Let's be frank about Roleplaying Games, "keeping up with the Joneses", and exploits.

AppleJuiceBox2

So anyone want to take a color? I'll be blue..... ready....go...

Erock25

Of course this guy who plays this game all day, everyday, and probably has in the neighborhood of 400+ CP right now is defending the CP system.

MrGhosty

Tis a well written post OP, but I strongly disagree with you.

Now I don't have a graph or anything, just my player experience and what I've seen in other games. I am 100% for progression in a game, you are correct that almost all modern games are trying to include it in one form or another and the progression in RPGs are carrying on strong.

The issue that I have with the CS is the vertical progression, and here is my premise. I have played Planetside 2 for over two years now. While being a shooter it is a massive open world warfare game with a progression system that I have had the chance to spend a lot of time with and have seen how it progressed over the course of playing the game.

Now, I will readily admit that a 1 to 1 comparison doesn't really work here because of the different game types so when I give my examples I am looking purely at the value of the mechanic and how it can relate to either game.

The progression in Planetside is controlled by certifications. You level up and earn xp and for every X amount of xp you earn a cert point. This cert point can be used to buy weapons (skill upgrades) or put into your specific builds to give them resistances. What makes this system so nice is that the resistances and new weapons don't give you an "I win" button but they do reward particular playstyles by allowing greater specialization.

This horizontal progression provides incentive and reward but doesn't create a playing field where a lvl100 character can easily stomp every single lvl1 player. That level one player is more likely to die to the high level player but that is largely based on skill and experience rather than a direct stat increase. If we applied that thinking to the champion system, the meaningful progression you enjoy would still be there and would even perhaps further enable better hybrid builds or other specializations without discouraging newer players from even trying.

I am a firm believer in players being rewarded for the time they commit to a game, but I don't feel that those players should be given a clear and powerful advantage. Some will say CPs are only a PvP problem but I would disagree, this is an entire game problem as the game exists within its own ecosystem and every ripple affects something else. Having a fair playing field doesn't mean you can't have progression, fair does not mean equal. I don't ask that the game holds my hand or gives me things simply for showing up, but I do expect that in a multiplayer game the deck not be stacked against me simply because I opted to join later (for the record I've been playing since day one early access on PC) There will always be games where there is no "fairness" and that is part of the games appeal such as Eve or DayZ but those games were never advertised as being for everyone and offering the catchy slogan of "play as you want". MMOs rely on other people to be part of the content, if you create an imbalance that discourages and drives away players the whole game loses content. So I really can't see any reason not to try and create a fair and balanced playing field that rewards skilled,dedicated player while encouraging new,underskilled players to dig in and improve themselves and no, "grind to 300cp" is not the encouragement I mean.

Tonnopesce

Cherryblossom wrote: »

What your essentially saying is once you have reached 500-600 points there is very little improvement.

Yes wonderful, awesome, but it would seem you have missed the point! You have to get there whilst others are already there, you cannot disagree that a 10% bonus gives you a distinct advantage over another player who don't have it...

This create's huge divisions within the player base, those with CP and those without. How do you balance for these differences.
PVE; New content is either too hard for new players without CP or to easy for those with loads.
PVP; pretty obvious really.

Also your whole premise is that there will be no additions to the CS, so this would beg the question, whats the point of gaining points when it at some point it gives no progression!

In DnD the DM would suit the encouters to the Party, this is not possible with CS points.

So basically you are admitting that there IS a CP cap into a specific build (and for evry existing build) but you do not accept that some people are already there?

If you think about it those players with 6-700 cp NOW are basically at the best possible into a build, the more they get from now on will only increment their basic stats and the other players can only catch up with them.

Zos is not incrementing new pvp-pve dlc's on a CP base infact they have increased the VR to 16.

The CP will give progression all the way to 3600 but not in something you need to use in order to be competitive.

@Attorneyatlawl Keep it up and you will start to have fanbois like @Deltia (the only reason he get so much views in his thread), i sign up as first one!

HungryHobo

Ahzek wrote: »

@Attorneyatlawl
One thing you forgot about the progress made with allocating more and more champion points is the stat increase that comes with it wich gives another (significant) advantage of power to those who have more CP respecively.

