The Day ESO Dies

smokes

if caps and catch up mechanisms are needed in a game that is barely a year old and has had 1 additional zone patched in so far, what will it be like in 5 years? after multiple DLC packs and cap increases?

remove VR levels from cadwells. (lock out cadwells and patch it back in as scaled content later if need be)
roll everything back to VR4. (send players caches of craft items and rolled back gear equivalent to any losses and saves dev time on redeveloping a new VR system to handle itemisation)
remove combat bonuses from CP - (offer more vanity and non-combat bonuses)

seasonal caps and catchup mechanisms on XP gains aren't dealing with the problem, they're postponing it until later and anyone late into the game will run into exactly the same issues that are present today, except then you might as well just give them VR levels and a handful of CP the moment they kill molag bal to help them catch up.

you didn't get things like heirlooms and nerfs to levelling XP in WoW until WotlK - it's 3rd expansion 4 years after launch.

the amount of suggested fixes, caps and catchup systems being talked about suggests ESO has been out for like 5-6 years, when it's barely a year old.

sad really.

launching with a cap of VR10 thanks to the late implementation of cadwells IS the problem, until that's removed, no matter how many catch up systems you introduce, there'll always be a grind required after you kill molag bal to get into any group content at "endgame" even with VR removed.

Armitas

AlienDiplomat wrote: »

Armitas wrote: »

If the notion is true that the CP power gap is not that significant then it will have to change it's appearance to change peoples perception. The appearance of the champion system reaches everyone, the detailed truth of it will only reach a few.

...thinking back, It is unfortunate that they inflated our stats to make the CP points appear more significant, as that is a major portion of the perception real or imaginary.

You mention the inflating of stats to make CP bonuses seem more significant, however this would only be true if the CP bonuses were flat values like "adds 200 weapon damage."

This is not the case however. All of the CP bonuses to primary stats are PERCENTAGE based, thus rendering the inflating of stats completely irrelevant. I don't care if you add 50 zeroes after my weapon damage, 25% is 25%.

• 25% more damage from physical/magic attacks.
• 25% more damage from weapons.
• 25% more critical damage.
• 25% stronger shields.
• 25% more resistant to elemental damage.
• 25% more resistant to poison/magic damage.
• 25% cheaper roll/break free.
• 25% more magic/stamina regen.
• 25% cheaper casting of magicka/stamina abilities.
• etc.

Now, go up against that 24/7 grinder and tell me the power gap is just a misperception.

I was paraphrasing ZOS on that. They have stated that this was why they inflated the stats. They tested the CP system at original values and people complained the increases did not feel significant. As a result of that test they stated that they increased our stats to make it appear more significant.

If you think about it, it's not unreasonable that the test group came to that conclusion. 25% of small number and 25% of a large number will yield differences in value perception.

Not once did I ever say 25% more X was a "misperception". My comment to the OP assumed his belief, not my own to discuss a conclusion. I personally feel that Attorneyatlawls analysis is noteworthy in regards to PvE because we have specific roles in PvE. As a DPSer there is only so much I can get out the CP system in regards to that role as a dpser. However in PvP each individual has to take on all 3 roles simultaneously. There is no way to gauge that potential in a linear analysis. So personally, for PvP, my belief is that there is a significant gap, and that gap does not reach it's end early in the CP tally, but toward the end of CP cap, toward 3600.

I don't think we need mathematics to agree with that conclusion either. As you say "25% more" 'everything', inside a pvp role that makes use of everything is going to be significant right toward the very end of the champion system.

ch.ris317b14_ESO

Attorneyatlawl wrote: »

ch.ris317b14_ESO wrote: »

Attorneyatlawl wrote: »

ch.ris317b14_ESO wrote: »

Attorneyatlawl wrote: »

AlienDiplomat wrote: »

Armitas wrote: »

If the notion is true that the CP power gap is not that significant then it will have to change it's appearance to change peoples perception. The appearance of the champion system reaches everyone, the detailed truth of it will only reach a few.

...thinking back, It is unfortunate that they inflated our stats to make the CP points appear more significant, as that is a major portion of the perception real or imaginary.

