ZOS tends to define "skill" as execution during the encounter (DPS, healing, mechanics). Preparation between pulls (swapping gear) is seen as "management." Since every PC player has access to the same API, the "unfair" advantage is mitigated by the fact that the tool is free and available to all competitors on that platform.

5. The "API Limitations" Logic

The argument says ZOS "designed the UI with certain limitations."

Actually: ZOS designed the API to be more powerful than the standard UI. They purposefully allow addon developers to create better inventory management and gear-swapping tools because it offloads the development cost of UI 2.0 from ZOS to the community.

The "Gap": ZOS acknowledges the gap between PC and Console. Their solution has been to keep the leaderboards separate, rather than banning the tools that create the gap on PC.

Summary of the Flaw

The core issue with the argument is Intent vs. Permission. The argument assumes ZOS intends for you to spend 45 seconds clicking items. However, by providing a public API that includes EquipItem() functions that work inside Trials, ZOS has effectively given explicit permission for that process to be optimized.

In legal and ToS terms: If the developer provides the door and the key (the API), using it cannot be defined as breaking and entering (an exploit).
End of AI Slop

So ya, I can make AI agree with ME and think your points are wrong too! Next time dont let it do the thinking for you.

@FlameDark — Regarding the AI-generated counter-arguments provided: while it is an interesting perspective, it relies on a technicality that ignores the actual language in the Code of Conduct and Add-on Terms.

1. The Distinction Between "Functionality" and "Abuse"
The argument that "if the API allows it, it is permitted" is not supported by the Code of Conduct Section 5.2. That section prohibits the abuse of game systems, specifically citing scoring and award systems. In Trials, time is the primary factor in scoring. Using a third-party tool to perform dozens of manual reconfigurations (gear, skills, and CP) in 2 seconds provides a time advantage that is not achievable through the standard UI. This is a clear case where a technical capability is being used to bypass the intended challenge of the content.

2. Intent of UI Restrictions
The Terms of Service makes it clear that ZeniMax does not endorse or approve mods. We know the developers restricted the Armory in Trials to prevent mid-run build changes from trivializing the content. Using an addon to circumvent that design intent by automating swaps between encounters is, by definition, a bypass of the intended gameplay limitations.

3. Defining the "Unfair Burden"
Under the Add-on Terms 1(iii), an addon must not create an undue or unfair burden on other users. When the competitive raiding scene reaches a point where players are excluded from groups unless they use a specific automation script, that is a social and gameplay burden. It shifts the requirement from player skill to software reliance.

4. Experience Over Theory
As a long-term veteran with 16 accounts, I have tested this addon extensively in 8 vMA runs and 6 Trials. I am not speaking from a place of "disliking" addons, but from witnessing how this specific level of automation devalues the integrity of the Leaderboards.

The Bottom Line: Efficiency is one thing, but automation that performs multiple manual actions with a single click is a macro-level advantage. Standing up for the integrity of the game's achievements isn't "trolling"—it's holding the community to the standards ZOS actually wrote in the Code of Conduct.
THE FUNNY PART IS IVE SPOKEN ON WHY I USE AI TO HELP PUT THINGS IN PLACE FOR ME , YOUR JUST USING IT TO PICK A FIGHT WITH SOMEONE WHO WAS ASKED TO START USING AI TO MAKE MY POST MORE LEGIBLE AND EASYER TO UNDERSTAND AS MY PHYSICAL DISABILITY FROM BEING HIT IN THE HEAD BY 10 TON DRILLING BLOCKS

JavaRen · 1:14AM

JavaRen wrote: »

OP: what was the response to your ticket when you reported this issue to ZoS?

Just in case you missed my question in the chaos.

heimdall14_9 · 1:16AM

JavaRen wrote: »

JavaRen wrote: »

OP: what was the response to your ticket when you reported this issue to ZoS?

Just in case you missed my question in the chaos.

im trying to tell zos to follow their ToS while your trying to ask me to break them lol

my bad its not ToS its CoC 4.2 youd need to look up
Code of Conduct - Privacy (Section 4.2): This section prohibits users from posting their own or others' personal information in chat or message forums. Support tickets are considered private communications between the user and ZOS staff. The Code of Conduct emphasizes that sharing account details or private correspondence is a violation.