While it is true that from 30 to 100 CP the advantage of power might only be 14% more damage in one dmg type you alsomhave to look at other benefits. That player with 100 CP also has 14% bigger shields and 14% higher regen for example in addition to higher pools wich boost damage and survivability respectively as well so in the end he might come out with his main abilities hitting for ~2k (on smthing like a fragment or wrecking blow) more while having a 2k bigger harness amgicka/hardened ward, etc. and a higher healthpool as well.

On top of that with more CP comes the opportunity to invest in different stars more efficiently so with another 100 CP you get maybe 14% higher critical damage as well as 10% block cost reduction and a nice little ~9% cost reduction to your spells plus ofc even more stats.

With another 100 CP we get clsoe to the really dangerous territory. With the 120 point passives unlocking soon (unchained or a 14k shield on block every so many seconds) it can quickly become impossible for a lowe CP player to kill a player with high CP count even if he is way more skilled than that player. It doesnt matter if you got that sorc feared for 3.5 seconds and he was dumb enough to blow all his stamina (wich is hardly possible with that many CP) when you have to get through giant shields first only to get him to 50% when he just blocks, and shields it all up again without having to worry a slightest bit.

The problem with Cp is NOT that it is a progression system that makes your charecter more powerfull but that it provides so much power wirhout having to invest any skill or effort into it (apart from time and xp pots) that in the end strategy and skill of the inferior player just cease to matter when his opponent has several hundreds of cp on him because he decided to grind them out.
Tactics, planning and strategy become worthless with the CS when your opponent just takes 20% less damage from you deals 20% more on top of that and has no chance to run out of resources ever. This is not about finetuning everything this is about a numeral advantage that makes some fights impossible to win, very similar to a low lvl player attacking a veteran in top gear even if that low lvl player has way more skill and experience (might be an alt) than the veteran.

When you now set an actually skilled player behind the char with enourmos amounts of CP you have the perfect reicpe to slaughter everyone with new and slower players being left in the dirt.

@sypher who i think most agree is pretty decent at pvp himself, has outlined the impact of CP on fights from his personal experience.

There are many solutions to these power gaps (some good some worse) out there and i wont touch on them here but in the end it becomes quite obvious to me that simething has to be done in order to allow some kind of even playing field where skill actually matter even if you opponent has way more CP than you do.

This. Each individual boost is fine by itself. But as a whole the power gained is larger than ~11%. In fact, to compound this even more, if you have high CP's, you tend to have more money, and you can afford the better gear, of higher quality, which puts your base stats even higher. If someone wants to join, they are not just faced with the normal gearing wall to overcome, but compounded on top of that is the CP wall which further stretches the difference in power.

Egg_Death

This is a very interesting discussion, especially for a new console player like myself. So much of the fuss on the forums is about stuff that doesn't even affect me yet, but it is interesting seeing where the game is going.

I am not against rewarding experience with ability, especially when PvP is inherently unbalanced as far as numbers and terrain go. If I can't beat you, adding 10 or 20 reinforcements is not out of the question. On the other hand, in a game like Destiny you have matched teams with maps that are designed around strategic balance. Your gear can greatly improve your odds, but gear in that game was, on large-scale average, a result of time spent doing raids and grinding (lots of grinding). On top of that there were caps on the number of exceptional pieces you could use at a time. The PvP involved at least as much skill as gear, and it was not out of the question for a team to win with a gear disadvantage if they used good tactics and teamwork.

Since it is more of an open PvP, I would say ESO is acceptable in my book if the best players can take on maybe 5 average-ability lower level players and barely win, and this is with no teamwork between them, just straight DPS attacks on you. You should not be able to take on 10 people alone, and less-powerful players should be able to gank you easily if there's more than 5 with heals and other teamwork.

Perhaps in PvP they should make damage-canceled CC moves like Rune Prison un-breakable. You'd of course have to remove the AoE exemption, or make AoE damage allow you to break CC, but at least then a smart group could incapacitate a high-level threat until they have the numbers to deal with him/her. At the very least a single-target CC should be able to hinder a higher-level player to where it matters, just like it does in difficult PvE content. As a blockable move I can't see this being useable except on one or a few targeted players (like to keep all but 1 CCed so you can attack one at a time), because it is blockable and non-instant. Perhaps a group could surprise cast it to single down to one enemy, but that would only work as an opener and is no different to sneak assassination moves.