You mention the inflating of stats to make CP bonuses seem more significant, however this would only be true if the CP bonuses were flat values like "adds 200 weapon damage."

This is not the case however. All of the CP bonuses to primary stats are PERCENTAGE based, thus rendering the inflating of stats completely irrelevant. I don't care if you add 50 zeroes after my weapon damage, 25% is 25%.

• 25% more damage from physical/magic attacks.
• 25% more damage from weapons.
• 25% more critical damage.
• 25% stronger shields.
• 25% more resistant to elemental damage.
• 25% more resistant to poison/magic damage.
• 25% cheaper roll/break free.
• 25% more magic/stamina regen.
• 25% cheaper casting of magicka/stamina abilities.
• etc.

Now, go up against that 24/7 grinder and tell me the power gap is just a misperception.

That's once someone is at 3600cp. The number of people at that amount right now... is zero. Literally. No one in the entire game of millions of players has reached that, even botters and exploiters. So that's really a disingenuous argument. Once a handful of people reach it, your likelihood of encountering them is nearly zero, and the likelihood of them in a 30-person fight in Cyrodiil changing the outcome of that entire battle because their individual character has earned a 10% or 20% higher, mathematical advantage than you have, is virtually none unless there was already a large skill gap... in which case, they would have done it anyways .

The actual argument would be, right now, an average of around 140-180 champion rank in the general populace, versus the higher end of most hardcore players at around 300-350, a small percentage at 400 or so, and then the, if I had to guess, single-digit number of people nearly-definitely violating the games' ToS that are in the 1000+ range, and if they aren't playing by the rules should and will be banned at some point.

Extrapolating that, by the time 10% of the playerbase hits champion rank 3600 to get all of those shiny, 25% values... the majority will be closer to around champion ranks 1400-1700. They will have the majority of the most combat-impacting passives available at 25%, and the rest can be brought up to around half of what the max would be. Instead of a 25% cheaper roll dodge... they would have a 13% cheaper one.

They'd still have 25% of the critical portion of their damage boosted while you would have 13% if you were on the average rate of play in the playerbase (it isn't a full critical hit boost, by the way... but this just goes back to the whole "No one really seems to be discussing the facts here, and instead are just posting sensationally" topic again. If I crit for 1500 damage and my base damage is 1000 (which aligns with the standard, 50% critical damage modifier), my new critical hit total after amplifying the 25% of the 500 critical damage portion of the attack becomes, instead of 1500, 1625 ultimately. Someone with 13% in the passive, would hit if otherwise identical for 1565. That's a hardly-earth-shattering increase difference of under four percent damage dealt for a full hundred champion points.

______________
"Now, go up against that 24/7 grinder and tell me the power gap is just a misperception."
Already addressed, and as I suggested in my thread about the topic discussing the facts, rather than just jumping to a conclusion, XP gains need to be balanced across the game better. Grinding should be a great way to earn champion XP, but so should PVP, and Trials.

Grinding should burn in brimstone and hellfire, as should VR levels AND CP

It is a worthless waste of EVERYONE's time... even the person who does end up on top.

We COULD have new skills, new mechanics, and new ways to play... OR you can continue to be content being a rat on the wheel.

You do know, some people enjoy grinding. It's a nice way to zone out to music late at night while relaxing. Grinding itself is not a problem in any way, shape, or form. That other stuff isn't a good way to earn the new skills and ways to play (which some of the champion passives do create by virtue of making otherwise-unviable ideas become strong enough to be useful), is the problem. You should earn strong progression from doing anything you enjoy that has a reasonable difficulty factor to it, such as Trials or PVP, or group dungeons, too. Grinding needs to stay as a viable and good XP source. But everything else needs to be brought up.

Some people enjoy cutting themselves.... these things should not be encouraged

That's an absurd comparison, and very disrespectful in comparing a real-life problem with a fun videogame activity, honestly. Someone suffering from issues and harming themselves, be it from a mental illness, depression, disabilities, or other problems, isn't comparable to playing a videogame to relax. One is healthy... the other isn't.

