are the diminishing returns of the CP system diminishing enough?

Morvul

The champion system was always advertised as a system with diminishing returns.
This was supposed to encourage spreading of the CP investment, as well as allow new or "casual" players to catch up / remain relevant.

however, the CP system on the pts is in my opinion a mostly linear system, not a strongly diminishing one.
if you look at an individual star, the first point grants you usually ~4% of this stars power. The second point grants you another 3% and the third point grants another 2% of that stars total power. great diminishing returns so far. However, past 3 points, a stars power curve becomes a lot more linear. With 20 points invested, you have unlocked about 35% of that stars potential power. And investing the remaining 80 points into that same star results in a basically completely linear power gain for each invested point.

So in effect, only the first few points invested in the system follow a diminishing return system (and even that is not diminishing very much). Once players break~200 CP, the entire system becomes essentially a linear power gain system, without appreciable diminishing returns.


in my opinion, a healthier diminishing return system would follow a power curve more akin to the following:
20 points in a star to unlock 50% of its potential power
50 points unlocks 80% of the stars potential power
100 points then obviously unlocks 100%.

with such an actual diminishing returns system, new players or casuals will never completely catch up, but they will remain competetive.

A good example of such a strong diminishing returns system is EVE online. In that game, skills are leveled purely by time investment, each level of a skill grants exactly the same amount of additional benefit as the previous level, but each level takes 5 times as long. So a player with skil level 4 has 80% of the power of a player with skil level 5 - but only needed ~25% of the time to get there

Faugaun

Click my Sig goto the stars calculators index there are graphs for each star so you can see the exact curves to better evaluate this discussion

You can also put a sample number of CP into a star to see the % of the total passive ability that amount of CP earns you.

Currently there are curves that go from 0% to 13%, 15.8%, 18%, 24%, 25% and 33% there are various other ones they have used in 1.6.0-1.6.5 that are no longer used. The most dramatic was the old curve for bashing focus which topped out at 6.3% cost reduction in bash attacks...but 3 CP into the star provided 24% of the entire bonus from the star...I forget the exact numbers but I think it was 14 or 18 CP in the star provided 50% of the passive bonus and 35 CP provided 75% with the last 65 CP providing the last 25% of the buff.

ZRage

I don't think EVE online is a good example of a game friendly for newcomers in terms of "catching up"

Denidil

Faugaun wrote: »

I forget the exact numbers but I think it was 14 or 18 CP in the star provided 50% of the passive bonus and 35 CP provided 75% with the last 65 CP providing the last 25% of the buff.

so if these numbers are accurate that is some serious diminishing returns. Sounds reasonable to me

s7732425ub17_ESO

Faugaun wrote: »

Click my Sig goto the stars calculators index there are graphs for each star so you can see the exact curves to better evaluate this discussion

You can also put a sample number of CP into a star to see the % of the total passive ability that amount of CP earns you.

These graphs are awesome. They also make it quite apparent that "diminishing returns" are not very diminishing. Like the OP said, it's actually quite linear after the first few points.

I was hoping the first 30 points into a star would give something like 70% of the power, and then the next 70 would give the remaining 30%. The way it is right now is, quite simply, extreme vertical progression.

Morvul

Denidil wrote: »

Faugaun wrote: »

I forget the exact numbers but I think it was 14 or 18 CP in the star provided 50% of the passive bonus and 35 CP provided 75% with the last 65 CP providing the last 25% of the buff.

so if these numbers are accurate that is some serious diminishing returns. Sounds reasonable to me

That one star was an outlier, and has since been "linearised".

But I think it would be good if most stars behaved like it used to befor being "fixed"

Faugaun

Denidil wrote: »

Faugaun wrote: »

I forget the exact numbers but I think it was 14 or 18 CP in the star provided 50% of the passive bonus and 35 CP provided 75% with the last 65 CP providing the last 25% of the buff.

so if these numbers are accurate that is some serious diminishing returns. Sounds reasonable to me

Yeah that was the previous bashing focus which has been since adjusted to be more in line with the strength provided by the other stars.

Faugaun

s7732425ub17_ESO wrote: »

Faugaun wrote: »

Click my Sig goto the stars calculators index there are graphs for each star so you can see the exact curves to better evaluate this discussion

You can also put a sample number of CP into a star to see the % of the total passive ability that amount of CP earns you.

