Maintenance for the week of October 28:
• PC/Mac: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – November 1, 4:00AM EDT (8:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EDT (13:00 UTC)
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/668104/
• PC/Mac: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – November 1, 4:00AM EDT (8:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EDT (13:00 UTC)
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/668104/
ZoS incompetence rears its head again (re: initial champion points nerf)
-
DanielMaxwell✭✭✭DanielMaxwell wrote: »DanielMaxwell wrote: »DanielMaxwell wrote: »
I'll give you one that predates EQ and UODanielMaxwell wrote: »DanielMaxwell wrote: »DanielMaxwell wrote: »onlinegamer1 wrote: »ZoS decision to give everyone 30 CPs, period, no matter what VR rank you have, no matter how much XP you've earned AFTER BEING TOLD BY ZOS IT WOULD COUNT TOWARDS CPs, no matter how many VRs you've leveled, is a bad decision and shows ZoS utter incompetence.
Imagine for a second that they kept their initial plan (that you have to get XP to earn your inital CP pool, and that there would be a cap on how many you can earn in advance), and set the CP cap at 30.
Would you still be mad today? After all, they did exactly what they promised, so the answer should be no, right?
Fast forward. They "broke their promise" by giving you exactly the same 30 CP you would get above, except that they told you everyone is getting them. And you are mad.
Literally the only difference between these scenarios is that the other players are getting 30 CP as well. And this makes you mad?
Nothing has changed as far as you are concerned, but oh my god, THEY are getting something for free! Burn them, burn them all!
/rollseyes.
It has nothing to do with other players but rather some representation of the XP earned from vet content. If 30 CP was somehow representative of the 20 million XP earned while doing vet content then fine but we all know that is completely untrue. It's not unfair because someone at V1 is getting 30 free CP..nobody cares about that. It's unfair because someone at V1 is getting 30 CP *AND* still has access to 20 million or more XP that is represented by the veteran content. That's it. Nothing else.
would it make you feel better if they choose to instead reset all level 50 and level 50 plus quests and give nobody any champion system points ?onlinegamer1 wrote: »onlinegamer1 wrote: »OrangeTheCat wrote: »onlinegamer1 wrote: »DanielMaxwell wrote: »Grinding includes doing quests.
False. Please don't post incorrect things.
It does include doing quests when you are killing mobs along the way that you might not otherwise do. It's all part of the results of the xp tracking.
Again, 100% false. Grinding is absolutely, completely, mutually exclusive to questing. Please stop posting false information.
It is not false, just subjective. Someone who hates questing, but does quest after quest after quest for hours on end anyway just because it is the fastest way to level and he wants to hit the max asap - this person would subjectively consider his activity to be a grind.
Again, 100% false and not up to interpretation.
Grinding is a term. A defined term. You can't just make up your own definition for it.
Grinding is killing mobs over and over and over in 1 spot or area.. That is all grinding is. If you ride off to a quest giver and then get another quest and then ride to a new location to complete a quest, that's not grinding.
Period.
Its not up for debate.
You are wrong. That is all.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/grindgrind
(grīnd)
v. ground (ground), grind·ing, grinds
4. Informal A laborious task, routine, or study: the daily grind.
17. laborious, usu. uninteresting work.
Grinding in relation to gaming is not a dictionary term it's a gaming term.
If there are multiple possible definitions of grinding then you can not claim people are wrong when they use the other definition than the one you meant. That was my point.
If i say that doing quests repeatedly is grinding for me, nobody is in a position to say i am wrong. Because one of the definitions of grinding equals it to 'repetitive, laborious, uninteresting work', and for some, that's exactly what repetitive questing is.
There are plenty of terms that relate to gaming and don't have the same or identical meaning outside of gaming. If you want to purposely use the term incorrectly for the benefit of proving your point that's your own misinformed decision but it doesn't change the term definition as it relates to gaming.
you can grind quests , mobs , dungeons , or skill lines .
every thing in the game is a grind , that does not mean that every thing in the game is unpleasant .
you grind quests by grabbing every quest in a quest hub doing them then turning them in before moving to the next hub.
you grind dungeons by forming a group and running dungeons back to back .
you grind mobs by finding a location with a high respawn rate of mobs that give a decent amount of XP based on being solo or in a group .
you grind skill lines by using them or focusing on the actions that progress them .
It would make me feel better if they did something fair and proportional and followed through on their promise to reward players who continued to play while waiting for CP system to be released. Some of us knew there was a potential issue with this and it was brought up if vet content should be saved and we were told to go ahead and burn through it because it was being tracked and would be converted to CP later.
You can make declarative statements all you want but that is not grinding. Grinding has nothing to do with pleasant or unpleasant or quests. It's grinding on mobs for XP (or in some cases faction). That's it. It's a term that was coined prior to WoW which is the first real game that leveled by way of questing. Some of the newer MMO players want to attach questing to the term because they don't like questing but that is incorrect. Grinding is grinding on mobs. Period. End of story. Not up for debate.
so then since most other MMO games would give you nothing when they remove one system and replace it with a new system , ZOS giving all VR1 and up accounts 30 points is not fair . be glad they are giving you that much.
as far as grinding goes you have it wrong , grinding is not just farming mobs as I stated how you can do other methods of grinding . grinding in a MMO does not mean just doing activities you do not enjoy , it is all about progressing your character as fast as you can by whatever means are legitimate in the game .
Grinding is a gaming term coined at a time before this "quest grinding" was even an option. How can it be included in that definition if it didn't exist when the phrase was coined? You can try to attach new meaning to the term all you want but that doesn't change the original meaning of the term. I realize you probably grew up with WoW and think that is the dawn of MMOs so your experience is the standard but that is not the case. You don't get to redefine a phrase to suit your personal needs. You can keep claiming that all you want and you will continue to be wrong.
Everquest was not the dawn of online gaming there where other online games out well before it and many of them included quest grinding along with mob , and dungeon grinding . yes most of them where not as successful as Everquest but that does not negate their exsistance or the impact they have on how games are played or the terms created to express how they are played.
get over the fact that your using a extremely narrow definition of the term only to support your point of view while saying any other definition is wrong , simply because the other definitions reduce your argument .
WoW was the first quest-centric MMO. If you are going to argue otherwise then name them. Grinding was also a term that was coined in EQ so while EQ may not have been the dawn of online gaming it was the origin of the term in question (unless you can provide information to the contrary which you can't).
NWN accessed through the AOL service . That game was quest centric even more the WoW was . There where several others available via other services that I did not play but where also quest centric , but most of them where text MUD's .
I never played UO but I'm fairly sure it didn't use quest hubs for leveling. I believe that was a skills based game so you actually were required to grind on mobs (or do whatever activity is related to the skill) to raise your skills so no that is not a quest-centric game. Some early (barely even graphical) NWN game on the 1991 AoL service hardly resembles anything even remotely close to what you are now calling quest grinding. It was mostly a text game but with some basic graphics. Nice try but fail.
I never said UO was quest centric , and you just acknowledged that there are other ways to grind with what you said in regards to UO , doing what advances your skill lines . EQ did have a level of questing in it but it was not on the same level of WoW .