Not nearly as absurd as saying grinding is fun to any same human being

markt84

ch.ris317b14_ESO wrote: »

Attorneyatlawl wrote: »

ch.ris317b14_ESO wrote: »

Attorneyatlawl wrote: »

ch.ris317b14_ESO wrote: »

Attorneyatlawl wrote: »

AlienDiplomat wrote: »

Armitas wrote: »

If the notion is true that the CP power gap is not that significant then it will have to change it's appearance to change peoples perception. The appearance of the champion system reaches everyone, the detailed truth of it will only reach a few.

...thinking back, It is unfortunate that they inflated our stats to make the CP points appear more significant, as that is a major portion of the perception real or imaginary.

You mention the inflating of stats to make CP bonuses seem more significant, however this would only be true if the CP bonuses were flat values like "adds 200 weapon damage."

This is not the case however. All of the CP bonuses to primary stats are PERCENTAGE based, thus rendering the inflating of stats completely irrelevant. I don't care if you add 50 zeroes after my weapon damage, 25% is 25%.

• 25% more damage from physical/magic attacks.
• 25% more damage from weapons.
• 25% more critical damage.
• 25% stronger shields.
• 25% more resistant to elemental damage.
• 25% more resistant to poison/magic damage.
• 25% cheaper roll/break free.
• 25% more magic/stamina regen.
• 25% cheaper casting of magicka/stamina abilities.
• etc.

Now, go up against that 24/7 grinder and tell me the power gap is just a misperception.

That's once someone is at 3600cp. The number of people at that amount right now... is zero. Literally. No one in the entire game of millions of players has reached that, even botters and exploiters. So that's really a disingenuous argument. Once a handful of people reach it, your likelihood of encountering them is nearly zero, and the likelihood of them in a 30-person fight in Cyrodiil changing the outcome of that entire battle because their individual character has earned a 10% or 20% higher, mathematical advantage than you have, is virtually none unless there was already a large skill gap... in which case, they would have done it anyways .

The actual argument would be, right now, an average of around 140-180 champion rank in the general populace, versus the higher end of most hardcore players at around 300-350, a small percentage at 400 or so, and then the, if I had to guess, single-digit number of people nearly-definitely violating the games' ToS that are in the 1000+ range, and if they aren't playing by the rules should and will be banned at some point.

Extrapolating that, by the time 10% of the playerbase hits champion rank 3600 to get all of those shiny, 25% values... the majority will be closer to around champion ranks 1400-1700. They will have the majority of the most combat-impacting passives available at 25%, and the rest can be brought up to around half of what the max would be. Instead of a 25% cheaper roll dodge... they would have a 13% cheaper one.

They'd still have 25% of the critical portion of their damage boosted while you would have 13% if you were on the average rate of play in the playerbase (it isn't a full critical hit boost, by the way... but this just goes back to the whole "No one really seems to be discussing the facts here, and instead are just posting sensationally" topic again. If I crit for 1500 damage and my base damage is 1000 (which aligns with the standard, 50% critical damage modifier), my new critical hit total after amplifying the 25% of the 500 critical damage portion of the attack becomes, instead of 1500, 1625 ultimately. Someone with 13% in the passive, would hit if otherwise identical for 1565. That's a hardly-earth-shattering increase difference of under four percent damage dealt for a full hundred champion points.

______________
"Now, go up against that 24/7 grinder and tell me the power gap is just a misperception."
Already addressed, and as I suggested in my thread about the topic discussing the facts, rather than just jumping to a conclusion, XP gains need to be balanced across the game better. Grinding should be a great way to earn champion XP, but so should PVP, and Trials.

Grinding should burn in brimstone and hellfire, as should VR levels AND CP

It is a worthless waste of EVERYONE's time... even the person who does end up on top.

We COULD have new skills, new mechanics, and new ways to play... OR you can continue to be content being a rat on the wheel.

