Feedback: 1.6 - Problems with 30 CPs and new Ultimate generation (@ZOS)
Maintenance for the week of March 17:
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – March 17
• Xbox: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – March 19, 6:00AM EDT (10:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EDT (13:00 UTC)
• PlayStation®: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – March 19, 6:00AM EDT (10:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EDT (13:00 UTC)
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – March 17
• Xbox: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – March 19, 6:00AM EDT (10:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EDT (13:00 UTC)
• PlayStation®: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – March 19, 6:00AM EDT (10:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EDT (13:00 UTC)
onlinegamer1
✭✭✭✭✭
✭
✭
Background
I am a professional software designer. I have over 24 years of experience, and am currently a Product Manager for a mission-critical B2B software company. I have been playing MMORPGs since Asheron's Call in 1999 (only Ultima Online and Everquest pre-date it).
Introduction
Update 1.6 information has been shared with players via the latest ESO Live. I will discuss two pieces of Update 1.6, Initial Champion Points and new Ultimate generation. The purpose of this thread is to expose the flaws in the design of these two features as proposed during ESO Live, so that @ZOS can consider changes to both of these implementations before Update 1.6 goes live. I will include the most effective changes in this thread, however @ZOS is, of course, free to come up with their own solutions to both problems.
Part 1: Initial Champion Points
As already discussed, debated, and confirmed by @ZOS_GinaBruno, @ZOS decided to break their promise that earned EXP now, prior to 1.6, will give proper credit to players post-1.6. Their reasoning boils down to really only one factor: game balance. Specifically, @ZOS indicated that for 1.6, since VR levels still exist for now, and also that the Champion System's overall "power" was increased by a factor of 4 (from 400 points per "star" to 100 points per "star"), that allowing players to start off in 1.6 with vastly differing amounts of CPs would make for very unbalanced gameplay until Update 1.7 when VR levels disappear.
The problem with that is that granting either 0 (no vet characters on your account at all) or a flat 30 (for 1 or more vet characters) is overkill, and a very temporary balance measure, and thus is highly flawed.
Flaws:
1. The moment 1.6 is live, those who grind, level quickly, or just plain play the game more, will quickly gain CPs over those that do not. So, the "flat" 30 point award will only have a meaningful effect for a day or two, and then will be completely moot.
2. Giving everyone a flat 30 points breaks your promise that XP gained will count towards the Champion System.
3. It also arbitrarily punishes (or at least insults) players who either took your word and leveled up characters to make use of the added CPs they would get, or already put that effort into your game (while paying you).
Fix:
As proposed in an earlier thread of mine, you can quite easily tweak your idea of "flat 30 CPs" for a slightly graded amount of CPs based on effort players have put into your game, and it will not affect game balance in the slightest.
Since the overall Champion System has 3600 points, and 30 points is a mere 0.8% of that total, you still have some leeway in granting more points, up to 50 (1.3% of total CPs) or so CPs. That idea is as follows:
- You gain the greater of the following two numbers of CPs when the Champion System goes live, with a CAP of 50 CPs:
A. You gain 1 Champion point for every 1 million XP you've earned on all your VR characters.
B. You gain 30 CPs.
Examples:
- You have only 1 VR1 character. You gain 30 CPs. (due to B )
- You have 1 VR 14 and 1 VR 5. You gain 30 CPs. (due to B )
- You have 2 VR14s, and a VR5, all of which are exactly those levels (no extra XP earned). You gain 14+14+5 = 33 CPs.
- You have 1 VR14 but gained 20 million EXP on it since ZoS announced the Champion System and promised the XP earned would count: You gain 34 CPs.
- You have 8 VR14s (regardless of XP). You gain 50 CPs (you hit cap)
Difference between the lowest possible account and highest possible account is 20 CPs (30 vs 50).
The details of what you actually implement aren't really all that important, since the problem is not truly a power issue as you claim (as I said earlier, after 2 days post-1.6, the CP difference will be far more than 20 points between the power-gamers and the casuals anyway.)
The "win" here for @ZOS is that you solve your image/reputation problem (broken promise, punishing players who earned the extra points). If I can say that a 20 point difference is a token, a gesture, and not a real balance issue, then you can say that because I am right, granting those (up to) 20 points to those that earned it to fix your reputation is a no-brainer.