In any case, a group of 4 skilled people should be able to take out a more powerful player if there are no additional enemies to face. Another idea would be to have strong players labeled as such by health bar color/style modifications, following along the lines of PvE content with difficult opponents. The core point is that in a team vs team scenario a single powerful high-level player should be easier to beat than a team with several slightly more powerful players. If ambiguity is making this difficult, add more obvious strength indicators. Perhaps new or more strengthened single-target CC moves are required to level the playing field when it comes to 1v5 or 2v10 scenarios where your power is less distributed.

A "hero player" should be an advantage, but it should be easily countered by a team where the power is distributed more evenly.

k2blader

I don't mind progression. But I don't want it to be based on mindless grinding of PvE content. I play to PvP, so I'd like progression in the form of high-value PvP-specific gear for my class/build. Currently the vast majority of PvP gear choices suck, and you're forced to PvE for certain set pieces that are considered best or near-best.

[edit]
XP and thus CP gain in PvP should also be increased, if they are keeping the awful CP system.

Kenophobia

"If you don't like basketball... rather than ask it to be changed to a monstrous hybrid of football, soccer, and baseball, don't play basketball."

I feel as if this was directly ripped from my post on the Subreddit.

DaveMoeDee

Cherryblossom wrote: »

What your essentially saying is once you have reached 500-600 points there is very little improvement.

Yes wonderful, awesome, but it would seem you have missed the point! You have to get there whilst others are already there, you cannot disagree that a 10% bonus gives you a distinct advantage over another player who don't have it...

This create's huge divisions within the player base, those with CP and those without. How do you balance for these differences.
PVE; New content is either too hard for new players without CP or to easy for those with loads.
PVP; pretty obvious really.

Also your whole premise is that there will be no additions to the CS, so this would beg the question, whats the point of gaining points when it at some point it gives no progression!

In DnD the DM would suit the encouters to the Party, this is not possible with CS points.

PvP is not one on one. If one person of hundreds has 10% more in a stat, so what?

There aren't huge divisions because all those people end up thrown in together in only 3 alliances.

Paradox

So... Basically... "Balance doesn't matter, get used to ".

Good message.

DaveMoeDee

While I appreciate the comparison to Planetside, it is a problematic comparison because ESO is primarily an RPG. Yes, it has PvP, but that is not the main part of the game. Look at all the DLC planned. Look at the weekly patches. The focus of the game is not PvP, so the character development will not be focused on what makes the best PvP game.

I do agree that the CS could be re-made to be more horizontal with buff unlocks and a limit on how many buffs can be active at a single moment. That could be a decent design that would still provide a target for completionists who want to unlock even what they will not use. But this is all secondary to having a feel like the character is growing in power as it progresses though additional content.

Armitas

Frankly, every Tom Brick and Harry are chasing after the Joneses. Shirley if they would just Marry some of these ideas, like seasons, to the crown store it would fix a lot of the concern and they would still be Abel to Carie in a fat dollar Bill at the end of the day.

MrGhosty

DaveMoeDee wrote: »

While I appreciate the comparison to Planetside, it is a problematic comparison because ESO is primarily an RPG. Yes, it has PvP, but that is not the main part of the game. Look at all the DLC planned. Look at the weekly patches. The focus of the game is not PvP, so the character development will not be focused on what makes the best PvP game.

I do agree that the CS could be re-made to be more horizontal with buff unlocks and a limit on how many buffs can be active at a single moment. That could be a decent design that would still provide a target for completionists who want to unlock even what they will not use. But this is all secondary to having a feel like the character is growing in power as it progresses though additional content.

You're correct, which is why I prefaced it isn't a perfect example, but it is still applicable in my opinion. My point is that both games are on a massive scale, have three faction combat, and are multiplayer. This sort of power imbalance still leads to issues even in PvE zones as there are leaderboards for the end game content and as we've seen in the past many Trials and DSA groups apply certain restrictions on the sort of players they will bring in, in some cases dropping players after their first wipe. How long until we start seeing guild and group restrictions on what your champion point level is? I understand that not all will do this, but something that many diehard supporters on both sides seem to forget is that if one side fails the other isn't often far behind, a loss of players combined with bad word of mouth can sink a game quickly no matter how strong certain aspects appeared. Players are content in any multiplayer game. No players, no game.

As for the DLC planned, we saw most of that DLC last year and have yet to have it. Coupled with less than stellar communication from ZOS there is very little that can be reliably determined based on the DLC they plan and show to us. If we look back at their marketing however, PvP did and continues to play quite strongly in their advertisements so it definitely seems they (at least superficially) care about PvP and that makes the Planetside2 example worth looking at as they've handled the balance correctly, imo.