NWN was on AOL before 1991 , it was on AOL in 1989 when I started playing it and it had been on AOL for a couple of years before I started playing it .
you asked for a game that was quest centric that predated WoW and i named one . when you dismiss facts that you do not agree with you diminish your own arguments reducing any valid points you wish to make.
I don't think you understand what "quest-centric" means. It means quests are central to the leveling in the game. That was the design. WoW designed the leveling experience around the quests not around killing things specifically. Yes, there were quests in EQ but they were not central to the leveling experience and there was no way you could use quests to level your character. They didn't even play a minor role in experience required for leveling.
An MMO that has quests is not the same as a game that revolves around questing. You don't seem to have a grasp of the subject matter which is probably why you believe questing is the same as grinding. I said name a quest-centric MMO that predates WoW and you named two games that were not quest-centric.
EQ did have quest hubs but you are right that questing was not the only way to level you did have options (mainly mob grinding) , but you could level by questing even if if was slow and boring (EQ had some of the dullest quests at the time) .
you apparently never leveled a character in NWN since you had to do every quest to level at a decent rate (you know that quest grinding I refferred to) making it a very quest centric game . This means that NWN meets what you asked for .
No. EQ did not have quest hubs. The quests in EQ were largely found by probing NPCs for text that would generate more text and might give you clues as to some quest. It was not an alternate form of leveling. You could not level your character with quests. Not even remotely close. Sorry but you are wrong. The questing in EQ is absolutely nothing like it is in WoW or most other MMOs now.
The AoL NWN game is essentially a text based game so how would you grind mobs exactly? Sorry but those are not valid games that meet the criteria. Fail.
never said they where easy to find just that they where there , of course EQ before any xpacks did have markers over some of the quest givers (that was not something invented by blizzard for WoW)
the old AOL NWN game was all graphical but the simple fact is it does meet what you asked for . you asked for evidence of a game that was quest centric prior to WoW and I gave you one that predated two MMO's that did have had an impact on game play and design , that was quest centric . in order to hit max level in NWN you had to do all of the quests .
as for you , or anybody else , being out of quest content you have no body to blame but yourself . you had an unrealistic expectation that ZOS would be able to fulfill their promise . if you had been playing computers games for more the 5 years you would know that promise was unlikely to be one they could keep since almost no game developer has been able to implement any new system how the planned when they first announced it as it will change based on in house testing and feedback from any PTS testing they do.
I will also point out that this is only phase 3 , they might be planning to convert your tracked XP into champion points when phase 4 is implemented
stop panicking and start thinking clearly and remember that no body on these forums has all of the data on this subject at this time.3 -
Sharee✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Players who have ever completed a quest in any veteran zone are at a disadvantage.
They cannot get xp from that quest to count towards their CP anymore. But the limiting factor here is time, not amount of quests.
Let's say you completed a quest in vet zones, and i did not. Theoretically, you are at a disadvantage, yes? But now you have 3443 quests to do, while i have 3444. Who will level CP faster? That only depends on how much you or i play. The 'quests available' plays no role here. As long as either of us isn't completely dry of all quests, we will level at the same pace, assuming same playtime.
And by the time you use up all quests, while i still have that one available, and finally can cash in my 'advantage' - ZOS would have released tons of new content, making the 'advantage' moot.
3 -
Unlikely_Ghostbuster✭✭✭✭@xaraan is the perfect example of a player who I fully (and rightly) would expect to hit whatever Champion Point cap they *should* introduce... (not 30), even if that cap were 5-10% of the total potential points.
Consider that -- if the cap were only 5-10% of all 3600 potential Champion Points, that's still only 180-360 potential points from "onset" of Update 1.6. Relatively speaking, across the timeframe of it potentially taking a couple of years to achieve all 3600 points, what huge crime would it be if @xaraan was rewarded with the full amount of champion points the presumed "onset" cap would allow?
Honestly, I wouldn't mind -- I don't mind. Good on @xaraan for being such a tenacious player. I have a VR14 sorc main, who is my principle crafter (8-9 traits on all 34 items), a VR14 DK werewolf, who is my provisioner & alchemist, and a VR5 Templar I've been leveling to be my healer and take over enchanting from my main to free up some skill points. The first two characters have completed all of Cadwell's Silver/Gold, and the Templar has almost finished Cadwell's Silver. In total, between those three characters, I have at least 25,000 achievement points and 142 dye colors unlocked (I refuse to fish). After seeing @xaraan describe his docket of characters, I think it's completely justified and fair for him to be rewarded at least twice as many Champion Points as I will (potentially) be rewarded.
In fact, that's actually not a terrible idea...
Set the cap at 360 Champion Points (10% of the 3600 total), with the maximum 1.6 "onset" reward being no more than 60 Champion Points per veteran-level character for up to six of an account's highest-level characters, while still granting 30 points to all accounts with at least one veteran character. Under those criteria, best-case, I'd potentially get up to180 Champion points between my three veteran characters, @xaraan would likely get all 360, and we'd both still have at least 90% of the Champion System to fulfill -- years of gameplay still ahead of us, both. That way, the exploit grinders won't be given an unfair point advantage over the PvP/PvE questers, or vice-versa, and the new recruits and returning players don't lose out, either.2 -
manny254✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭DanielMaxwell wrote: »DanielMaxwell wrote: »DanielMaxwell wrote: »DanielMaxwell wrote: »
I'll give you one that predates EQ and UODanielMaxwell wrote: »DanielMaxwell wrote: »DanielMaxwell wrote: »onlinegamer1 wrote: »ZoS decision to give everyone 30 CPs, period, no matter what VR rank you have, no matter how much XP you've earned AFTER BEING TOLD BY ZOS IT WOULD COUNT TOWARDS CPs, no matter how many VRs you've leveled, is a bad decision and shows ZoS utter incompetence.
Imagine for a second that they kept their initial plan (that you have to get XP to earn your inital CP pool, and that there would be a cap on how many you can earn in advance), and set the CP cap at 30.
Would you still be mad today? After all, they did exactly what they promised, so the answer should be no, right?
Fast forward. They "broke their promise" by giving you exactly the same 30 CP you would get above, except that they told you everyone is getting them. And you are mad.
Literally the only difference between these scenarios is that the other players are getting 30 CP as well. And this makes you mad?
Nothing has changed as far as you are concerned, but oh my god, THEY are getting something for free! Burn them, burn them all!
/rollseyes.
It has nothing to do with other players but rather some representation of the XP earned from vet content. If 30 CP was somehow representative of the 20 million XP earned while doing vet content then fine but we all know that is completely untrue. It's not unfair because someone at V1 is getting 30 free CP..nobody cares about that. It's unfair because someone at V1 is getting 30 CP *AND* still has access to 20 million or more XP that is represented by the veteran content. That's it. Nothing else.
would it make you feel better if they choose to instead reset all level 50 and level 50 plus quests and give nobody any champion system points ?onlinegamer1 wrote: »onlinegamer1 wrote: »OrangeTheCat wrote: »onlinegamer1 wrote: »DanielMaxwell wrote: »Grinding includes doing quests.
False. Please don't post incorrect things.