Part 2: broken Ultimate generation
Ultimate will change so that a Light or Heavy attack will give you a buff for 8 seconds which grants you a flat amount of Ultimate per second. Also, healing someone with this buff who has at least attacked recently will grant the healer the same buff.
Flaw:
1. PvP: Sieging in PvP will no longer occur. Why? Because using Siege is not a light or heavy attack, and therefore will not generate any Ultimate. Players will "let the other guys siege, I will stand near the wall and fire off light/heavy attacks to build Ultimate so that when the wall falls, I can rush in (or defend the breach) with my Ultimate ready."
2. PvE: Tanks or other agro-generating players can no longer effectively serve in their role if they have to weave in attacks that involve dropping Block. It will lead to more wipes and high-end content becoming harder for all but the really elite players to complete.
Fixes:
PvP: Change the buff from being granted only by Light/Heavy attacks, to instead being granted on "any attack which damages a player or structure."
This means Ultimate will NOT be generated by buffs, random heals (ones that don't qualify to obtain the buff via healing), random AoEs or Siege in an empty field against no one, or by killing Monsters or NPC Guards (<-- this is big). You only gain ultimate if any attack (which includes firing a Siege or Oil) damages a PLAYER or Structure. And of course, change the healing qualification to "heal someone with that buff who recently damaged a player or structure."
This allows players to continue to PvP naturally, either dealing damage, sieging or healing without having to arbitrarily hop off siege weapons to run moronically up to the wall to light/heavy attack someone, then run back to their siege, etc. I.E. it will not disrupt normal PvP gameplay.
PvE: Change the buff from being granted only by Light/Heavy attacks, to instead being granted on "any attack which damages a monster."
This means Ultimate will NOT be generated by buffs, random heals (ones that don't qualify to obtain the buff via healing), or random AoEs against nothing. You only gain ultimate if any attack damages a Monster. And of course, change the healing qualification to "heal someone with that buff who recently damaged a monster."
This means tanks can continue to drop damaging AoEs and other taunting attacks while blocking to stay alive (since they are gaining the agro and getting pounded.)
Conclusion:
I really enjoy the game and do not mind lending my much greater experience in software design to try to improve it and make it more enjoyable for both newcomers and loyal players who were here from the very start who helped make it successful in the first place.
Edited by onlinegamer1 on December 30, 2014 3:19AM I am a professional software designer. I have over 24 years of experience, and am currently a Product Manager for a mission-critical B2B software company. I have been playing MMORPGs since Asheron's Call in 1999 (only Ultima Online and Everquest pre-date it).
Introduction
Update 1.6 information has been shared with players via the latest ESO Live. I will discuss two pieces of Update 1.6, Initial Champion Points and new Ultimate generation. The purpose of this thread is to expose the flaws in the design of these two features as proposed during ESO Live, so that @ZOS can consider changes to both of these implementations before Update 1.6 goes live. I will include the most effective changes in this thread, however @ZOS is, of course, free to come up with their own solutions to both problems.
Part 1: Initial Champion Points
As already discussed, debated, and confirmed by @ZOS_GinaBruno, @ZOS decided to break their promise that earned EXP now, prior to 1.6, will give proper credit to players post-1.6. Their reasoning boils down to really only one factor: game balance. Specifically, @ZOS indicated that for 1.6, since VR levels still exist for now, and also that the Champion System's overall "power" was increased by a factor of 4 (from 400 points per "star" to 100 points per "star"), that allowing players to start off in 1.6 with vastly differing amounts of CPs would make for very unbalanced gameplay until Update 1.7 when VR levels disappear.
The problem with that is that granting either 0 (no vet characters on your account at all) or a flat 30 (for 1 or more vet characters) is overkill, and a very temporary balance measure, and thus is highly flawed.
Flaws:
1. The moment 1.6 is live, those who grind, level quickly, or just plain play the game more, will quickly gain CPs over those that do not. So, the "flat" 30 point award will only have a meaningful effect for a day or two, and then will be completely moot.