These graphs are awesome. They also make it quite apparent that "diminishing returns" are not very diminishing. Like the OP said, it's actually quite linear after the first few points.

I was hoping the first 30 points into a star would give something like 70% of the power, and then the next 70 would give the remaining 30%. The way it is right now is, quite simply, extreme vertical progression.

Thanks I have been updating them each patch since 1.6.1

Please let others who may be interested know where to find them.

Morvul

Yeah @Faugaun , those graphs are awesome indeed!

What I am advocating, basically, is that the curves in those graphs should be much, much more curved

@ZOS_GinaBruno , any chance you could forward that suggestion to who ever is in charge of balancing the champion system?

Faugaun

this is the previous bashing focus for comparison

Morvul

Thanks for posting that graph.
And yes, THAT would be closer to what good diminishing returns look like.
But even in that case, it becomes quite linear past the 20 point mark

Kingdinguhling

Honestly the difference between a fresh VR14 and a 3600 CP VR14 is ridiculous.

the idea that if your good enough you can still have a chance or would take a fresh VR14 over someone who has 3600 Champion points on a raid is just absurd.

on the PTS there is no point in going into PVP without the points attributed simply because you cant hold your own much less take anyone else down.

to scale I had never picked up a Nightblade VR14 wanted to try it first no CPs VR14 .... tried out some trash mobs in Craglorn, wasp and such, and it was an utter failure. sat in town by the waypoint and inserted all the points and then rode out to my previous destination and began slaying packs of wasps back to back without no worry for myself or comprehension on gear or abilities.

Its a pretty Drastic Difference.

I am not sure if I am for it or against it but one thing I do know there is going to have to be some method implemented to judge or scale content for fresh VR14 players and the Top end people who are several hundred points ahead.

I would try to group them like this possibly( just a basic template and no way the absolute best way):

100-200CPs 200-800CPs 800-1600CPs and 1600-3600 CPs.

You really don't want to PVP against people that high on a fresh VR14

Maybe new dungeons are Champion dungeons with a few tiers of difficulty and Higher Champion PVP servers.

I am just spit balling here on the numbers but this is the only thing I can think of to keep people from being frustrated.

it might need only 3 tiers it might need to have 4-5 I'm not sure....

Kingdinguhling

Faugaun wrote: »

Denidil wrote: »

Faugaun wrote: »

I forget the exact numbers but I think it was 14 or 18 CP in the star provided 50% of the passive bonus and 35 CP provided 75% with the last 65 CP providing the last 25% of the buff.

so if these numbers are accurate that is some serious diminishing returns. Sounds reasonable to me

Yeah that was the previous bashing focus which has been since adjusted to be more in line with the strength provided by the other stars.

you can kill a fresh VR14 with just bash.

Exstazik

3600 CP- PvP in Imperial City
0 CP-PvP with meat at Cyro

seancaputo_ESO

This information is awesome, but what is missing from the whole equation the amount of time that it takes to be award the points to be used in the graphs.

1. How long does a 2 hour a day player take to hit diminishing returns?
2. How long does it take a 8 hour a day player take to hit diminishing returns?

The formula should show the exact bonus of passive CP vs a new and moderate to casual player.

The sweet spot is 30 points into each equaling 90 points per constellation at 270 points sweet spot.

The graph should then show 3 lines

New Player to sweet spot

Casual player to sweet spot

Moderate player to sweet spot

8 hours a day player to sweet spot.

This then will show how much of a gap between players with an average time to close the gap.

Kingdinguhling

seancaputo_ESO wrote: »

This information is awesome, but what is missing from the whole equation the amount of time that it takes to be award the points to be used in the graphs.

1. How long does a 2 hour a day player take to hit diminishing returns?
2. How long does it take a 8 hour a day player take to hit diminishing returns?

The formula should show the exact bonus of passive CP vs a new and moderate to casual player.

The sweet spot is 30 points into each equaling 90 points per constellation at 270 points sweet spot.

The graph should then show 3 lines

New Player to sweet spot

Casual player to sweet spot

Moderate player to sweet spot

8 hours a day player to sweet spot.

This then will show how much of a gap between players with an average time to close the gap.

I'm not really worried about the difference between a average player and a Lifer.

just as so long as both players have access to the same tools to get there.