It does include doing quests when you are killing mobs along the way that you might not otherwise do. It's all part of the results of the xp tracking.
Again, 100% false. Grinding is absolutely, completely, mutually exclusive to questing. Please stop posting false information.
It is not false, just subjective. Someone who hates questing, but does quest after quest after quest for hours on end anyway just because it is the fastest way to level and he wants to hit the max asap - this person would subjectively consider his activity to be a grind.
Again, 100% false and not up to interpretation.
Grinding is a term. A defined term. You can't just make up your own definition for it.
Grinding is killing mobs over and over and over in 1 spot or area.. That is all grinding is. If you ride off to a quest giver and then get another quest and then ride to a new location to complete a quest, that's not grinding.
Period.
Its not up for debate.
You are wrong. That is all.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/grindgrind
(grīnd)
v. ground (ground), grind·ing, grinds
4. Informal A laborious task, routine, or study: the daily grind.
17. laborious, usu. uninteresting work.
Grinding in relation to gaming is not a dictionary term it's a gaming term.
If there are multiple possible definitions of grinding then you can not claim people are wrong when they use the other definition than the one you meant. That was my point.
If i say that doing quests repeatedly is grinding for me, nobody is in a position to say i am wrong. Because one of the definitions of grinding equals it to 'repetitive, laborious, uninteresting work', and for some, that's exactly what repetitive questing is.
There are plenty of terms that relate to gaming and don't have the same or identical meaning outside of gaming. If you want to purposely use the term incorrectly for the benefit of proving your point that's your own misinformed decision but it doesn't change the term definition as it relates to gaming.
you can grind quests , mobs , dungeons , or skill lines .
every thing in the game is a grind , that does not mean that every thing in the game is unpleasant .
you grind quests by grabbing every quest in a quest hub doing them then turning them in before moving to the next hub.
you grind dungeons by forming a group and running dungeons back to back .
you grind mobs by finding a location with a high respawn rate of mobs that give a decent amount of XP based on being solo or in a group .
you grind skill lines by using them or focusing on the actions that progress them .
It would make me feel better if they did something fair and proportional and followed through on their promise to reward players who continued to play while waiting for CP system to be released. Some of us knew there was a potential issue with this and it was brought up if vet content should be saved and we were told to go ahead and burn through it because it was being tracked and would be converted to CP later.
You can make declarative statements all you want but that is not grinding. Grinding has nothing to do with pleasant or unpleasant or quests. It's grinding on mobs for XP (or in some cases faction). That's it. It's a term that was coined prior to WoW which is the first real game that leveled by way of questing. Some of the newer MMO players want to attach questing to the term because they don't like questing but that is incorrect. Grinding is grinding on mobs. Period. End of story. Not up for debate.
so then since most other MMO games would give you nothing when they remove one system and replace it with a new system , ZOS giving all VR1 and up accounts 30 points is not fair . be glad they are giving you that much.
as far as grinding goes you have it wrong , grinding is not just farming mobs as I stated how you can do other methods of grinding . grinding in a MMO does not mean just doing activities you do not enjoy , it is all about progressing your character as fast as you can by whatever means are legitimate in the game .
Grinding is a gaming term coined at a time before this "quest grinding" was even an option. How can it be included in that definition if it didn't exist when the phrase was coined? You can try to attach new meaning to the term all you want but that doesn't change the original meaning of the term. I realize you probably grew up with WoW and think that is the dawn of MMOs so your experience is the standard but that is not the case. You don't get to redefine a phrase to suit your personal needs. You can keep claiming that all you want and you will continue to be wrong.
Everquest was not the dawn of online gaming there where other online games out well before it and many of them included quest grinding along with mob , and dungeon grinding . yes most of them where not as successful as Everquest but that does not negate their exsistance or the impact they have on how games are played or the terms created to express how they are played.
get over the fact that your using a extremely narrow definition of the term only to support your point of view while saying any other definition is wrong , simply because the other definitions reduce your argument .
WoW was the first quest-centric MMO. If you are going to argue otherwise then name them. Grinding was also a term that was coined in EQ so while EQ may not have been the dawn of online gaming it was the origin of the term in question (unless you can provide information to the contrary which you can't).
NWN accessed through the AOL service . That game was quest centric even more the WoW was . There where several others available via other services that I did not play but where also quest centric , but most of them where text MUD's .
I never played UO but I'm fairly sure it didn't use quest hubs for leveling. I believe that was a skills based game so you actually were required to grind on mobs (or do whatever activity is related to the skill) to raise your skills so no that is not a quest-centric game. Some early (barely even graphical) NWN game on the 1991 AoL service hardly resembles anything even remotely close to what you are now calling quest grinding. It was mostly a text game but with some basic graphics. Nice try but fail.
I never said UO was quest centric , and you just acknowledged that there are other ways to grind with what you said in regards to UO , doing what advances your skill lines . EQ did have a level of questing in it but it was not on the same level of WoW .
NWN was on AOL before 1991 , it was on AOL in 1989 when I started playing it and it had been on AOL for a couple of years before I started playing it .
you asked for a game that was quest centric that predated WoW and i named one . when you dismiss facts that you do not agree with you diminish your own arguments reducing any valid points you wish to make.
I don't think you understand what "quest-centric" means. It means quests are central to the leveling in the game. That was the design. WoW designed the leveling experience around the quests not around killing things specifically. Yes, there were quests in EQ but they were not central to the leveling experience and there was no way you could use quests to level your character. They didn't even play a minor role in experience required for leveling.
An MMO that has quests is not the same as a game that revolves around questing. You don't seem to have a grasp of the subject matter which is probably why you believe questing is the same as grinding. I said name a quest-centric MMO that predates WoW and you named two games that were not quest-centric.
EQ did have quest hubs but you are right that questing was not the only way to level you did have options (mainly mob grinding) , but you could level by questing even if if was slow and boring (EQ had some of the dullest quests at the time) .
you apparently never leveled a character in NWN since you had to do every quest to level at a decent rate (you know that quest grinding I refferred to) making it a very quest centric game . This means that NWN meets what you asked for .
No. EQ did not have quest hubs. The quests in EQ were largely found by probing NPCs for text that would generate more text and might give you clues as to some quest. It was not an alternate form of leveling. You could not level your character with quests. Not even remotely close. Sorry but you are wrong. The questing in EQ is absolutely nothing like it is in WoW or most other MMOs now.
The AoL NWN game is essentially a text based game so how would you grind mobs exactly? Sorry but those are not valid games that meet the criteria. Fail.
stop panicking and start thinking clearly and remember that no body on these forums has all of the data on this subject at this time.
Well that is all great, but I could use the same argument to discredit what you have speculated. All we can do is react to what we where told during the live stream, and we can only do this with how we interpreted it. If this is what ZoS is doing we need to make our opinions known from the very start. My opinion most likely will be changed slightly based on their eventual response, but I can only speak on what I know now.- Mojican1 -
manny254✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Players who have ever completed a quest in any veteran zone are at a disadvantage.
They cannot get xp from that quest to count towards their CP anymore. But the limiting factor here is time, not amount of quests.