You do know, some people enjoy grinding. It's a nice way to zone out to music late at night while relaxing. Grinding itself is not a problem in any way, shape, or form. That other stuff isn't a good way to earn the new skills and ways to play (which some of the champion passives do create by virtue of making otherwise-unviable ideas become strong enough to be useful), is the problem. You should earn strong progression from doing anything you enjoy that has a reasonable difficulty factor to it, such as Trials or PVP, or group dungeons, too. Grinding needs to stay as a viable and good XP source. But everything else needs to be brought up.

Some people enjoy cutting themselves.... these things should not be encouraged

That's an absurd comparison, and very disrespectful in comparing a real-life problem with a fun videogame activity, honestly. Someone suffering from issues and harming themselves, be it from a mental illness, depression, disabilities, or other problems, isn't comparable to playing a videogame to relax. One is healthy... the other isn't.

Not nearly as absurd as saying grinding is fun to any same human being

Agree, grinding is horrible and not fun at all. People just do it so they can get so OP to the point that they can kill 10 players at once because their shield never goes down, they never run out of magic or stam. And if you do get through the shield and almost have them killed...boom, full shield and health.

Bromburak

Gandrhulf_Harbard wrote: »

LukeArayo wrote: »

ZOS is doing better than the guys at Blizzard are with WoW atm.

Really?

Which as the most Subs?

Which has the most players?

ZOS > Blizzard?

ROFLMFAO-Copter

All The Best

Amount of players has nothing todo with doing it better.

WoW became the most terrible game for beginners because it totally changed to have you almost instantly in "endgame" now. WoW turned into the worst example of user experience in the industry.

There is no point for start playing WoW again with such a bad concept.
Blizzard just confirms the "Instant high Level button culture". No thank you.

Gandrhulf_Harbard

Attorneyatlawl wrote: »

Soloable landscape mobs shouldn't reward as much as instanced group dungeons or public dungeon delves, or PVP.

I never said they should, so that was a diversionary straw-man.

I don't care whether the mob is a solo landscape mob, a Public Dungeon mob, or whatever.

There should NOT be a penalty to XP for being in a Group.

People wonder why MMORPGs end up being run 90% solo - this is part of why!

And there is nothing you can say that will make it in anyway defensible.

All The Best

Gandrhulf_Harbard

Bromburak wrote: »

Amount of players has nothing todo with doing it better.

WoW became the most terrible game for beginners because it totally changed to have you almost instantly in "endgame" now. WoW turned into the worst example of user experience in the industry.

There is no point for start playing WoW again with such a bad concept.
Blizzard just confirms the "Instant high Level button culture". No thank you.

1) Yes it does. A game with more players is extremely likely to be more financially successful; because the ROCI/Capita value to break-even is a lot lower. Its basic economics.

2) The last time I returned to WoW (just after WoD) I started a brand new toon, I didn't feel in anyway penalised for being a beginner.

All The Best

TheBonesXXX

I enjoy grinding more than I enjoy questing as an adult with ADHD, I like to have my zombie time and not think about anything. For those of you who are "superior" to the idea, some of us enjoy it.

+1 For Deltia's Concern
+1 For Attorney's Math
+1 To the guy who brought up the third tier of morphs

Might I add let us laterally advance end game special named weapons.. That itself would be an amazing project and undertaking, lots of named gear in the world and it's not able to be upgraded or used as effectively as sets and Master Weapons.

ch.ris317b14_ESO

TheBonesXXX wrote: »

I enjoy grinding more than I enjoy questing as an adult with ADHD, I like to have my zombie time and not think about anything. For those of you who are "superior" to the idea, some of us enjoy it.

+1 For Deltia's Concern
+1 For Attorney's Math
+1 To the guy who brought up the third tier of morphs

Might I add let us laterally advance end game special named weapons.. That itself would be an amazing project and undertaking, lots of named gear in the world and it's not able to be upgraded or used as effectively as sets and Master Weapons.

Grinding can be anything from killing the same mob, to running the same uber hard dungeon.... difficulty really has nothig to do with it... its the REPITITION that makes it an insane activity to participate in.