PeggymoeXD

Cameron_Star wrote: »

You care way too much about this game.

He's an ambassador. He's been appointed to care too much about this game. Don't be a turd.

djnapstyb14_ESO

I agree with OP. I like that the game is built for long term progression and not just power level, complete, and quit.

Cernow

DaveMoeDee wrote: »

While I appreciate the comparison to Planetside, it is a problematic comparison because ESO is primarily an RPG. Yes, it has PvP, but that is not the main part of the game. Look at all the DLC planned. Look at the weekly patches. The focus of the game is not PvP, so the character development will not be focused on what makes the best PvP game.

But PvP isn't a tiny inconsequential part of the game. The 3-faction system is designed primarily with PvP in mind. Cyrodiil is a massive zone and a lot of players spend a lot of time there. For some players PvP is the main attraction and they spend the majority of their time there. But they won't if balance goes out the window.

If you are going to put PvP in your game, your MUST balance it or you are wasting everyones' time. Don't want to balance PvP? Then leave it out of the game.

If you don't want PVE and PvP balance issues to interfere with each other, then you need to have separate game systems for each. Some MMOs have taken this approach, but ESO has decided it will let PVE systems dictate PvP balance. It's a design decision that ZOS will have to live with the consequences of if it doesn't work out.

It seems they've designed a system which plays into the hands of the min-maxxers and the grinders. Is this a lack of foresight or a deliberate ploy to sell catch-up solutions in the Crown Store? Decide for yourselves.

OzJohnD

is ESO a MMORPG ?

nimander99

Attorneyatlawl wrote: »

I saw a post by @reapthetempestrwb17_ESO recently, that very much stuck out to me, and struck a chord. I feel that it hits such a crucial, and core, argument as to how roleplaying games are designed and work in an online environment, that it really needs to be expanded on and discussed.

reapthetempestrwb17_ESO wrote: »

I only have 100 CP, I don't grind, have played since beta and I listen to the dialogue and take it slow. As a result my main is only VR 10. Yet my character has a 3.0 + KD in Vet Cyrodiil. I don't know if that is good or not since I didn't PVP that much until recently but I don't see what the problem is with CP? Am I the only one that thinks the system is fine as it is?

I also don't understand why someone like Deltia who grinds constantly and uses any exploits he can to get max level (crab grind, sheep killing etc) and gain CP yet he is sooo upset that people have an unfair advantage with too many CP because he still can't keep up with literally one or two other people out of hundreds of thousands of players.

In MMOs you want your character to feel powerful. Why do people want to nerf the ability to gain very slight ability buffs that have diminishing returns to the point that the difference between putting 99 and 100 CP in one skill tree ability is literally to low a decimal place to even register an increase in buff %?

I also disagree that if I have been playing every day for over a year someone who picks up the game today should be able to catch up to me in progression unless I quit the game. As long as people are earning CP legitimately whether grinding or questing or doing dailies or trials or PVP they have earned those CP through hard work, time and effort.

People not prepared to put work time and effort into the game have no right to feel entitled to have the same level of reward and ability as those who do.

Well, I have to tell you @reapthetempestrwb17_ESO, you aren't the only one. Not only should you get better as a player, but as a character, when you play a game more. That's true in real life in sports, where you earn more money to get better equipment, practice, and get better at shooting hoops. The same is true in hobbyist videogames.

This really does sum up the core of the discussion, I think. The bottom line ends up being that this is an online RPG. RPG's inherently are based around character progression, player skill and tactics, obtaining better gear/gold coins, and learning the combat system to work with the mechanics of the gameplay. A lot of comments here talk about an "even playing field", but that already exists. Everyone has the exact same opportunity and ability to earn champion points, and they are already diminishing in usefulness rapidly the more you gain. You can't balance a game around what the fringe cases are. It simply doesn't represent how nearly anyone really plays, in general. Exceptional people, players, and examples exist in just about anything you can name in life. And yes, so do cheaters, exploiters, and other "not cool" things.

I've seen a startling acceptance among some crowds of exploiting, to "level the field" and top scores up, or even outright showing off using them for leveling champion points (or even veteran ranks and normal character levels), getting into keeps or outposts in Cyrodiil PVP, and more. These players feel entitled, for whatever reasons, to cheat ahead of the crowd.