Let's say you completed a quest in vet zones, and i did not. Theoretically, you are at a disadvantage, yes? But now you have 3443 quests to do, while i have 3444. Who will level CP faster? That only depends on how much you or i play. The 'quests available' plays no role here. As long as either of us isn't completely dry of all quests, we will level at the same pace, assuming same playtime.
And by the time you use up all quests, while i still have that one available, and finally can cash in my 'advantage' - ZOS would have released tons of new content, making the 'advantage' moot.
Lets just take @ xarran for example. I play with him regularly, and we where leveling characters together before this past eso live.
If this didn't happen we would have finished leveling our current characters before the end of the month. He would have probably get another v14 character by the end of January based on his play speed.
So the champion system would probably release late Jan or early Feb and he would have one character who has not completed cadwells silver and gold.
So he and a v1 player would have the same amount of quest to do, but after a month and both of them where v14 he would have no more characters. The former v1 would still have 7 characters to level.
[Moderator Note: Edited per our rules on Flaming]Edited by ZOS_MichelleA on December 22, 2014 2:22AM- Mojican2 -
DanielMaxwell✭✭✭DanielMaxwell wrote: »DanielMaxwell wrote: »DanielMaxwell wrote: »DanielMaxwell wrote: »
I'll give you one that predates EQ and UODanielMaxwell wrote: »DanielMaxwell wrote: »DanielMaxwell wrote: »onlinegamer1 wrote: »ZoS decision to give everyone 30 CPs, period, no matter what VR rank you have, no matter how much XP you've earned AFTER BEING TOLD BY ZOS IT WOULD COUNT TOWARDS CPs, no matter how many VRs you've leveled, is a bad decision and shows ZoS utter incompetence.
Imagine for a second that they kept their initial plan (that you have to get XP to earn your inital CP pool, and that there would be a cap on how many you can earn in advance), and set the CP cap at 30.
Would you still be mad today? After all, they did exactly what they promised, so the answer should be no, right?
Fast forward. They "broke their promise" by giving you exactly the same 30 CP you would get above, except that they told you everyone is getting them. And you are mad.
Literally the only difference between these scenarios is that the other players are getting 30 CP as well. And this makes you mad?
Nothing has changed as far as you are concerned, but oh my god, THEY are getting something for free! Burn them, burn them all!
/rollseyes.
It has nothing to do with other players but rather some representation of the XP earned from vet content. If 30 CP was somehow representative of the 20 million XP earned while doing vet content then fine but we all know that is completely untrue. It's not unfair because someone at V1 is getting 30 free CP..nobody cares about that. It's unfair because someone at V1 is getting 30 CP *AND* still has access to 20 million or more XP that is represented by the veteran content. That's it. Nothing else.
would it make you feel better if they choose to instead reset all level 50 and level 50 plus quests and give nobody any champion system points ?onlinegamer1 wrote: »onlinegamer1 wrote: »OrangeTheCat wrote: »onlinegamer1 wrote: »DanielMaxwell wrote: »Grinding includes doing quests.
False. Please don't post incorrect things.
It does include doing quests when you are killing mobs along the way that you might not otherwise do. It's all part of the results of the xp tracking.
Again, 100% false. Grinding is absolutely, completely, mutually exclusive to questing. Please stop posting false information.
It is not false, just subjective. Someone who hates questing, but does quest after quest after quest for hours on end anyway just because it is the fastest way to level and he wants to hit the max asap - this person would subjectively consider his activity to be a grind.
Again, 100% false and not up to interpretation.
Grinding is a term. A defined term. You can't just make up your own definition for it.
Grinding is killing mobs over and over and over in 1 spot or area.. That is all grinding is. If you ride off to a quest giver and then get another quest and then ride to a new location to complete a quest, that's not grinding.
Period.
Its not up for debate.
You are wrong. That is all.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/grindgrind
(grīnd)
v. ground (ground), grind·ing, grinds
4. Informal A laborious task, routine, or study: the daily grind.
17. laborious, usu. uninteresting work.
Grinding in relation to gaming is not a dictionary term it's a gaming term.
If there are multiple possible definitions of grinding then you can not claim people are wrong when they use the other definition than the one you meant. That was my point.
If i say that doing quests repeatedly is grinding for me, nobody is in a position to say i am wrong. Because one of the definitions of grinding equals it to 'repetitive, laborious, uninteresting work', and for some, that's exactly what repetitive questing is.
There are plenty of terms that relate to gaming and don't have the same or identical meaning outside of gaming. If you want to purposely use the term incorrectly for the benefit of proving your point that's your own misinformed decision but it doesn't change the term definition as it relates to gaming.
you can grind quests , mobs , dungeons , or skill lines .
every thing in the game is a grind , that does not mean that every thing in the game is unpleasant .
you grind quests by grabbing every quest in a quest hub doing them then turning them in before moving to the next hub.
you grind dungeons by forming a group and running dungeons back to back .
you grind mobs by finding a location with a high respawn rate of mobs that give a decent amount of XP based on being solo or in a group .
you grind skill lines by using them or focusing on the actions that progress them .
It would make me feel better if they did something fair and proportional and followed through on their promise to reward players who continued to play while waiting for CP system to be released. Some of us knew there was a potential issue with this and it was brought up if vet content should be saved and we were told to go ahead and burn through it because it was being tracked and would be converted to CP later.
You can make declarative statements all you want but that is not grinding. Grinding has nothing to do with pleasant or unpleasant or quests. It's grinding on mobs for XP (or in some cases faction). That's it. It's a term that was coined prior to WoW which is the first real game that leveled by way of questing. Some of the newer MMO players want to attach questing to the term because they don't like questing but that is incorrect. Grinding is grinding on mobs. Period. End of story. Not up for debate.
so then since most other MMO games would give you nothing when they remove one system and replace it with a new system , ZOS giving all VR1 and up accounts 30 points is not fair . be glad they are giving you that much.
as far as grinding goes you have it wrong , grinding is not just farming mobs as I stated how you can do other methods of grinding . grinding in a MMO does not mean just doing activities you do not enjoy , it is all about progressing your character as fast as you can by whatever means are legitimate in the game .
Grinding is a gaming term coined at a time before this "quest grinding" was even an option. How can it be included in that definition if it didn't exist when the phrase was coined? You can try to attach new meaning to the term all you want but that doesn't change the original meaning of the term. I realize you probably grew up with WoW and think that is the dawn of MMOs so your experience is the standard but that is not the case. You don't get to redefine a phrase to suit your personal needs. You can keep claiming that all you want and you will continue to be wrong.
Everquest was not the dawn of online gaming there where other online games out well before it and many of them included quest grinding along with mob , and dungeon grinding . yes most of them where not as successful as Everquest but that does not negate their exsistance or the impact they have on how games are played or the terms created to express how they are played.
get over the fact that your using a extremely narrow definition of the term only to support your point of view while saying any other definition is wrong , simply because the other definitions reduce your argument .
WoW was the first quest-centric MMO. If you are going to argue otherwise then name them. Grinding was also a term that was coined in EQ so while EQ may not have been the dawn of online gaming it was the origin of the term in question (unless you can provide information to the contrary which you can't).