I just know that the difference between a fresh VR14 and a 3600 CP character is far to large for the system we currently have in play. Everyone in Cyrodil or doing Dungeons will simply ask for # of CP's before giving an invite to dungeons if they don't start adding new content and add a tiering system.


I really wish they would start working on the Grouping tools also.


At this point I'm not worried about VR1's with VR14's for too much longer but you can see the difference in 1.5


its an even larger gap on PTS.


they just need to either make it less dramatic or insert a tiered system to PVP servers and dungeons.

Faugaun

seancaputo_ESO wrote: »

This information is awesome, but what is missing from the whole equation the amount of time that it takes to be award the points to be used in the graphs.

1. How long does a 2 hour a day player take to hit diminishing returns?
2. How long does it take a 8 hour a day player take to hit diminishing returns?

The formula should show the exact bonus of passive CP vs a new and moderate to casual player.

The sweet spot is 30 points into each equaling 90 points per constellation at 270 points sweet spot.

The graph should then show 3 lines

New Player to sweet spot

Casual player to sweet spot

Moderate player to sweet spot

8 hours a day player to sweet spot.

This then will show how much of a gap between players with an average time to close the gap.

I'm not sure I understand what you are asking for but if you want to explain it in detail:

http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/150927/champion-point-passives-calculators-1-6-4#latest

I will try to added the functionality into the calculators if possible.

seancaputo_ESO

agreed -- the system for PVP... Just look at the points on either side for emperor. Those our your 3600 right away..

I would rather see all players get 100% from day one in PVP.

Faugaun

Here is an alternate proposal for a level playing field in PvP...not the only one but as the originator I support it lol...

http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/153432/suggestion-competition-server#latest

timidobserver

I think it is fine. A player that has played a veteran character for a few weeks to a month is going to be behind, which isn't a problem. However, players that have been playing for a 6 months to a year are going to be relatively similar to those that have played for 2-3 months. Players that have played for 6 months are going to be relatively similar to those that have played for 2-3 years.

By relatively similar, I mean can compete competitively in all available content.

On top of that, the champion system can easily be adjusted so that the first 100 or so champion points come quicker once it is a year or so old.

Kuro1n

ZRage wrote: »

I don't think EVE online is a good example of a game friendly for newcomers in terms of "catching up"

Actually you are wrong. EVE is not what people think it is. You can essentially get into PVP day one and be on even ground with a 10 year veteran within one or two months of passive training. When I say even ground I really mean even.

I can elaborate more on this if you wish but I hope you can simply take my word for it.

In comparison the 'diminishing returns' in ESO is like... not there.

Morvul

using @Faugaun Graph again, this is what most Star's "diminishing returns" curve looks like on the PTS:
.
it's essentially liniear past the 20 point mark

and this is an example of the curve shape I would expect in an "actual" diminishing returns model:

just to prevent misconception: I am talking about the shape of that curve.
ignore the values on the X-axis

Faugaun

So part of the problem with a curve like that IMHO is when you get to 90= x, 91=x, 92=x, 93=x 94=x, 95=x+.1, 96=x+.1, 97=x+.1, 98=x+.1, 99=x+.2, 100=x+.2 essentially these upper points are so valueless they show the same value for multiple points...which is frustrating imho

Syntse

Kingdinguhling wrote: »

I just know that the difference between a fresh VR14 and a 3600 CP character is far to large for the system we currently have in play.

And by the time anyone is even close to 3600 they most likely have tweaked and modified the system so it will not have such large gap.

Faugaun

Syntse wrote: »

Kingdinguhling wrote: »

I just know that the difference between a fresh VR14 and a 3600 CP character is far to large for the system we currently have in play.

And by the time anyone is even close to 3600 they most likely have tweaked and modified the system so it will not have such large gap.

That's easier said then done and risky...anytime you retroactively tweak a system you run the gambit of invoking the rage of the player base ...(especially if said tweak is a Nerf)...as a company this is undesirable risk. Thus a front end solution is much preferable than a backend solution.

Syntse

Faugaun wrote: »

Syntse wrote: »

Kingdinguhling wrote: »

I just know that the difference between a fresh VR14 and a 3600 CP character is far to large for the system we currently have in play.

And by the time anyone is even close to 3600 they most likely have tweaked and modified the system so it will not have such large gap.

That's easier said then done and risky...anytime you retroactively tweak a system you run the gambit of invoking the rage of the player base ...(especially if said tweak is a Nerf)...as a company this is undesirable risk. Thus a front end solution is much preferable than a backend solution.