Whether they think they simply deserve it outright, or that the system is somehow "broken", they rationalize it. There are some players, probably in the mid-double-digits if I were to guess, running around with 600, 700, even upwards of a thousand champion points right now. Mind you, this is in a game with millions of players. Guess what? Not only did the majority of these people bot by exploiting bugged mobs or botting grind spots while they slept, but they usually do get banned given some time, and the odds of you running into one of 50, 60, or however many of those players ever is astronomically low. If you lose one fight because of that? That doesn't mean the system's bad. It means cheaters suck, just like they always do, in online gaming.

Now, to get back to the main contention at hand here (the Champion System, Veteran Ranks, and progression as a whole), I wrote a succinct and raw-facts summary of how it all works along with the relevant examples here:
http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/190594/primer-champion-points

Yes, you can gain "14.2% more damage" (quote-unquote, because unless you're only using one type of attack, that's a misnomer and not correct) than someone else near the beginning of the system by getting to 270 champion points if they only have 90, for one damage type such as elemental, physical, or magical (poison, disease, and magicka) attacks, by maxing out that one star while they "only" can get 30 points in, for 10.8% damage gained of that attack type.

Let me once more link this in, because it is being fully overlooked, I think, by most of the people recently discussing the champion system who are staunchly against the entire idea of progression in an MMORPG, a genre which incidentally is a subgenre of the RPG:


"Champion Point scaling works in five primary groups, with one or two minor exceptions. The table above shows what you are gaining as you invest more into a single passive, and the lessened value per point between inherent relative diminishment, and the slight exponent on the boosts' power curves."

Read that table. On the BEST scaling group of the five main ones these passives use, you have to spend three and a third times the points, to get a two and a third times the bonus. However, that may sound like a big number, yet it's actually only 14.2% to one damage type as discussed above. It's rare, and difficult, to make anything but a niche build that only uses one damage type. Generally, you'll get about 3/4ths to 4/5ths of your damage overall from that primary type, so already that advantage is dropping in its usefulness towards the ~11% range. That's with having three times the champion level, and this is in the most extreme range of gains and changes you obtain from the system being at the very start. Once you reach the level 500 to 600 range, you see a sharper drop-off.

Ultimately, if you wanted pure, raw balance, you would be playing Chess, or failing that because it's too "boring" for you... you'd be playing a computer-based game that was designed strictly around balance with absolutely zero progression in any way, shape, or form, such as Quake 3 or Unreal Tournament (1999). Battlefield has progression that stays with your account, as does Call of Duty. So does Counter-Strike, and even League of Legends inside of a specific match as you earn cash/gold to buy upgrades as the round goes on. Starcraft 2, does not, but it automatically matches you against players of objectively closer skill levels, so you are progressing on the leaderboard rankings and getting tougher opponents as you get better in your personal skill.

The RPG genre, all the way back to Dungeons and Dragons on pen and paper, is not about 100%, flawless, meticulously crafted equality. Rather, it is based around, and designed for, tactics, planning, and strategy to win the day. On the computer, some reaction time and real-time elements have been introduced, as a compromise between purely turn-based games and purely real-time twitch-based games like Q3 and UT99, for fun factor to the broader market. These all are types of skill, but they are different ones. If you don't like basketball... rather than ask it to be changed to a monstrous hybrid of football, soccer, and baseball, don't play basketball. They conceptually are incompatible with their rulesets and the skills you need, despite sharing a pool of common traits. This is the same with videogames.

/two-dollars' worth of thought. Thanks for reading, all.

@ZOS_GinaBruno, @ZOS_JessicaFolsom, @ZOS_BrianWheeler, @ZOS_RichLambert, @ZOS_ChrisStrasz, @ZOS_KaiSchober.

THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS^^^^^^^^^^ ALL OF THE ABOVE!!!!!!

And thank you for putting this in the way I felt but couldn't seem to articulate @Attorneyatlawl and @reapthetempestrwb17_ESO I have felt like I was the only one trying to say "Hey everyone calm down! this isn't actually an issue!"

I have been playing nearly every form of rpg since D&D and Warhammer Fantasy, but it seems like there is a small but vocal group that only pvp and they want to bring the multiplayer Halo battle map to pvp in the mmorpg and I for one DEARLY HOPE that ZoS' team does not make the extreme changes that some are asking for!

Anyhooser, my 10 cents.