NWN accessed through the AOL service . That game was quest centric even more the WoW was . There where several others available via other services that I did not play but where also quest centric , but most of them where text MUD's .
I never played UO but I'm fairly sure it didn't use quest hubs for leveling. I believe that was a skills based game so you actually were required to grind on mobs (or do whatever activity is related to the skill) to raise your skills so no that is not a quest-centric game. Some early (barely even graphical) NWN game on the 1991 AoL service hardly resembles anything even remotely close to what you are now calling quest grinding. It was mostly a text game but with some basic graphics. Nice try but fail.
I never said UO was quest centric , and you just acknowledged that there are other ways to grind with what you said in regards to UO , doing what advances your skill lines . EQ did have a level of questing in it but it was not on the same level of WoW .
NWN was on AOL before 1991 , it was on AOL in 1989 when I started playing it and it had been on AOL for a couple of years before I started playing it .
you asked for a game that was quest centric that predated WoW and i named one . when you dismiss facts that you do not agree with you diminish your own arguments reducing any valid points you wish to make.
I don't think you understand what "quest-centric" means. It means quests are central to the leveling in the game. That was the design. WoW designed the leveling experience around the quests not around killing things specifically. Yes, there were quests in EQ but they were not central to the leveling experience and there was no way you could use quests to level your character. They didn't even play a minor role in experience required for leveling.
An MMO that has quests is not the same as a game that revolves around questing. You don't seem to have a grasp of the subject matter which is probably why you believe questing is the same as grinding. I said name a quest-centric MMO that predates WoW and you named two games that were not quest-centric.
EQ did have quest hubs but you are right that questing was not the only way to level you did have options (mainly mob grinding) , but you could level by questing even if if was slow and boring (EQ had some of the dullest quests at the time) .
you apparently never leveled a character in NWN since you had to do every quest to level at a decent rate (you know that quest grinding I refferred to) making it a very quest centric game . This means that NWN meets what you asked for .
No. EQ did not have quest hubs. The quests in EQ were largely found by probing NPCs for text that would generate more text and might give you clues as to some quest. It was not an alternate form of leveling. You could not level your character with quests. Not even remotely close. Sorry but you are wrong. The questing in EQ is absolutely nothing like it is in WoW or most other MMOs now.
The AoL NWN game is essentially a text based game so how would you grind mobs exactly? Sorry but those are not valid games that meet the criteria. Fail.
stop panicking and start thinking clearly and remember that no body on these forums has all of the data on this subject at this time.
Well that is all great, but I could use the same argument to discredit what you have speculated. All we can do is react to what we where told during the live stream, and we can only do this with how we interpreted it. If this is what ZoS is doing we need to make our opinions known from the very start. My opinion most likely will be changed slightly based on their eventual response, but I can only speak on what I know now.
another one who clips the quote .
you left out the rest of the post .copied below
never said they where easy to find just that they where there , of course EQ before any xpacks did have markers over some of the quest givers (that was not something invented by blizzard for WoW)
the old AOL NWN game was all graphical but the simple fact is it does meet what you asked for . you asked for evidence of a game that was quest centric prior to WoW and I gave you one that predated two MMO's that did have had an impact on game play and design , that was quest centric . in order to hit max level in NWN you had to do all of the quests .
as for you , or anybody else , being out of quest content you have no body to blame but yourself . you had an unrealistic expectation that ZOS would be able to fulfill their promise . if you had been playing computers games for more the 5 years you would know that promise was unlikely to be one they could keep since almost no game developer has been able to implement any new system how the planned when they first announced it as it will change based on in house testing and feedback from any PTS testing they do.
I will also point out that this is only phase 3 , they might be planning to convert your tracked XP into champion points when phase 4 is implemented
stop panicking and start thinking clearly and remember that no body on these forums has all of the data on this subject at this time.
3 -
Seriously, if you guys really feel a new char is at that much of an advantage (I still completely disagree), you have plenty of time to get a few new charscters to VR1 before launch so you can go load up on champion points to spend on all your other characters.2
-
Gyudan✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭I hope that @xaraan is ok with becoming the flagship of the 30gate, even if his own demands are often much lower than what others are suggesting.
I'm also wondering how many notifications @xaraan is getting. Is it one for each time the name is typed or is is capped at one per post?
I believe that this mess has lasted long enough and that it's now time for some clarifications, hopefully coming soon.
Maybe Eric Wrobel could be kept locked in his office when Maria's in the Live. I'm sure he meant well but all those interruptions ended up creating interrogations, and eventually this whole [snip]. (Feel free to invite him again in solo though, he's a great guest too)
[Moderator Note: Edited per our rules on Cursing & Profanity]Edited by ZOS_UlyssesW on January 1, 2015 4:34PMWololo.3 -
manny254✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭
It is not theoretical. If two people somehow played the exact same amount of time the other would still have a pool advantage. The situation that I described above and that of any player who has reached max level through questing creates a large gap in the pool of potential points.Players who have ever completed a quest in any veteran zone are at a disadvantage.
They cannot get xp from that quest to count towards their CP anymore. But the limiting factor here is time, not amount of quests.
Let's say you completed a quest in vet zones, and i did not. Theoretically, you are at a disadvantage, yes? But now you have 3443 quests to do, while i have 3444. Who will level CP faster? That only depends on how much you or i play. The 'quests available' plays no role here. As long as either of us isn't completely dry of all quests, we will level at the same pace, assuming same playtime.
And by the time you use up all quests, while i still have that one available, and finally can cash in my 'advantage' - ZOS would have released tons of new content, making the 'advantage' moot.
Time is not a constant value for me or anyone else. To assume so is idiotic at best. Also really 3443 vs 3444 really? Are you trying to troll?
Well it was you who said "players who have ever completed a quest" (note the singular) "in any veteran zone are at a disadvantage".
I used 3443 vs 3444 as an example, to show that the disadvantage is just theoretical, but feel free to use any other numbers with 1 difference between them. Point remains the same: as long as both players still have quests to do, it does not matter how many quests are available to each, as their progress through CP is limited by their available time, not their available quests.
- Mojican0 -
DanielMaxwell✭✭✭I hope that @xaraan is ok with becoming the flagship of the 30gate, even if his own demands are often much lower than what others are suggesting.
I'm also wondering how many notifications @xaraan is getting. Is it one for each time the name is typed or is is capped at one per post?
I believe that this mess has lasted long enough and that it's now time for some clarifications, hopefully coming soon.
Maybe Eric Wrobel could be kept locked in his office when Maria's in the Live. I'm sure he meant well but all those interruptions ended up creating interrogations, and eventually this whole [snip]. (Feel free to invite him again in solo though, he's a great guest too)
I think the notifications are one per post , otherwise he would be getting slammed with them .
My opinion is that Maria was not ready for the live stream , but that in no way excuses Eric Wrobel for interrupting her and talking over her . hopefully one of the forum mods can get her to post the information that she was trying to present on the live stream so that some of the fog around this subject can be lifted .
[Moderator Note: Edited quote to match moderated version]Edited by ZOS_UlyssesW on January 1, 2015 4:27PM1 -
Sharee✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
It is not theoretical. If two people somehow played the exact same amount of time the other would still have a pool advantage. The situation that I described above and that of any player who has reached max level through questing creates a large gap in the pool of potential points.Players who have ever completed a quest in any veteran zone are at a disadvantage.