And it should NEVER be forced on the player in a modern game. It was acceptable back when the technology was limited... but entirely without excuse, especially in an Elder Scrolls game... the series was built around basically being a fantasy grand theft auto.... grinding is completely antithetical to the spirit of Elder Scrolls.

Mastery404

As a working bloke, this system isn't for me.

Bromburak

Gandrhulf_Harbard wrote: »

1) Yes it does. A game with more players is extremely likely to be more financially successful; because the ROCI/Capita value to break-even is a lot lower. Its basic economics.

No it doesn't make a game any better because Innovation is something else than revenue.

2) The last time I returned to WoW (just after WoD) I started a brand new toon, I didn't feel in anyway penalised for being a beginner.

You a funny guy, of course you didn't feel penalised because you like the "instant endgame button" mechanics.

WoW makes you skip every low content and character progression from beginning until endgame.
Thats not innovative, thats a pretty bad game design for an MMO and exactly thats what the discussion was about.

ch.ris317b14_ESO

Bromburak wrote: »

Gandrhulf_Harbard wrote: »

1) Yes it does. A game with more players is extremely likely to be more financially successful; because the ROCI/Capita value to break-even is a lot lower. Its basic economics.

No it doesn't make a game any better because Innovation is something else than revenue.

2) The last time I returned to WoW (just after WoD) I started a brand new toon, I didn't feel in anyway penalised for being a beginner.

You a funny guy, of course you didn't feel penalised because you like the "instant endgame button" mechanics.

WoW makes you skip every low content and character progression from beginning until endgame.
Thats not innovative, thats a pretty bad game design for an MMO and exactly thats what the discussion was about.

Bad design cannot be long term financial success....

ESO has had more epic failures in a year than blizzard has had in a decade.

THAT is poor design.

THAT is why they had to change business models... even though they had an IP built up at least as much as Warcraft.

ch.ris317b14_ESO

It really is sad when you think about it, EVERY other Elder Scrolls game has been a bigger and bigger success since I started playing them in morrowind days... culminating in skyrim, which achieved a level of notoriety rivaling HALO.... and then this mess of a game... now on a base level the gameplay is fun, and its cool to see all of tamriel... but the MMO systems included are so convoluted that it never had a prayer of staying subscription based.

Its pretty clear they were pretty much relying on IP fame to keep the game afloat and people playing... everything they have done since launch has had "oh sh*!!!" Written all over it. They had no idea what they were doing and no plan in place for actually adding content.... they make SWTOR look like a graceful maestro.

Bromburak

ch.ris317b14_ESO wrote: »

Bad design cannot be long term financial success....

ESO is not a bad design it has a different design that you don't like.
Beside that ESO is not a stand still, its changing and improving.

ESO has had more epic failures in a year than blizzard has had in a decade.

Ignorance at its best.

MrGhosty

Bromburak wrote: »

ch.ris317b14_ESO wrote: »

Bad design cannot be long term financial success....

ESO is not a bad design it has a different design that you don't like.
Beside that ESO is not a stand still, its changing and improving.

I believe he was saying that your statement that WoW is bad game design doesn't really jive in that it remains one of the most successful MMOs out there. From a direct comparison and looking at each game's influence on the market WoW could be considered the superior game but that doesn't mean it is universally loved or anything like that. Neither are wrong, neither are right.

ESO has had more epic failures in a year than blizzard has had in a decade.

Ignorance at its best.

Say what you will, but realistically ESO has had some pretty major flubs in their first year. What might be more accurate is that you feel they didn't impact you which could very well be true. The problem that I have with this is you seem to be coming from a place where you feel you are superior and your comments ring of smug superiority. Rather than the statement you made, I would much rather see your reasoning why you disagree rather then being dismissive.

From my perspective I would say there have been many mistakes made this past year, it doesn't mean I'm rooting for the game to fail or any other such nonsense but we can't expect ZOS to get this game where many of us feel it should be if we don't point out the issues. The VR system was a complete failure as evidenced by the fact they have changed it so completely, they state they want to remove VR levels still but it has become something implied to be around the corner to something that will happen eventually, again seems like another failure. They promised regular content updates that they failed to deliver due to them have to completely redesign aspects of the game, again a failure.