2. Giving everyone a flat 30 points breaks your promise that XP gained will count towards the Champion System.
3. It also arbitrarily punishes (or at least insults) players who either took your word and leveled up characters to make use of the added CPs they would get, or already put that effort into your game (while paying you).
Fix:
As proposed in an earlier thread of mine, you can quite easily tweak your idea of "flat 30 CPs" for a slightly graded amount of CPs based on effort players have put into your game, and it will not affect game balance in the slightest.
Since the overall Champion System has 3600 points, and 30 points is a mere 0.8% of that total, you still have some leeway in granting more points, up to 50 (1.3% of total CPs) or so CPs. That idea is as follows:
- You gain the greater of the following two numbers of CPs when the Champion System goes live, with a CAP of 50 CPs:
A. You gain 1 Champion point for every 1 million XP you've earned on all your VR characters.
B. You gain 30 CPs.
Examples:
- You have only 1 VR1 character. You gain 30 CPs. (due to B )
- You have 1 VR 14 and 1 VR 5. You gain 30 CPs. (due to B )
- You have 2 VR14s, and a VR5, all of which are exactly those levels (no extra XP earned). You gain 14+14+5 = 33 CPs.
- You have 1 VR14 but gained 20 million EXP on it since ZoS announced the Champion System and promised the XP earned would count: You gain 34 CPs.
- You have 8 VR14s (regardless of XP). You gain 50 CPs (you hit cap)
Difference between the lowest possible account and highest possible account is 20 CPs (30 vs 50).
The details of what you actually implement aren't really all that important, since the problem is not truly a power issue as you claim (as I said earlier, after 2 days post-1.6, the CP difference will be far more than 20 points between the power-gamers and the casuals anyway.)
The "win" here for @ZOS is that you solve your image/reputation problem (broken promise, punishing players who earned the extra points). If I can say that a 20 point difference is a token, a gesture, and not a real balance issue, then you can say that because I am right, granting those (up to) 20 points to those that earned it to fix your reputation is a no-brainer.
Part 2: broken Ultimate generation
Ultimate will change so that a Light or Heavy attack will give you a buff for 8 seconds which grants you a flat amount of Ultimate per second. Also, healing someone with this buff who has at least attacked recently will grant the healer the same buff.
Flaw:
1. PvP: Sieging in PvP will no longer occur. Why? Because using Siege is not a light or heavy attack, and therefore will not generate any Ultimate. Players will "let the other guys siege, I will stand near the wall and fire off light/heavy attacks to build Ultimate so that when the wall falls, I can rush in (or defend the breach) with my Ultimate ready."
2. PvE: Tanks or other agro-generating players can no longer effectively serve in their role if they have to weave in attacks that involve dropping Block. It will lead to more wipes and high-end content becoming harder for all but the really elite players to complete.
Fixes:
PvP: Change the buff from being granted only by Light/Heavy attacks, to instead being granted on "any attack which damages a player or structure."
This means Ultimate will NOT be generated by buffs, random heals (ones that don't qualify to obtain the buff via healing), random AoEs or Siege in an empty field against no one, or by killing Monsters or NPC Guards (<-- this is big). You only gain ultimate if any attack (which includes firing a Siege or Oil) damages a PLAYER or Structure. And of course, change the healing qualification to "heal someone with that buff who recently damaged a player or structure."
This allows players to continue to PvP naturally, either dealing damage, sieging or healing without having to arbitrarily hop off siege weapons to run moronically up to the wall to light/heavy attack someone, then run back to their siege, etc. I.E. it will not disrupt normal PvP gameplay.
PvE: Change the buff from being granted only by Light/Heavy attacks, to instead being granted on "any attack which damages a monster."
This means Ultimate will NOT be generated by buffs, random heals (ones that don't qualify to obtain the buff via healing), or random AoEs against nothing. You only gain ultimate if any attack damages a Monster. And of course, change the healing qualification to "heal someone with that buff who recently damaged a monster."
This means tanks can continue to drop damaging AoEs and other taunting attacks while blocking to stay alive (since they are gaining the agro and getting pounded.)
Conclusion:
I really enjoy the game and do not mind lending my much greater experience in software design to try to improve it and make it more enjoyable for both newcomers and loyal players who were here from the very start who helped make it successful in the first place.