They cannot get xp from that quest to count towards their CP anymore. But the limiting factor here is time, not amount of quests.
Let's say you completed a quest in vet zones, and i did not. Theoretically, you are at a disadvantage, yes? But now you have 3443 quests to do, while i have 3444. Who will level CP faster? That only depends on how much you or i play. The 'quests available' plays no role here. As long as either of us isn't completely dry of all quests, we will level at the same pace, assuming same playtime.
And by the time you use up all quests, while i still have that one available, and finally can cash in my 'advantage' - ZOS would have released tons of new content, making the 'advantage' moot.
Time is not a constant value for me or anyone else. To assume so is idiotic at best. Also really 3443 vs 3444 really? Are you trying to troll?
Well it was you who said "players who have ever completed a quest" (note the singular) "in any veteran zone are at a disadvantage".
I used 3443 vs 3444 as an example, to show that the disadvantage is just theoretical, but feel free to use any other numbers with 1 difference between them. Point remains the same: as long as both players still have quests to do, it does not matter how many quests are available to each, as their progress through CP is limited by their available time, not their available quests.
Pool of potential points. That it the correct term. One player has it bigger.
But this bigger potential pool does not translate into a CP difference unless the player with the smaller pool uses it up completely. Only THEN will the difference between the pools get transformed into an actual CP difference between the players.
And the pools will never run dry, because ZOS is constantly putting out new content. Thus, the disadvantage is only theoretical, and will never be transformed into an actual CP disparity.2 -
manny254✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭
It is not theoretical. If two people somehow played the exact same amount of time the other would still have a pool advantage. The situation that I described above and that of any player who has reached max level through questing creates a large gap in the pool of potential points.Players who have ever completed a quest in any veteran zone are at a disadvantage.
They cannot get xp from that quest to count towards their CP anymore. But the limiting factor here is time, not amount of quests.
Let's say you completed a quest in vet zones, and i did not. Theoretically, you are at a disadvantage, yes? But now you have 3443 quests to do, while i have 3444. Who will level CP faster? That only depends on how much you or i play. The 'quests available' plays no role here. As long as either of us isn't completely dry of all quests, we will level at the same pace, assuming same playtime.
And by the time you use up all quests, while i still have that one available, and finally can cash in my 'advantage' - ZOS would have released tons of new content, making the 'advantage' moot.
Time is not a constant value for me or anyone else. To assume so is idiotic at best. Also really 3443 vs 3444 really? Are you trying to troll?
Well it was you who said "players who have ever completed a quest" (note the singular) "in any veteran zone are at a disadvantage".
I used 3443 vs 3444 as an example, to show that the disadvantage is just theoretical, but feel free to use any other numbers with 1 difference between them. Point remains the same: as long as both players still have quests to do, it does not matter how many quests are available to each, as their progress through CP is limited by their available time, not their available quests.
Pool of potential points. That it the correct term. One player has it bigger.
But this bigger potential pool does not translate into a CP difference unless the player with the smaller pool uses it up completely. Only THEN will the difference between the pools get transformed into an actual CP difference between the players.
And the pools will never run dry, because ZOS is constantly putting out new content. Thus, the disadvantage is only theoretical, and will never be transformed into an actual CP disparity.
Look at my above example so after a month a new player can surpass @Xarraan. Its ok for a new player to be ahead of someone who had been playing the game since early access, and in the closed beta?
Also to the bold section.
You must have not played this game at launch if you think that is true.Edited by manny254 on December 22, 2014 2:36AM- Mojican1 -
olemanwinter✭✭✭✭✭DanielMaxwell wrote: »yes evry time a game releases an exspansion pack .
And expansion packs suddenly and retroactively rebalance the players? I think not.
Usually, you have to actually PLAY the new expansion to either catch up/get ahead for new gear and stats.
It's not as if the very day the expansion is released, before any content has been played, you are suddenly made a stronger or weaker character!
0 -
Gyudan✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭
It is not theoretical. If two people somehow played the exact same amount of time the other would still have a pool advantage. The situation that I described above and that of any player who has reached max level through questing creates a large gap in the pool of potential points.Players who have ever completed a quest in any veteran zone are at a disadvantage.
They cannot get xp from that quest to count towards their CP anymore. But the limiting factor here is time, not amount of quests.
Let's say you completed a quest in vet zones, and i did not. Theoretically, you are at a disadvantage, yes? But now you have 3443 quests to do, while i have 3444. Who will level CP faster? That only depends on how much you or i play. The 'quests available' plays no role here. As long as either of us isn't completely dry of all quests, we will level at the same pace, assuming same playtime.
And by the time you use up all quests, while i still have that one available, and finally can cash in my 'advantage' - ZOS would have released tons of new content, making the 'advantage' moot.
Time is not a constant value for me or anyone else. To assume so is idiotic at best. Also really 3443 vs 3444 really? Are you trying to troll?
Well it was you who said "players who have ever completed a quest" (note the singular) "in any veteran zone are at a disadvantage".
I used 3443 vs 3444 as an example, to show that the disadvantage is just theoretical, but feel free to use any other numbers with 1 difference between them. Point remains the same: as long as both players still have quests to do, it does not matter how many quests are available to each, as their progress through CP is limited by their available time, not their available quests.
Pool of potential points. That it the correct term. One player has it bigger.
But this bigger potential pool does not translate into a CP difference unless the player with the smaller pool uses it up completely. Only THEN will the difference between the pools get transformed into an actual CP difference between the players.
And the pools will never run dry, because ZOS is constantly putting out new content. Thus, the disadvantage is only theoretical, and will never be transformed into an actual CP disparity.
I don't want to be "forced" to level an alt to receive Champion Points,
I've already done Cadwell's Gold twice and it was a lot of fun but some quests feel just less good than others. For example, I didn't really like the arrival in Grahtwood when the city has to be liberated from the cultists. I've done it 3 times already and it's a bit repetitive.
I guess I'll probably roll a 4th veteran character sooner or later but I would also like to be rewarded for having done all these quests on my previous characters. The XP towards Veteran Ranks - even if that system is flawed - was at least some kind of reward for doing the quests. Now I simply feel that every element of progression that I've done since I reached the veteran ranks is being taken away from my characters.Wololo.2 -
Sharee✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Look at my above example so after a month a new player can surpass @Xarraan. Its ok for a new player to be ahead of someone who had been playing the game since early access, and in the closed beta?
Whether someone surpasses him or not depends only on how much play time both of them put into the game once 1.6 is live.
0 -
manny254✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Look at my above example so after a month a new player can surpass @Xarraan. Its ok for a new player to be ahead of someone who had been playing the game since early access, and in the closed beta?
Whether someone surpasses him or not depends only on how much play time both of them put into the game once 1.6 is live.
Yes and if they play the same amount of time as him they will surpass him in a month.- Mojican0 -
Sharee✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Look at my above example so after a month a new player can surpass @Xarraan. Its ok for a new player to be ahead of someone who had been playing the game since early access, and in the closed beta?