True. However many are saying that the 1.6 would hit live next week so might be a bit too late to start rethinking and redoing the system at this point. Not to say they already might even have plan how to handle it before anyone reaches 3600.

Morvul

Faugaun wrote: »

So part of the problem with a curve like that IMHO is when you get to 90= x, 91=x, 92=x, 93=x 94=x, 95=x+.1, 96=x+.1, 97=x+.1, 98=x+.1, 99=x+.2, 100=x+.2 essentially these upper points are so valueless they show the same value for multiple points...which is frustrating imho

well, having the late points provide relatively low value is kind of the definition of "diminishing returns".
besides, there is a loooooot of "intermediate" options between the current CP point value implementation and the logarithmic curve shown in my example

Faugaun

Morvul wrote: »

Faugaun wrote: »

So part of the problem with a curve like that IMHO is when you get to 90= x, 91=x, 92=x, 93=x 94=x, 95=x+.1, 96=x+.1, 97=x+.1, 98=x+.1, 99=x+.2, 100=x+.2 essentially these upper points are so valueless they show the same value for multiple points...which is frustrating imho

well, having the late points provide relatively low value is kind of the definition of "diminishing returns".
besides, there is a loooooot of "intermediate" options between the current CP point value implementation and the logarithmic curve shown in my example

So one solution is to simply show additional digits after the decimal point, thus allowing people to see that there is an effect and about how much effect that is (or you could use my calcs for almost exact answers). I think I previously proposed that somewhere...or maybe I just thought I would and decided not to for some reason I don't recall ATM...

Morvul

My beef with the current champion system essentially boils down to:
once players are past the ~200 CP "hump", it's essentially a linear system. someone with double the amount of CPs also gets double the amount of benefit out of the system.
IMHO, it would be better if someone with double the amount of CP would only get ~40% more benefits (actually, i'd advocate for even less, but then some people my start to feel CP are "worthless")

over simplified example:
currently, someone with 300 CP gets 15% more damage, 15% more damage mitigation and 15% more resource regeneration
someone with 600 CP gets 27% more damage, 27% more damage mitigation and 27% more resource regeneration

I would prefere if the 600 CP player would only see ~21% on benefit on all those stats...
(and the 1200 CP player not 48% on all those stats, but rather ~28%)

Syntse

Morvul wrote: »

over simplified example:
currently, someone with 300 CP gets 15% more damage, 15% more damage mitigation and 15% more resource regeneration
someone with 600 CP gets 27% more damage, 27% more damage mitigation and 27% more resource regeneration

What kind of numbers were are talking about here and compared to what? You mean someone with 300 points get 15% better regen and someone with 600 gets 27%? (btw the cap in most stars bonus is 25% some even less).

Or are we talking about purely in comparison when the difference between 15% and 27% might be something like 20 points of regeneration.

Morvul

Syntse wrote: »

Morvul wrote: »

over simplified example:
currently, someone with 300 CP gets 15% more damage, 15% more damage mitigation and 15% more resource regeneration
someone with 600 CP gets 27% more damage, 27% more damage mitigation and 27% more resource regeneration

What kind of numbers were are talking about here and compared to what? You mean someone with 300 points get 15% better regen and someone with 600 gets 27%? (btw the cap in most stars bonus is 25% some even less).

Or are we talking about purely in comparison when the difference between 15% and 27% might be something like 20 points of regeneration.

well, I said it's an over-simplified example
somone with 300 CP can spend 50 each of their thief points on magicka regen and magicka cost reduction. for ~15% and ~10% bonus respectively
somone with 600 CP can spend 100 points each on that same stars, resulting in 25% and 16% benefit, plus unlocking additional passives.
Overal, this means the 600 CP player gets about 80% additional power out of the system compared to the 300 CP player. yes, 80% (varies depending on the actual passives unlocked from the respective tree, and the precise diminishing return curve) more power for 100% more investment IS diminishing returns... however, it's barely diminishing.

when you now consider that for the first ~20 points into any given star there actually ARE significant diminishing returns, and therefore only look at the power-curves for the 20 to 100 points invested span - you will notice that you have a "diminishing returns" coefficient which is in the ball-park of ~90% more benefit for 100% more investment...
which, technically, is diminishing returns... but it might just as well be linear...