26
-
AshySamurai✭✭✭✭✭
✭2. PvE: Tanks or other agro-generating players can no longer effectively serve in their role if they have to weave in attacks that involve dropping Block. It will lead to more wipes and high-end content becoming harder for all but the really elite players to complete.
Let me guess - you're not a tank, right?
Also, about CP. Well, as you said ZOS will create balance at least for a few days. And you want to increase gap from the beginning.Make sweetrolls, not nerfs!4 -
onlinegamer1✭✭✭✭✭
✭AshySamurai wrote: »
Let me guess - you're not a tank, right?
Also, about CP. Well, as you said ZOS will create balance at least for a few days. And you want to fix the gap from the beginning.
1. Wrong, I am.
2. Fixed your comment for accuracy.
Remember, the (up to) 20 point difference is not a balance issue - @ZOS said so themselves in ESO live (that the first points you spend in "stars" give the most bang for the point, and subsequent points suffer diminishing returns). This is NOT a balance issue, its a PR (Public Relations) issue for ZoS.9 -
DanielMaxwell✭✭✭since you seem ok with rewarding players twice for running content once (all of the non repeatable content used by VR players) , how about everyone who hits level 50 after 1.6 goes live gets double the contribution towards champion system progression from all non repeatable content ?4
-
Averya_Teira✭✭✭✭✭AshySamurai wrote: »
Let me guess - you're not a tank, right?
Also, about CP. Well, as you said ZOS will create balance at least for a few days. And you want to increase gap from the beginning.
The thing you don't seem to understand is that if the ''gap'' is such a balance problem with only 30 CPs (0,8% of the 3600), their system is broken already, before it even launched lol... The champion system is supposed to make things more even, if this small amount of CPs breaks balance... Wtf is the system for ?
What's it going to be when you get people with 40 CPs and people with 575 CPs ? The first ones can't even kill an NPC and the others can solo trials... ? (huge exaggeration here, I know lol)
You see how, if what you wrote is true, ZOS completely failed at designing this new system now ?DanielMaxwell wrote: »since you seem ok with rewarding players twice for running content once (all of the non repeatable content used by VR players) , how about everyone who hits level 50 after 1.6 goes live gets double the contribution towards champion system progression from all non repeatable content ?
ONLY FOR YOUR FIRST VR CHARACTER ON ACOUNT (so people don't abuse it just making new alts again and again and again), I would not see any problem with this, would close the gap faster for new players. By non repeatable, I personally mean non repeatable QUESTS, not all dwelves and world bosses and such, just non repeatable quests.
Edited by Averya_Teira on December 30, 2014 3:42AM3 -
derpsticks✭✭✭✭I've already made comments regarding the whole 30 champion point thing in your other thread here:
http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/comment/1433164/#Comment_1433164
and here:
http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/comment/1433253/#Comment_1433253
Furthermore, in that same thread you said the same thing previously:
http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/comment/1435465/#Comment_1435465
I understand that maybe you did not get the response you hoped for or much attention in the last thread since this was buried on page 5, but at this point I think your 60 second idea has surely been read by ZOS and that is the best you can hope for. There is no need to discuss this further in a new thread.
As to the ultimate generation issues I made my comments here:
http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/comment/1432951/#Comment_1432951
Again, there is no need to make a whole new thread on these topics.Edited by derpsticks on December 30, 2014 3:43AM8 -
DanielMaxwell✭✭✭Averya_Teira wrote: »
The thing you don't seem to understand is that if the ''gap'' is such a balance problem with only 30 CPs (0,8% of the 3600), their system is broken already, before it even launched lol... The champion system is supposed to make things more even, if this small amount of CPs breaks balance... Wtf is the system for ?
What's it going to be when you get people with 40 CPs and people with 575 CPs ? The first ones can't even kill an NPC and the others can solo trials... ?
You see how, if what you wrote is true, ZOS completely failed at designing this new system now ?
the 30 CP is to cover them in case of any legal actions , they did make a promise that had an unknown cap at the time so they have to give out at least a small token to meet that promise .3 -
Averya_Teira✭✭✭✭✭DanielMaxwell wrote: »
the 30 CP is to cover them in case of any legal actions , they did make a promise that had an unknown cap at the time so they have to give out at least a small token to meet that promise .