Whether someone surpasses him or not depends only on how much play time both of them put into the game once 1.6 is live.
Yes and if they play the same amount of time as him they will surpass him in a month.
Surpass him because they will do main quest? Main quest gives less XP/hour than simply doing cyrodiil dailies. Not to mention a v14 can grind craglorn for even more insane XP/hour.
Of course, if the V14 starts playing a princess "i wont do this, and i dont want to do that" then he could possibly fall slightly behind, but then he only has himself to blame.0 -
DanielMaxwell✭✭✭olemanwinter wrote: »DanielMaxwell wrote: »yes evry time a game releases an exspansion pack .
And expansion packs suddenly and retroactively rebalance the players? I think not.
Usually, you have to actually PLAY the new expansion to either catch up/get ahead for new gear and stats.
It's not as if the very day the expansion is released, before any content has been played, you are suddenly made a stronger or weaker character!
read the following take from my original reply to you (including all of my misspellings and typos)
an example from WoW that applies , during vanilla WoW they had a system where you had to level your weapons to imrpove you hit chance and reduce your glancing blows . I had a warrior who had every available weapon skill maxxed when they removed that system , I recieved nothing for having achieved that . They put everybody on the same level as far as weapons skill benefits when they did that since they gave everyone the benefits of having maxxed weapon skills when they removed that system . This made my level capped warrior equal to every other level capped warrior before gear is considered . I have been through a situation where I spent the time to obtain a benefit for my character(he could use all allowed weapons without penalty , opposed to warriors who had not maxxed their weapon skills) only to lose it with the removal of the weapon skills system. I still played the game for several years after that happened.
you said there was no precedent for such a reset and i provide you one that did that to a limited extent1 -
EQBallzz✭✭✭✭✭
✭
It is not theoretical. If two people somehow played the exact same amount of time the other would still have a pool advantage. The situation that I described above and that of any player who has reached max level through questing creates a large gap in the pool of potential points.Players who have ever completed a quest in any veteran zone are at a disadvantage.
They cannot get xp from that quest to count towards their CP anymore. But the limiting factor here is time, not amount of quests.
Let's say you completed a quest in vet zones, and i did not. Theoretically, you are at a disadvantage, yes? But now you have 3443 quests to do, while i have 3444. Who will level CP faster? That only depends on how much you or i play. The 'quests available' plays no role here. As long as either of us isn't completely dry of all quests, we will level at the same pace, assuming same playtime.
And by the time you use up all quests, while i still have that one available, and finally can cash in my 'advantage' - ZOS would have released tons of new content, making the 'advantage' moot.
Time is not a constant value for me or anyone else. To assume so is idiotic at best. Also really 3443 vs 3444 really? Are you trying to troll?
Well it was you who said "players who have ever completed a quest" (note the singular) "in any veteran zone are at a disadvantage".
I used 3443 vs 3444 as an example, to show that the disadvantage is just theoretical, but feel free to use any other numbers with 1 difference between them. Point remains the same: as long as both players still have quests to do, it does not matter how many quests are available to each, as their progress through CP is limited by their available time, not their available quests.
Pool of potential points. That it the correct term. One player has it bigger.
But this bigger potential pool does not translate into a CP difference unless the player with the smaller pool uses it up completely. Only THEN will the difference between the pools get transformed into an actual CP difference between the players.
And the pools will never run dry, because ZOS is constantly putting out new content. Thus, the disadvantage is only theoretical, and will never be transformed into an actual CP disparity.
Look at my above example so after a month a new player can surpass @Xarraan. Its ok for a new player to be ahead of someone who had been playing the game since early access, and in the closed beta?
Also to the bold section.
You must have not played this game at launch if you think that is true.
You might as well forget trying to reason. It's clear that logic, reason and common sense are not at play with him and the other two logically challenged posters in this thread. He doesn't seem to grasp that some of us already did all the quests (in some cases multiple times) and the only quests that really matter are the main quests associated with the story. The rest give superficial XP. It's really simple logic at play here but that is beyond the comprehension of some people. It's not some theoretical situation..it's fact.
I also love how it's not OK for current max level players to be ahead of anyone but what about the people that start the game 2 months after Champion goes live? They will also be lagging behind so I guess we should level the playing field for them as well? I guess we should just keep everyone at level 10 so nobody ever gets too far ahead of anyone else. This whole discussion is idiotic and lacks basic common sense.4 -
manny254✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭DanielMaxwell wrote: »olemanwinter wrote: »DanielMaxwell wrote: »yes evry time a game releases an exspansion pack .
And expansion packs suddenly and retroactively rebalance the players? I think not.
Usually, you have to actually PLAY the new expansion to either catch up/get ahead for new gear and stats.
It's not as if the very day the expansion is released, before any content has been played, you are suddenly made a stronger or weaker character!
read the following take from my original reply to you (including all of my misspellings and typos)
an example from WoW that applies , during vanilla WoW they had a system where you had to level your weapons to imrpove you hit chance and reduce your glancing blows . I had a warrior who had every available weapon skill maxxed when they removed that system , I recieved nothing for having achieved that . They put everybody on the same level as far as weapons skill benefits when they did that since they gave everyone the benefits of having maxxed weapon skills when they removed that system . This made my level capped warrior equal to every other level capped warrior before gear is considered . I have been through a situation where I spent the time to obtain a benefit for my character(he could use all allowed weapons without penalty , opposed to warriors who had not maxxed their weapon skills) only to lose it with the removal of the weapon skills system. I still played the game for several years after that happened.
you said there was no precedent for such a reset and i provide you one that did that to a limited extent
With regards to this and some of your past post.
Using the past to predict the future is an invalid argument perpetuated by our society. It amounts to saying that because the something happened before it would happen again.
Saying that something is acceptable because it was acceptable in the past is also invalid.
Just because something happened in the past does not mean it will happen in the future.
If the sun rises tomorrow it does not do so because it did the previous day. To really explain this would require much more time and science.- Mojican0 -
DanielMaxwell✭✭✭I wonder if some of the people here realize that any player who does not have any of their current characters at level 50 , will have an advantage over everyone who has at least one character at VR 1 since they will have evrysingle quest for the Caldwells chains (silver and gold) , all mobs , and dungeons to use to obtain Champion System points .
there is only one why to fairly ensure that everyone that starts the champion system does so on a equal footing .
That is to reset all level 50 and up quests while giving nobody any champion systems points . this starts everyone out with the same amount of content , allows those who have obtained powerful gear will have an advantage , and nobody gets rewarded twice for already completed nonrepeatable content .
doing this is unlikely to happen since some people feel entitled to being rewarded twice for completed nonrepeatable content
2 -
DanielMaxwell✭✭✭DanielMaxwell wrote: »olemanwinter wrote: »DanielMaxwell wrote: »yes evry time a game releases an exspansion pack .
And expansion packs suddenly and retroactively rebalance the players? I think not.
Usually, you have to actually PLAY the new expansion to either catch up/get ahead for new gear and stats.
