Official Feedback Thread for Champion System Updates

PlagueMonk

kaorunandrak wrote: »

Darkonflare15 wrote: »

I find it sad that there is always a split in opinions for the player base every time zos makes a decision. They can never win.

Opinions are like butt-holes everyone has one, and some people don't clean em either >;p. But yeah man they will never be able to "win" it's the internet mentality "its not what I want so lets thrown down like a 3 year old fighting a nap". And then there's the "over protective mother, my child can do no wrong he just became a *** because he had to" apologist mentality that some people have developed as well.

But here is a middle of the lane opinion from me, I think this is a solid idea and a fair change, I am however concerned with how they came to this number based off the averages put up to defend it by Rich, it is hard to believe the average CP for pc is only 96, especially when almost every person I team with and most people on these and other forums are claiming to have over 500+.

That said as long as this cap doesn't over stay it's welcome and doesn't introduce some other glitch where people are able to by pass it, or take advantage of it some way I think we will be in good shape moving forward. But I think that will be the struggle for them.

I would really caution throwing around terms like "most" because the truth is you really don't know. (whereas the actual game makes DO know). And teaming with other more HC people is meaningless to the general population. Understand you are in a very small minority.

Also realize that less than 10% of the population ever visits the forums (this has been a hard fact since the beginning of MMOs).

From my experience though, 100 CP isn't too off base considering the vast majority of players are casual and don't have more than 10 hrs a week to devote to playing.

I personally am not a HC player but neither am I casual and am sitting at around 200 CP. I may be a bit low for my time played but I personally don't spend all my time grinding and spend a fair amount of that time crafting/writs/maintenance (things that do not really contribute to CPs)

byrom101b16_ESO

ahstin2001nub18_ESO wrote: »

byrom101b16_ESO wrote: »

zornyan wrote: »

byrom101b16_ESO wrote: »

zornyan wrote: »

Xeven wrote: »

ZOS please do not back down from 501 CP and the catch up system, it is fantastic.

The catch up system should help you reach the current cap, meaning the xp required to gain your next CP should probably top out right around the current cap IMO.

I love hearing this... why?

Because when this goes live me and my group will still be face rolling you and everyone bitching about how cp makes you over powered, we will still 1vx and win.

There will still be videos of sypher taking on 10 people and destroying them. Cp doesn't matter. But mark my words, the day this goes live and the constant stream of moaning that will continue about 'xyz is op' I will be sat here enjoying the salty tears.

Btw I've only got 120 cp, but it's still funny when I win 1v6 and get hate mails telling me I must have 600cp and a scrub...

People who publically claim that they "love" the frustrations or 'tears' of others are precisely the kind of people MMOs would be more successful without, especially those who enjoy engendering negative responses from others, who enjoy forcing rage-quitting, like griefing, spawn camping, t-bagging and all the other forms of antisocial and puerile behaviour one sees.

It reflects infinitely better on someone if they can win whilst simultaneously treating their opponents with respect.

Hell, it reflects somewhat better on someone who might be a self-proclaimed and unproven 'faceroller' etc. but who nevertheless doesn't crow about it in pointless posts in the forums.

I love the tears of these kids that think they should be able to load up a game and be good immediately. Mmo's require time spent and progression, don't have that time to dedicate? then just accept you're never going to be as powerful as someone that's invested time.

Take eve online, you have to spend hundreds of hours to even have a hope of getting a remotely good ship, that can easily be destroyed and leave you back where you started, but the model works, and games like this literally hang around for decades.

Catering to casuals and people that barely play is a bad decision, my main rofl point was that you see daily threads of "I died to xyz because they had 500000000 cp it's unfair" yet they refuse to put time in to earn cp, those very same people praising the cap will still be face rolled when it drops, as cp's wernt face rolling them, people with practise and dedicated gear were


Take the new battle leveling, I have a large abundance of gold for a recent console player (around 2.8 million thanks to IC drops and grinding) that means in bwb where gear quality now matters, I can make an alt, level him to 40 and equip him with multiple full gold gear sets without a fuss, those sets will give me more bonuses, damage and mitigation than the average player that may only be able to afford green gear.

So basically the next common qq will be " why can xyz have gold gear that gives them 5k more armor than me!"

The so called justification for your way of putting your point is irrelevant.

It's how you state your case that I have issue with.

Maybe you missed that...

... I certainly didn't miss your reference to EVE, which a number of my friends play, is a game with low population, eats up half your life and massively discourages new players.

That works for EVE because their vanishingly small team make enough money of the number-static game population of players they do have, but comparing it's vanishingly small profits to a mainstream game is not a point worth making.

Catering to MORE players is the best commercial goal there is; ego-stroking a TINY niche percentage of leetist no-lifers is a fast way to make your game the equivalent of a cottage industry, or more likely a commercial failure, with the margin between depending on how many people without jobs you can find yo play 18 hours a day, who nevertheless have the money to pay.