That's not true at all, giving 30 CP to everyone is NOT the definition of a cap lol. It's because of people saying/actually believing these kind of things that these companies get away with anything...Edited by Averya_Teira on December 30, 2014 3:45AM5 -
Huggernaut✭✭✭✭onlinegamer1 wrote: »Background
I have been playing MMORPGs since Asheron's Call in 1999 (only Ultima Online and Everquest pre-date it).
I didn't even make it to the body of your post. I saw this and was shaking my head.
EQ1 and AC both came out in 1999, though EQ did come before AC, so technically true.
However, there were many other MMOs that were out before any of those 3 ever were released.
Lineage 1 overseas in 98, Neverwinter nights in 91, Merdian59 in 95, just for a handful of graphical MMOs. That's not even counting all the text based Mud/muck/mush/etc games that had many thousands of concurrent online players.
Sorry, the geek in me wouldn't let it go! lol
To stay on topic though. I totally agree with what you're saying. The ultimate generation change is beyond foolish. Light attacks already suck, for no other reason than I can't auto-attack. Having to click for each separate attack is tedious at best.
I also agree that the 30 point cap is silly, because as many others have pointed out, within a week, it will all be moot anyways.
People will no-life grind and be light years ahead of anyone else.
As I've said in previous posts, I really wish there was a course entitled something like:
"A History of MMO Succcesses and Failures, a guide to modern day online game development"
That anyone even remotely interested in any field that involves game development are required to take for their degree.
I see the companies make the same mistakes, year after year, release after release and it always takes a year or two (if they can hold out that long) before the game has managed to fix all the mistakes at release that never should've been made in the first place.
Furthermore, I really wish they hadn't made this announcement right before the holidays and then vanished leaving everyone to freak out for the next 2 weeks on the forums.
These changes have made me stop playing altogether. Haven't even logged in since I read about them and honestly, I've been debating on cancelling my sub, but I'd really like to hear from the devs first and not just a random community manager.4 -
DanielMaxwell✭✭✭Averya_Teira wrote: »
That's not true at all, giving 30 CP to everyone is NOT the definition of a cap lol. It's because of people saying/actually believing these kind of things that these companies get away with anything...
read your own signature ZOS determined that every VR 1 player meets the cap they choose .
my other post would have to apply to as many characters on the post 1.6 level 50's as the number of VR characters where used in any of the proposed fixes to be fair. That post just shows how unbalancing to the game it is to reward players twice for running content once.1 -
BBSooner✭✭✭✭✭
✭onlinegamer1 wrote: »
Part 1: Initial Champion Points
As already discussed, debated, and confirmed by @ZOS_GinaBruno, @ZOS decided to break their promise that earned EXP now,
Surely, as a supposed software designer, you would recognize that a statement made about the current iteration of a project that is not only incomplete but untested and unbalanced is not a "promise".5 -
DanielMaxwell✭✭✭Huggernaut wrote: »
I didn't even make it to the body of your post. I saw this and was shaking my head.
EQ1 and AC both came out in 1999, though EQ did come before AC, so technically true.
However, there were many other MMOs that were out before any of those 3 ever were released.
Lineage 1 overseas in 98, Neverwinter nights in 91, Merdian59 in 95, just for a handful of graphical MMOs. That's not even counting all the text based Mud/muck/mush/etc games that had many thousands of concurrent online players.
Sorry, the geek in me wouldn't let it go! lol
To stay on topic though. I totally agree with what you're saying. The ultimate generation change is beyond foolish. Light attacks already suck, for no other reason than I can't auto-attack. Having to click for each separate attack is tedious at best.
I also agree that the 30 point cap is silly, because as many others have pointed out, within a week, it will all be moot anyways.
People will no-life grind and be light years ahead of anyone else.
As I've said in previous posts, I really wish there was a course entitled something like:
"A History of MMO Succcesses and Failures, a guide to modern day online game development"
That anyone even remotely interested in any field that involves game development are required to take for their degree.
I see the companies make the same mistakes, year after year, release after release and it always takes a year or two (if they can hold out that long) before the game has managed to fix all the mistakes at release that never should've been made in the first place.