It's not as if the very day the expansion is released, before any content has been played, you are suddenly made a stronger or weaker character!
read the following take from my original reply to you (including all of my misspellings and typos)
an example from WoW that applies , during vanilla WoW they had a system where you had to level your weapons to imrpove you hit chance and reduce your glancing blows . I had a warrior who had every available weapon skill maxxed when they removed that system , I recieved nothing for having achieved that . They put everybody on the same level as far as weapons skill benefits when they did that since they gave everyone the benefits of having maxxed weapon skills when they removed that system . This made my level capped warrior equal to every other level capped warrior before gear is considered . I have been through a situation where I spent the time to obtain a benefit for my character(he could use all allowed weapons without penalty , opposed to warriors who had not maxxed their weapon skills) only to lose it with the removal of the weapon skills system. I still played the game for several years after that happened.
you said there was no precedent for such a reset and i provide you one that did that to a limited extent
With regards to this and some of your past post.
Using the past to predict the future is an invalid argument perpetuated by our society. It amounts to saying that because the something happened before it would happen again.
Saying that something is acceptable because it was acceptable in the past is also invalid.
Just because something happened in the past does not mean it will happen in the future.
If the sun rises tomorrow it does not do so because it did the previous day. To really explain this would require much more time and science.
past experience allows you to make a reasonable guess at what will happen in similar circumstances , it does not guarantee that things will happen exactly as they did before .
anything that happens in the past only sets a precedent for it to possibly happen in the future again does not guarantee that it will happen , in the other way because something did not happen in the past that does not mean it will never occur in the present or future.
The sun will continue to rise as long as the earth continues to rotate on its axis , while orbiting the sun . that cycle will continue until the earth or the sun are destroyed .
"Saying that something is acceptable because it was acceptable in the past is also invalid." bigotry at one time was acceptable and today it is not , being a good person was acceptable in the past and is still acceptable . What is considered acceptable will change as society changes due to that sometimes it is and sometimes it is not, this is something to be looked at on a case by case basis .Edited by DanielMaxwell on December 22, 2014 3:42AM1 -
nikolaj.lemcheb16_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭Bulldog1205 wrote: »This is stupid. You guys realize VR isn't leaving yet, right? No one is losing anything there yet. When those are gone, higher level vets deserve some compensation. But it's not be case now. It would be like them introducing a new weapon and people demanding a head start on the weapon because they've been playing longer. Who cares? Every advantage you currently have now you will still have in 1.6 (minus skill "nerfs", which isn't the topic here).
Except that people were directly told by the responsible dev that they should keep on xp'ing after v14 because those xp would be translated into champ points. So people went and used up the limited resource of solo quests because of this promise and now all those quest xp are permanently gone and cannot be used to gain champ points...... unless you are a new v1.
It is that exact promise that made us waste a valuable resource and now we sit without it while those who didn't level up yet have the great advantage in getting champ points fast.
Giving 30 points to everyone is NOT fair because it will mean that the long term loyal players will be put at a great disadvantage compared to new players.
So telling people to use up the finite quest xp resource and then throw away those xp so the people who used it up now are, screwed is insulting and dishonest behavior by ZoS which is something loyal players never forgive.
They will lose a lot of subs by doing this. The overall reaction in my clan when they heard about those 30 points were very negative and confused.1 -
WraithAzraiel✭✭✭✭✭
✭There's a word for the syndrome that plagues ZOS
it's referred to as, "The Good Idea Fairy"Shendell De'Gull - V14 Vampire Nightblade
Captain of the Black Howling
"There's no such thing as overkill..."
"No problem on the face of the Earth exists what can't be fixed with the proper application of enough duct tape and 550 cord."
P2PBetaTesters
#Tamriel_BETA_Team
#BETA_TESTER4LYF
DominionMasterRace
#GOAHEADTHEYGOTCANDY
#SEEMSLEGIT0 -
WraithAzraiel✭✭✭✭✭
✭... Nothing Maria said invalidates what was stated earlier. It's just that everyone gets at least 30 champion points once Update 6 goes live so you can enjoy the new system even if you didn't level your vet character yet, and so there is not a huge gap at the start between players with 0 champion points and players with more than 0 champion points - because, as she also said, the first points are the most valuable.
On top of that 30 points, you'll still get more champion points based on your accumulated exp.
Can this be verified?Shendell De'Gull - V14 Vampire Nightblade
Captain of the Black Howling
"There's no such thing as overkill..."
"No problem on the face of the Earth exists what can't be fixed with the proper application of enough duct tape and 550 cord."
P2PBetaTesters
#Tamriel_BETA_Team
#BETA_TESTER4LYF
DominionMasterRace
#GOAHEADTHEYGOTCANDY
#SEEMSLEGIT1 -
Tavore1138✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭OrangeTheCat wrote: »The sense of arrogant entitlement is thick on this thread. Your character isn't losing anything that they have. They're just not stacking up freebies before a new system is even released. Nothing that they do would be good enough for the bitter crowd anyhow.
Allowing some people to start with huge blocks of CPs would create huge balance problems (everything too easy); it would make it hard for have nots to get groups (looking for tank 500+ CPs) etc.
But, no ,its somehow that people are having somethibg stolen because they're at the current cap.
Jesus.
Exactly. Not to mention many of these folks "exploited" during the early periods of the game to gain advantage. Leveling the playing field is a good thing (if that is in fact what is going to happen).
Ah, the ultimate entitled viewpoint "anyone better than me must have cheated so bring me in line".GM - Malazan
Raid Leader - Hungry Wolves
Legio Mortuum4 -
So much this, also how is this different from raising the level cap or other levels.Rev Rielle wrote: »If you think playing the game is wasting your time then honestly I think you need to take a critical look at the reasons why you play.
At any WOW expansion everybody started at level 50 up to 90, did not mattered if you had been at cap a year or reached it yesterday.
More fun, after 2-3 levels the new questing gear was better than the raiding gear you had build up over a year.
this isnt world of borecraft and this isn't raising the level cap, its replacing the current end-game progression system...
its wasting peoples time because even me at VR6 wouldn't have played and payed the last few months if this was how they were going to handle the champion system.I will work. I will save. I will sacrifice. I will endure. I will fight cheerfully and do my utmost, as if the whole issue of the struggle depended on me alone.
Martin A. Treptow
1894-19184 -
You got 3 ideas. really those might be good for you. But not for everyone else. In reality those ideas you posted suck. Its your decision to grind multiple characters to VR14 why should you be consider special for that. Go work for Carbine if you are so bright and fix there poor mmo....
why should you get rewarded for doing nothing but existing? are you special for that?I will work. I will save. I will sacrifice. I will endure. I will fight cheerfully and do my utmost, as if the whole issue of the struggle depended on me alone.
Martin A. Treptow
1894-19182 -
rotaugen454✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭What bugs me is that instead of going from VR1 to VR14, I probably could have raised 3 alts to 50, thus having one of each class ready for the Champion system. I only played my main, and kept going after ZoS said the points would accumulate and it would take a ton of time to hit the max. I'm not going to stop because of this, just started an alt and have him at 16 so far, with the main character crafting items for him. It's annoying, and I would like to see them offer some sort of compensation to back up what they said, even if it was an extra 3 CP per Vet level above 1, but won't be quitting over it.It's not like my whole world came crashing down."Get off my lawn!"8