These are just the more concrete examples, you could also look at how poor their communication has been with the community and how they've handled various issues as further examples of failure.

That said, they have also got some things right which (at least for me personally) is the reason I continue to critique and speak my mind about the things that matter to me. This game has potential, every game has a teething phase to be sure and they can recover from this. The problem at hand is they keep making what seem like knee jerk reactions and adding new things in or changing how things work. We don't know all of the facts because we don't work at ZOS and they don't really let us see behind the curtain so all we have is speculation and educated guessing but most of us have been gaming long enough to know what is working and what isn't.

Drakoleon

Well said Deltia! Finally a loud voice that makes sense in this forum!
Killing mobs all day long for is not "Playing the game" more than others do.... its just stupid and childish gameplay.
Just another ESOs EPIC failure
When my plus is over ...game over too

TheBonesXXX

ch.ris317b14_ESO wrote: »

Grinding can be anything from killing the same mob, to running the same uber hard dungeon.... difficulty really has nothig to do with it... its the REPITITION that makes it an insane activity to participate in.

And it should NEVER be forced on the player in a modern game. It was acceptable back when the technology was limited... but entirely without excuse, especially in an Elder Scrolls game... the series was built around basically being a fantasy grand theft auto.... grinding is completely antithetical to the spirit of Elder Scrolls.

I do the same thing hoping to get the same result, levels. Grinding is not so insane to me as I come from Asherons Call and I am not against it. Like I said, I enjoy it. People are not pigeonholed into grinding, but as of now it is just the most efficient route to levels and champ points.

SC0TY999

[/quote]Agree, grinding is horrible and not fun at all. People just do it so they can get so OP to the point that they can kill 10 players at once because their shield never goes down, they never run out of magic or stam. And if you do get through the shield and almost have them killed...boom, full shield and health. [/quote]


LOL that was happening long before Champion System ever existed, it's called shield stacking and there's been multiple threads on this

Vahrokh

e1team wrote: »

You missed my point. I never said EVE is a bad game, and I played it enough to understand how the skill system works there. Thing is you will never catch up with anyone who has even a week start ahead of you. Skills can be trained while you are logged off. You only have to come online to put a next skill to train.
And I played it enough to know that even you got a certificate to fly a dreadnought doesn't mean you also got all the necessary skills along with it. I have flown an interdictor. Cost me a fortune to equip it. But I still had to invest time to learn the associated skills. And there no shortcuts no workarounds. Fine with me. But offline skill training means you have no chance. So don't tell me not to compare the two games. Because I'm comparing only the skill systems. And ESO wins in that regard.

I did not miss the point. You missed EvE's point.

It's true that on paper if you start today you'll never catch my pilot with 100 million skill points.

However if you fly an interdictor you are going to beat my pilot 100% of the time at such job, because I have little points to do that. However in a couple of weeks I could train and become competitive in that, like in a couple of weeks you can become competitive in a ship at the moment I am flying well.

The only extreme cases are super capitals, they follow the same training mechanics but take many many months just to fly them barely well. However those ships are alliance grade stuff (for non EvE players: alliances are huge guilds with thousands of players, some have 5000+!!) that require the full support of the alliance just to be able to survive an half battle. Once again, it's true they take months in a "mechanics" way, but you don't feel the "content gating" because you may need years before you can grow an alliance so much to be able and even affort to buy their first super capital.

Vahrokh

.

BigInGlenumbra

I think that we can all agree that the vast majority of people do not enjoy grinding, under the definition of killing the same mobs in the same area over and over, over other parts of the game, and thus it should not rewarded more per hour played doing such grinding than questing per hour played.

Grinders deserve no sympathy here. Grinding should be very discouraged.

And this of course is separate from the issues of the Champion system such as the inherent and discouraging power gap, but grinding benefits greatly from the CP system, making things even worse.

TheBonesXXX

BigInGlenumbra wrote: »

I think that we can all agree that the vast majority of people do not enjoy grinding, under the definition of killing the same mobs in the same area over and over, over other parts of the game, and thus it should not rewarded more per hour played doing such grinding than questing per hour played.