Furthermore, I really wish they hadn't made this announcement right before the holidays and then vanished leaving everyone to freak out for the next 2 weeks on the forums.
These changes have made me stop playing altogether. Haven't even logged in since I read about them and honestly, I've been debating on cancelling my sub, but I'd really like to hear from the devs first and not just a random community manager.
edit to remove a false statement due to an error on my part . Checked my own records and realized I had made a mistake.Edited by DanielMaxwell on December 30, 2014 8:39PM0 -
Aenlir✭✭✭The champion points thing is disappointing, but honestly if you play like you normally do, you will gain points and progress no matter what you start with. Sure it's disappointing, but it is not game breaking.
However, the proposed ultimate generation system is pretty awful. The issues right now, are 1) tanks generate ultimate slower than other roles and 2) aoe dps in pve and pvp generates ultimate extremely fast (would be even faster with AOE cap removal). Their solution to this, is to make everyone gain ultimate at the same rate, the problem with this, is that it removes an element of skill from the game. It doesn't make sense that if I am doing twice the DPS of someone else, I would gain ultimate at the same rate. IMO ultimate should be rewarded for performing your role well. They should have just rewarded tanks with ultimate for soaking up damage; adding it in the heavy armor skill line or something more creative. They should also realize how OP tanking will become with heavy usage of ultimates...any time I feel like I would die, I could just throw on my magma armor and be all set. Seriously, even with the bloodspawn set now, I barely need a healer in vet CoA, or even most of the time in Vet DSA.
Also, the idea of light attacks as OP mentioned is pretty silly. Some situations do not call for light attacks, and it would be restricting the flow of combat by forcing them in. There would be no reason for me to do a light attack in an AOE situation other than to gain ultimate, therefore it would make combat unnatural. Why should we have to keep track of an ultimate buff which is literally just a timer? If they feel so strongly about having ultimate the same for everyone, put the ults on a cool down and be done with it.
Another issue is that the default UI wouldn't be great for this system either. They are going to have to crowd the screen with an unwanted visual effect, or timer just so people can see when to light attack if they are not using add ons.
Overall, I just feel like they are going to really hurt and restrict the play of good (non-tank) players, while making DPS less dynamic and less rewarding.Edited by Aenlir on December 30, 2014 4:43AM3 -
MissBizz✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭I think these are fantastic ideas.. Now for my comments..
I whole heartedly agree that some sort of system should be put in place to reward those VR14's out there. Although how I understand ZOS sees it is that enlightment will tighten the gap. As well, they seemed determined that PvP, quests, trials and grinding should reward the same amount of xp in x amount of time. I don't think an hour of my enlightened play is going to be even with the people who play way more or smarter (not sure what to use there.. You know, the people that actually do stuff and not chat for 15 mins in guild wasting their enlightened time like I will haha), but hey, that's how I think they see it.
I feel the tank issue isn't an issue. Many players I have talked to (as I started my tank recently so I have asked a lot of questions) mentioned I should not just stand there and block. I should make an attempt at doing damage (even if it is minimal)
And lastly. Wow, I never thought about sieges. I also think ZOS didn't either.Lone Wolf HelpFor the solo players who know, sometimes you just need a hand.PC | NA | AD-DC-EP | Discord1 -
DanielMaxwell✭✭✭I think these are fantastic ideas.. Now for my comments..
I whole heartedly agree that some sort of system should be put in place to reward those VR14's out there. Although how I understand ZOS sees it is that enlightment will tighten the gap. As well, they seemed determined that PvP, quests, trials and grinding should reward the same amount of xp in x amount of time. I don't think an hour of my enlightened play is going to be even with the people who play way more or smarter (not sure what to use there.. You know, the people that actually do stuff and not chat for 15 mins in guild wasting their enlightened time like I will haha), but hey, that's how I think they see it.
I feel the tank issue isn't an issue. Many players I have talked to (as I started my tank recently so I have asked a lot of questions) mentioned I should not just stand there and block. I should make an attempt at doing damage (even if it is minimal)
And lastly. Wow, I never thought about sieges. I also think ZOS didn't either.
if your not in combat your gaining enlightenment , but that might change based on PTS feedback .0 -
Heishi✭✭✭✭✭As you said, the 30CP "equalizer" will only matter for all of a day or two. So... really the whole argument that some complicated combination of characters should lead to an extra 4 or 5CP is moot.