Attorneyatlawl

Paradox wrote: »

So... Basically... "Balance doesn't matter, get used to ".

Good message.

The message is, get the facts and think things through, before spilling directly into outrage. Here are all the facts of how the system works: http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/190594/primer-champion-points-a-cliffs-notes-well-not-really-presentation

It's not easy to have an honest discussion when half of the participants believe one thing without having the facts they decided upon right in the first place, 49 percent are confused by the first half making inaccurate, or at the very least incomplete, statements that don't line up with the mechanics, and only 1 percent have done the math, before everyone chats.

markt84

Rune_Relic wrote: »

Exceptional people, players, and examples exist in just about anything you can name in life. And yes, so do cheaters, exploiters, and other "not cool" things.

I stopped reading at that point.
I have no time for people who sympathise with exploiters and cheaters and say...hey that's life.
That crap only exists if its tolerated and permitted.

The mistake you are making is believing the game is here for YOUR personal benefit at the expense of all others.
You feel the ability for you to become a God and wreck all before you far out weighs the desire of those around you not to be wrecked.
You feel that's the way gameplay has been to date so that makes it OK.
That originates from a single player rpg mentality where you never had to give a crap about anyone else.
The enemy was NPCs.... no one gave a crap.

My opinion is all games have failed to date for exactly that reason.
Hence the obligatory problem of people jumping ship endlessly as soon as an alternative arrives.
The elite grind and grind.
The elite become more powerful.
The masses just end up fodder time after time.
The masses leave out of frustration as soon as they realise they can never compete.
The game ends.

Your selfishness and the game creators pandering to it is what will kill this game.
Personally I avoid PVP at all costs now it has become so unbalanced and full of exploits.
When PVE ends up the same way, I too will walk away from the game and leave you to enjoy....until ZOS pulls the plug due to lack of players.

You need to look through the eyes of the masses if you want this game to prosper.
Not the eyes of the elite at the top who want nothing but more invulnerability so they can kill 50 players at once instead of 30.

Nailed it

k2blader

Attorneyatlawl wrote: »

It's not easy to have an honest discussion when half of the participants believe one thing without having the facts they decided upon right in the first place, 49 percent are confused by the first half making inaccurate, or at the very least incomplete, statements that don't line up with the mechanics, and only 1 percent have done the math, before everyone chats.

Welcome to.. life ?

LtCrunch

Attorneyatlawl wrote: »

Paradox wrote: »

So... Basically... "Balance doesn't matter, get used to ".

Good message.

The message is, get the facts and think things through, before spilling directly into outrage. Here are all the facts of how the system works: http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/190594/primer-champion-points-a-cliffs-notes-well-not-really-presentation

It's not easy to have an honest discussion when half of the participants believe one thing without having the facts they decided upon right in the first place, 49 percent are confused by the first half making inaccurate, or at the very least incomplete, statements that don't line up with the mechanics, and only 1 percent have done the math, before everyone chats.

You also can't have an honest discussion while omitting several important factors; which is something you seem fond of doing and this OP is no exception. You like to share facts, but only the facts that support your claims while hoping people don't notice you've left out the facts that don't. You're giving us glimpses of the parts of the picture you want us to see, while never revealing the entire thing. Let's assume we're talking about two people running identical builds. An 11% damage advantage doesn't seem like a big deal, until you realize that's only a small part of the picture. That same person will have a raw stat advantage over you. They may also have more regen, more mitigation, cheaper spells, bigger crits, stronger heals, stronger light/heavy attacks, etc(all of which are amplified by racial and class passives) It all adds up and when factoring it all in is a much less flattering picture than the one you want us to see.

Gidorick

Unfortunately @Attorneyatlawl, people are creatures of perspective. A person who FEELS that a system is unfair (no matter if it is or not) will continue to find reasons as to why the system is unfair. In this case, any time a player is killed in PVP by another player they will blame it on the better player having more CPs.

LtCrunch

Gidorick wrote: »

Unfortunately @Attorneyatlawl, people are creatures of perspective. A person who FEELS that a system is unfair (no matter if it is or not) will continue to find reasons as to why the system is unfair. In this case, any time a player is killed in PVP by another player they will blame it on the better player having more CPs.