Grinders deserve no sympathy here. Grinding should be very discouraged.

And this of course is separate from the issues of the Champion system such as the inherent and discouraging power gap, but grinding benefits greatly from the CP system, making things even worse.

Again, I'm from Asherons Call, I prefer grinding to quests.

I enjoy the quest line, but I'm old school.

Please, do not impede my style of play and substitute it with someone else's because it inconveniences them..

ch.ris317b14_ESO

Even the console rele

Bromburak wrote: »

ch.ris317b14_ESO wrote: »

Bad design cannot be long term financial success....

ESO is not a bad design it has a different design that you don't like.
Beside that ESO is not a stand still, its changing and improving.

ESO has had more epic failures in a year than blizzard has had in a decade.

Ignorance at its best.

One of these games had to completely rework its business model... the other has been going strong for a decade.... it is no secret who designed a better mmo

That is not to say ESO has no redeeming points... I enjoy the crap out of the skill and morph system... but in terms of end game, telling a story, and keeping players involved ZOS failed miserably... in no small part due to Veteran rank and Champion points AND absolute lack of post launch content.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Gandrhulf_Harbard

Bromburak wrote: »

Gandrhulf_Harbard wrote: »

1) Yes it does. A game with more players is extremely likely to be more financially successful; because the ROCI/Capita value to break-even is a lot lower. Its basic economics.

No it doesn't make a game any better because Innovation is something else than revenue.

Please do tell me what ESO has that is in any way innovative?

Then further demonstrate that whatever that is has been implemented with success.

Bromburak wrote: »

2) The last time I returned to WoW (just after WoD) I started a brand new toon, I didn't feel in anyway penalised for being a beginner.

You a funny guy, of course you didn't feel penalised because you like the "instant endgame button" mechanics.

WoW makes you skip every low content and character progression from beginning until endgame.
Thats not innovative, thats a pretty bad game design for an MMO and exactly thats what the discussion was about.

Please do feel free to continue to assume things about me, and get them woefully wrong.

But hey, we all know what happens when you assume things, right?

WoW doesn't MAKE you skip anything.
It gives you the OPTION to do so if you want to AND are prepared to pay to do so.

Now if someone designs a coffee mug with a hole in the bottom I can pretty much guarantee that not many people will use it, those that do that will almost certainly use it once, discover it doesn't work and try a design that does work.

That would mean that the design with the most users is the better design, because people tend not to use badly designed things.

Which game has the most players and most subscribers?

Now, please do tell me how the one with the lower number of players and subscribers is the "better designed" game.

Because I'll bet last week's wages that when the corporate bean-counters come to decide what is "better" they'll be looking at "money in the bank" and not at the "we wan't to be different, even if that means things don't work" design ethos of the game.

And my guess is those bean-counters are starting to win, hence B2P, hence the Crown Store, hence the departure of people who seem to no longer be in favour, or in tune with the corporate ethos the bean-counters are running with.

I'd have loved for ZOS to have pulled off all the game innovations in ESO that they have tried for - but they haven't. In fact my sig sums up how "well" they have done.

Innovation and being different are great things; but only if they deliver at least as good a service as that which they are trying to be different from.

Zeni don't seem to have managed that, at least so far.

So their innovation has, in effect, failed.

But please do continue making assumptions about me; it makes me laugh, as do your opinions.

All The Best

Furor

I think an interesting solution (Or part of one anyways, obviously there is no "one fix" to fix everything) would be the idea of giving Champion Points as rewards.

Here are some examples:

- Reward from completing a trial
- Reward from completing a veteran dungeon quest or killing the final boss (Undaunted quest maybe?)
- Reward from killing x number of players in Cyrodiil (Available to veterans only)

Those are just with current in game mechanics. If you wanted to branch out you could try some of the following:
- Create unique monster hunter missions (Track down and kill a difficult mob, usually involves an entire group) Repeatable but on a x hour cooldown
- Reward Champion Points from a new crafting quest line (Help gear the soldiers to fight the Daedra in Imperial city)

Bromburak

Gandrhulf_Harbard wrote: »

Which game has the most players and most subscribers?