'Money talks, *** walks' is a old saying, and one that the tiny noisy minority who think they should own the game as much as it owns their lives should really take note of before spending hours every day ranting about how outraged they are that the game isn't acting like their personal train set.

Bless...

first off, screw you and your "no-lifer" mentality. i play more than average right now and the last few months because im 1200 miles from my family, and this game is what keeps me in some aspect of contact with at least my wife. you don't know *** about what the "other sides" personal life is so shut the hell up about it, and mind your own damn business...

quite frankly you are both correct in the overall assessment, unfortunately you both are missing the middle 50%. this new system is going to effect them as well. cut the 50% of the middle in two groups- 25% that will gain and 25% which will not. this new system cuts out the top 25% of the hardcore, hiders the top 25% of the current median, slightly helps the lower 25% of the current median, while completely catering to the lower 25%.

in other words, this new system is catering to the exact polar opposite of the spectrum that EVE does. thats bad business... period. there is another old saying as well: "a bird in the hand, is worth two in the bush". if you think that catering to the lower end of the spectrum, with the expectation you are gonna get "new players" in such mass as to offset the players lost, you are really bad at business decisions. they should be catering to the median 50% who are much larger, and more impactful for business, without alienating the top and bottom 25%.

the new system would have been perfect at the launch of the system, but thats not the environment we have. we have different sets of groups, that now need even attention, and not catering or pandering to one end of the spectrum in either direction.

the system needs changes, but this one won't produce good results- long term. its only a short term bandaid without fixing the over all issue, of power gaps and catch-up mechanics. this will only net the bottom rung to be in constant catch-up, to unobtainable levels, while killing a good segment of cash flow this game needs to produce new content.

the game needs the top for consistent cash flow for production, while needing the bottom for burst cash flow. this is exactly how buy to play/free to play succeeds. if they take out the consistent cash flow, they have to make sure they encourage more burst cash flow. at this point in the games life there are NOT a large amount of "new players" there are some new players but more RETURN players. when word of mouth gets out that this company will do more to cut the top 1%, the fewer new players they will get. then they have to keep the lower 1% even more to ensure they have any customers at all, but since they are alienating the top consistently, its only a matter of time before the alienate even the bottom 1% and have no customer base to keep the game over all afloat.

the new system is a great system at the wrong time. a different one needs to be figured out, and those of us that actually participate in the number crunching and actual labor in the process agree to that. there are many good ideas, and many bad ones. most don't include this new system.

I wasn't referring to you, and so you should have kept your points to the point instead.

I have issue with anyone insulting casuals, especially the self serving immature players I WAS referring to. You want to jump into bed with them by telling me to screw myself, so be it.

You only cheapen your otherwise sound response.

ahstin2001nub18_ESO

byrom101b16_ESO wrote: »

ahstin2001nub18_ESO wrote: »

byrom101b16_ESO wrote: »

zornyan wrote: »

byrom101b16_ESO wrote: »

zornyan wrote: »

Xeven wrote: »

ZOS please do not back down from 501 CP and the catch up system, it is fantastic.

The catch up system should help you reach the current cap, meaning the xp required to gain your next CP should probably top out right around the current cap IMO.

I love hearing this... why?

Because when this goes live me and my group will still be face rolling you and everyone bitching about how cp makes you over powered, we will still 1vx and win.

There will still be videos of sypher taking on 10 people and destroying them. Cp doesn't matter. But mark my words, the day this goes live and the constant stream of moaning that will continue about 'xyz is op' I will be sat here enjoying the salty tears.

Btw I've only got 120 cp, but it's still funny when I win 1v6 and get hate mails telling me I must have 600cp and a scrub...

People who publically claim that they "love" the frustrations or 'tears' of others are precisely the kind of people MMOs would be more successful without, especially those who enjoy engendering negative responses from others, who enjoy forcing rage-quitting, like griefing, spawn camping, t-bagging and all the other forms of antisocial and puerile behaviour one sees.

It reflects infinitely better on someone if they can win whilst simultaneously treating their opponents with respect.

Hell, it reflects somewhat better on someone who might be a self-proclaimed and unproven 'faceroller' etc. but who nevertheless doesn't crow about it in pointless posts in the forums.

I love the tears of these kids that think they should be able to load up a game and be good immediately. Mmo's require time spent and progression, don't have that time to dedicate? then just accept you're never going to be as powerful as someone that's invested time.

Take eve online, you have to spend hundreds of hours to even have a hope of getting a remotely good ship, that can easily be destroyed and leave you back where you started, but the model works, and games like this literally hang around for decades.