In this case we have some of the top PVP players in the game saying the system is flawed.

lathbury

can someone answer this if a player has 75 points in the mighty star and the respective stamina bonus that would provide. how much more damage is his wrecking blow going to do when compared to another player with identical gear and atributes but with 0 cp. for arguments sake say before champ points they had 25000 stam and 2000 weapon damage

TheBull

OP rektm. Did you put all your points in illumination? Or did you split between math and debate? Regardless if you keep grinding threads like this the noobs will never catch up. Maybe ZOS can put some intellect pots in the CS. As it stands the bad posters don't stand a chance.

Sentinel

I wonder how many have tested CPs on the PTS. Last time I checked, I still have the 3600 CP templates available on there. Arguments are best made with unbiased comparisons. Has anyone made any video comparisons between the PvP performance (not theoretical gains but actual gains) of certain CP levels (such as 0-100-1000)?

That being said, my own opinion is that the current implementation of CPs will have a negative effect in the long term. My reasoning: The CS is a long term progression with massive benefits. Those with massive (upwards of 600-1000+) CP have a much greater power boost (Not skill, simply power, overall benefits outside of gameplay) than those with none. Given that new players come into PvP wanting to have fun, learning that there is a system that makes it very difficult to compete with others in PvP will discourage or encourage them. IMO, the majority new players will be discouraged; they see a power gap they cannot close, and because of this feel like they will be unable to compete in PvP. Whether this is the actual outcome (as the system is still early enough to be theoretical) remains to be seen. However, if many people are discouraged from playing the game because of a perceived inability to compete, they will do what many forum users like to say: "go play something else". I'm quite sure ZOS wouldn't want to harm sales from negative reputation due to the Champion system, and from people (even RPG players) who do not wish to be a part of that game system.

Purely theoretical. But the system has the capacity to become a very large determining factor in the sales of the game, and I think that is because it is vertical progression of which is massive compared to 1-v14. I would enjoy making the system much more horizontal, something that provides more options of gameplay as one progresses. Options that do not inherently increase power, but provide different tools at the disposal that can be used to increase power in relation to ones skill, as in the more skilled, the more powerful one can become. It would create a skill gap, not a power gap. Given that RPGs are all about progressing oneself, this would take the progress out of the hands of a character and into the hands of the player. This is all my own opinion though. I truly think the Champion System is not in a healthy state. (And yes I am catering to the casuals, seeing as they are the largest playerbase consists of casual players and the success of games largely depend on it).

(also keep in mind my post only accounts for the PvP side of things)

Tonnopesce

I dont get it... Why evry time we put the CP into a pvp thread we consider only the teory in a 1v1 fight. most of the times small fights does not exist and the chance to fight against a CP farmer are so low that probably a casual player NEVER see a Cp farmer in his entire game experience.

Now i admit that CP make a huge difference , with my vr 1 nightblade @ 160CP i can fight and win against vr 14's noobs but i've EARNED this power (and skills) by playng since last year; and when on the PS4 i get messages full of hate with people that claim that is unfair, i say fxxk it ! i've the right to be more powerful than someone who has just started playng

Atirez

Never mind diminishing returns, or anything like that: Skill should always win over.

When it doesn't the game no longer becomes enjoyable and can be likened to other non-skill games like clash of clans.

For those that believe long play time grinding CP should give MOOOAAARRR POWER, yes to a certain degree a slight numerical advantage is OK. But someone who learns to master the game, not grind, should be a better player and that skill should outweigh your grinding. Spending weeks and hours in a gym does not inherently make you a good tennis player.

Tonnopesce

Atirez wrote: »

Never mind diminishing returns, or anything like that: Skill should always win over.

When it doesn't the game no longer becomes enjoyable and can be likened to other non-skill games like clash of clans.

For those that believe long play time grinding CP should give MOOOAAARRR POWER, yes to a certain degree a slight numerical advantage is OK. But someone who learns to master the game, not grind, should be a better player and that skill should outweigh your grinding. Spending weeks and hours in a gym does not inherently make you a good tennis player.

I can be the most sklled of the server and do pvp only most of the time but if i go against a pve gear farmer with the dwemer undauted set or a dk full armored with the Skoria set i'm still going to have a bad time, even with MOARRR power in CP.

IF the cp sistem where not farmed in order to obtain the " I WIN " powers (probably wanted by people that normally are not so skilled ) no one will cry about it, my pesonal solution? seasonal cap: evry dlc the cap will rise a little (2-300cp) then even if farmed, the power that one can obtain will be controlled in order to avoid disparity in the playerbase.