It doesn't matter for having fun, why is this so important for you?

Now, please do tell me how the one with the lower number of players and subscribers is the "better designed" game.

If you like WoW more thats fine but your commercial addiction is sick.

Gandrhulf_Harbard

Bromburak wrote: »

Gandrhulf_Harbard wrote: »

Which game has the most players and most subscribers?

It doesn't matter for having fun, why is this so important for you?

Now, please do tell me how the one with the lower number of players and subscribers is the "better designed" game.

If you like WoW more thats fine but your commercial addiction is sick.

Like I said, keep making assumptions.

I bought WoD on release played for less than a month and haven't been back since.

Commercial addiction?

And you are playing ESO why?

Is it because of the commercial success of the Elder Scrolls IP?

All The Best

Bromburak

Gandrhulf_Harbard wrote: »

Bromburak wrote: »

Gandrhulf_Harbard wrote: »

Which game has the most players and most subscribers?

It doesn't matter for having fun, why is this so important for you?

Now, please do tell me how the one with the lower number of players and subscribers is the "better designed" game.

If you like WoW more thats fine but your commercial addiction is sick.

Like I said, keep making assumptions.

Why the heck are you here, you are the one who said WoW has more subscribers and the better design.
You are implausible because you talk like an investor and not like a gamer.

Have a good one.

DenMoria

e1team wrote: »

daemonios wrote: »

Vizier wrote: »

I honestly couldn't care less about your concerns. That someone newer to the game has fewer CP is not only expected it's reasonable. When VR is finally removed from the game the only thing separating folks will be CP and NOT the vast gulf of V1-V14 soon to be V16 AND CP. With the diminishing return on CP folks will close the gap fast enough...IF the WTF Play the game. After a time the difference will be negligible since the guy with less CP will always get more % increases then the guy with more.

I honestly cannot understand how people defend the champion system instead of the VR level system. Let's do a bit of math.

A new player would need 12,750,000 XP to go from VR1 to VR16 (using the 850k XP per VR level that's going to be used in the next update). For the sake of comparison, let's assume the player grinds that XP, and that the grind nets 500k XP/hour (completely feasible today). It would take 25.5 hours to go from VR1 to VR16.

Now imagine the same new player trying to catch up with other players' CP. The lowest many long-time players have is 70 CP, which were awarded with the implementation of the Champion System. It takes 28,000,000 XP (at 400k XP per CP) to get there, or 56 hours, more than twice the time it takes to go from VR1-VR16. What was that you were saying about VR grinding being bad?

More realistically, many hardcore/competitive players are well into their 300s in terms of CP. I'm not even going to talk about those with 500+, which are also out there. Let's just take the 300 number - it takes 120,000,000 XP for a new player to get there, or 240 hours (after reaching VR1, of course).

So tell me, how is it preferable to have a system where it takes you 240 hours to catch up to competitive players preferable to one where it takes 25? Also, consider that while a new player is grinding his way to 300 CP, the 300 CP player will still be earning additional points. With the VR system, you would reach the top level and be on par with everyone else at top level until they raised the cap again.

And don't "diminishing-returns" me - by the time you get 300 CP you're far from seeing any kind of diminishing returns. You keep getting flat increases to your stats for each CP spent, and at 300 you'll still be unlocking extremely powerful passives (weap/spell crit, synergy ultimate generation, etc.).

I always thought that the Champion System was a huge mistake as a replacement for VR levels, even though it can be an interesting system in terms of character development. Its implementation has only confirmed my fears. The Champion System isn't a new, friendlier progression system. It's a way to keep you playing for 3600x400,000 XP.

Who said it should be easy? Why should it be? Easy games are no fun. Yes it'll take more time but it'll also feel much more rewarding when you'll get there!
And you get THREE times more time to enjoy the game! What's the complaint?

Easy games are fun! Look at Candy Crush, Farmland and Bejeweled.