As was also stated, there is supposed to be heavily diminished returns, to the point they talked about multiplying all stats by 1k just so you could see the difference.
Basically your min/maxers are gonna flail and try to get all the points to boost stats a miniscule amount that will likely be easily overcome by a little more skill on the players part.
For your average player that getting that extra 5 dps so they can have 2005 dps instead of 2000dps really isn't going to make much of an impact.
What I actually worry for the VR14 people is attribute points. Via one of the last patches, they made it to where you get an attribute each VR level in exchange for less increased stats all around. I wonder if they will get scaled down and lose those 13 attribute points or what will happen thereAnd so did many brave men, women, and beast fall to the end of Beta, never to be heard from again. All that is left, is whispers of the adventures they had.1 -
Dracane✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭I think, they wanted to make a trade off. People are complaining about the AoE cap. But removing it, would make single AoE Persons so extremely strong and their ultimate gain would EXPLODE.
So there has to be a balance and the new ultimate gain is a perfect solution. It prevents AoE user from having up 30+ Ultimates at the same time and it makes everyone equal AND it makes Ultimates more unique. I don't see, how this is bad design. It is needed to keep balance.Edited by Dracane on December 30, 2014 7:34AMAuri-El is my lord,
Trinimac is my shield,
Magnus is my mind.
My debut album on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@Gleandra/videos3 -
Audigy✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Averya_Teira wrote: »
That's not true at all, giving 30 CP to everyone is NOT the definition of a cap lol. It's because of people saying/actually believing these kind of things that these companies get away with anything...
It is the Cap, not everyone has a VR char yet + nobody of those coming into the game will benefit from it either.
You are over the cap with your VR 14 we know, but this still doesn't make the cap not a cap, just because you out leveled it.
1 -
Joy_Division✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭I think, they wanted to make a trade off. People are complaining about the AoE cap. But removing it, would make single AoE Persons so extremely strong and their ultimate gain would EXPLODE.
So there has to be a balance and the new ultimate gain is a perfect solution. It prevents AoE user from having up 30+ Ultimates at the same time and it makes everyone equal AND it makes Ultimates more unique. I don't see, how this is bad design. It is needed to keep balance.
Let me enlighten you:
I do a light attack against 1 person. I do 50 points of damage. I then eat my cheeseburger for the next 10 seconds.
Sue is a light armor DPS getting attacked by 3 melee enemies and 2 ranged enemies. She hold block for 10 seconds mitigating a ton of damage while weaves in defensive spells and AoE spells that keep herself (and ergo the rest of the group) alive and does more than 20 times the damage I did while chowing down my cheeseburger.
Not only do I gain more ultimate for doing nothing that meaningfully contributes to my group, but Sue gains NOTHING and is low on resources to show for it.
Edited by Joy_Division on December 30, 2014 7:52AM5 -
Razzak✭✭✭✭✭
Surely, as a supposed software designer, you would recognize that a statement made about the current iteration of a project that is not only incomplete but untested and unbalanced is not a "promise".
It depends on the way a promise is worded. Maria's was not one about the current iteration on an incomplete, untested and unbalanced system. It was a promise of a value of our work being recognized.
3 -
AshySamurai✭✭✭✭✭
✭onlinegamer1 wrote: »
1. Wrong, I am.
2. Fixed your comment for accuracy.
Remember, the (up to) 20 point difference is not a balance issue - @ZOS said so themselves in ESO live (that the first points you spend in "stars" give the most bang for the point, and subsequent points suffer diminishing returns). This is NOT a balance issue, its a PR (Public Relations) issue for ZoS.
1. Well, ok. If you don't do any damage as a tank - let's say you play your own way.
2. Nope. You can't fix that is not broken. Also, you are not a moderator/admin. You just quoted me and edited it as you want to see it.
If you ask me - CS is not balance issue at all. First points are the most powerful. It is you who said that it is about balance.Make sweetrolls, not nerfs!2 -
Joejudas✭✭✭✭✭I find it interesting that non of the people defending these bad decisions are on PvE Leaderboards. Seems like we know which group of casuals was consulted with....hmmmmmm4
-
risen1981✭✭Only thing that really bugs me OP is the following "only ultima online and everquest pre-date it"
Wich is of course wrong
Here is a small list of games released before asherons call
Realm online ( 1996 )
Nexus the kingdom of winds ( 1996, 1998 in US )
Meridian 59 ( 1996 )
Lineage ( 1998 )
and of course both you mentioned
Ultima online (1997)
Everquest ( 1999 )
quite a few before Asherons call dont you think?..
but yea i'm annoying like that, anyways i think we should just wait and see until its launched then you get to complain1 -
Drasn✭✭✭✭The problem with the new ultimate mechanic is that not all ultimates are equal. Right now, nova and veil are the go to ultimates for group/trial mitigation. That's probably not going to change. What will change is the numbers of nightblades and templars brought to keep that ultimate rotation.
For instance on mantikora it takes 1-3 nightblades(depending on build) to keep veils down for his stomp mechanic. If ultimate generation is going to be as bad as it sounds there are going to be sorcs and dks that loose trial spots due to needing/wanting more nightblades.4 -
onlinegamer1✭✭✭✭✭
✭It seems to me that everyone agrees that 30 CPs vs 50 CPs is, in fact, moot and almost meaningless.
So, by definition, you all agree that ZoS should do it. Since it doesn't affect balance (as I already proved), but it DOES affect ZoS reputation.3 -
BBSooner✭✭✭✭✭
✭
It depends on the way a promise is worded. Maria's was not one about the current iteration on an incomplete, untested and unbalanced system. It was a promise of a value of our work being recognized.
Did you read something nobody else did? There was no promise made, she said how the current unfinished version was planned, and in the next two sentences spoke about how they still had no idea how it was all going to play out. How does that not come off as unfinished? As for untested - it's still not even on the pts.Edited by BBSooner on December 30, 2014 2:14PM3 -
onlinegamer1✭✭✭✭✭
✭
Did you read something nobody else did? There was no promise made, she said how the current unfinished version was planned, and in the next two sentences spoke about how they still had no idea how it was all going to play out. How does that not come off as unfinished? As for untested - it's still not even on the pts.
ZOS_MariaAliprando wrote: »
Continue to play! We are tracking your XP as you advance your way through Veteran Ranks and even past VR14. When the Champion System comes out we will reward you points right away based on the amount of XP you have earned up to a cap.
Undeniably a promise.5 -
BBSooner✭✭✭✭✭
✭onlinegamer1 wrote: »
ZOS_MariaAliprando wrote: »
Continue to play! We are tracking your XP as you advance your way through Veteran Ranks and even past VR14. When the Champion System comes out we will reward you points right away based on the amount of XP you have earned up to a cap.
Undeniably a promise.
Finish the quote. Undeniably a statement made about unfinished code.3 -
onlinegamer1✭✭✭✭✭
✭
Finish the quote. Undeniably a statement made about unfinished code.
Quote is finished, its clearly and undeniably a promise as worded.3 -
BBSooner✭✭✭✭✭
✭onlinegamer1 wrote: »
Quote is finished, its clearly and undeniably a promise as worded.
Cherry picking from a full statement is cute and all, but I hope you realize the difference - even if you're too upset about the change to admit it right now.3 -
onlinegamer1✭✭✭✭✭
✭
Cherry picking from a full statement is cute and all, but I hope you realize the difference - even if you're too upset about the change to admit it right now.
I can understand your confusion, since you are not in our profession (software design), and as a layperson, you don't really understand the quote. For example, you think the quote is from Maria Aliprando. Of course, it's not, it's from Zenimax Online Studios via one of their employees. That is just one example of the kind of misunderstanding most players on this forum have about ZOS' promise.
The business implication in what ZOS wrote in that promise is financial gain via a false promise. As many others have mentioned, they would have simply canceled if they knew the truth.
[Moderator Note: Edited per our rules on Flaming]Edited by ZOS_UlyssesW on December 31, 2014 4:15PM6