Catering to casuals and people that barely play is a bad decision, my main rofl point was that you see daily threads of "I died to xyz because they had 500000000 cp it's unfair" yet they refuse to put time in to earn cp, those very same people praising the cap will still be face rolled when it drops, as cp's wernt face rolling them, people with practise and dedicated gear were


Take the new battle leveling, I have a large abundance of gold for a recent console player (around 2.8 million thanks to IC drops and grinding) that means in bwb where gear quality now matters, I can make an alt, level him to 40 and equip him with multiple full gold gear sets without a fuss, those sets will give me more bonuses, damage and mitigation than the average player that may only be able to afford green gear.

So basically the next common qq will be " why can xyz have gold gear that gives them 5k more armor than me!"

The so called justification for your way of putting your point is irrelevant.

It's how you state your case that I have issue with.

Maybe you missed that...

... I certainly didn't miss your reference to EVE, which a number of my friends play, is a game with low population, eats up half your life and massively discourages new players.

That works for EVE because their vanishingly small team make enough money of the number-static game population of players they do have, but comparing it's vanishingly small profits to a mainstream game is not a point worth making.

Catering to MORE players is the best commercial goal there is; ego-stroking a TINY niche percentage of leetist no-lifers is a fast way to make your game the equivalent of a cottage industry, or more likely a commercial failure, with the margin between depending on how many people without jobs you can find yo play 18 hours a day, who nevertheless have the money to pay.

'Money talks, *** walks' is a old saying, and one that the tiny noisy minority who think they should own the game as much as it owns their lives should really take note of before spending hours every day ranting about how outraged they are that the game isn't acting like their personal train set.

Bless...

first off, screw you and your "no-lifer" mentality. i play more than average right now and the last few months because im 1200 miles from my family, and this game is what keeps me in some aspect of contact with at least my wife. you don't know *** about what the "other sides" personal life is so shut the hell up about it, and mind your own damn business...

quite frankly you are both correct in the overall assessment, unfortunately you both are missing the middle 50%. this new system is going to effect them as well. cut the 50% of the middle in two groups- 25% that will gain and 25% which will not. this new system cuts out the top 25% of the hardcore, hiders the top 25% of the current median, slightly helps the lower 25% of the current median, while completely catering to the lower 25%.

in other words, this new system is catering to the exact polar opposite of the spectrum that EVE does. thats bad business... period. there is another old saying as well: "a bird in the hand, is worth two in the bush". if you think that catering to the lower end of the spectrum, with the expectation you are gonna get "new players" in such mass as to offset the players lost, you are really bad at business decisions. they should be catering to the median 50% who are much larger, and more impactful for business, without alienating the top and bottom 25%.

the new system would have been perfect at the launch of the system, but thats not the environment we have. we have different sets of groups, that now need even attention, and not catering or pandering to one end of the spectrum in either direction.

the system needs changes, but this one won't produce good results- long term. its only a short term bandaid without fixing the over all issue, of power gaps and catch-up mechanics. this will only net the bottom rung to be in constant catch-up, to unobtainable levels, while killing a good segment of cash flow this game needs to produce new content.

the game needs the top for consistent cash flow for production, while needing the bottom for burst cash flow. this is exactly how buy to play/free to play succeeds. if they take out the consistent cash flow, they have to make sure they encourage more burst cash flow. at this point in the games life there are NOT a large amount of "new players" there are some new players but more RETURN players. when word of mouth gets out that this company will do more to cut the top 1%, the fewer new players they will get. then they have to keep the lower 1% even more to ensure they have any customers at all, but since they are alienating the top consistently, its only a matter of time before the alienate even the bottom 1% and have no customer base to keep the game over all afloat.

the new system is a great system at the wrong time. a different one needs to be figured out, and those of us that actually participate in the number crunching and actual labor in the process agree to that. there are many good ideas, and many bad ones. most don't include this new system.

I wasn't referring to you, and so you should have kept your points to the point instead.

I have issue with anyone insulting casuals, especially the self serving immature players I WAS referring to. You want to jump into bed with them by telling me to screw myself, so be it.

You only cheapen your otherwise sound response.

dude, yeah take your own advice...

Personofsecrets

@ZOS_GinaBruno

I feel that the catch up mechanic negates itself in some areas. It therefore doesn't make much sense to me. Look at the following scenario which I hope illustrates my point.

Player A needs to catch up to the Champion Point cap. They start with 200 champion points

Player A needs less than 400k exp for champion points going up to around 367 champion points
Player A needs more than 400k exp for champion points going from around 367 points to the cap.

So for player a, because of where they started (around 200 champion points), they never really get discounted champion points if their plan is to reach the cap. They just take out an experience loan that they have to pay back later.

Additionally, the heavy cost of champion point once at the cap will cause nobody to catch up to players that have already achieved 700 + champion points. That means that players who have done lame grinding and exp exploits get to sit back and relax while the rest of the players, who will be clustered around the cap, will still be scrambling to catch up to those high cp players once the cap is increased.

Now once the cap is increased to a very large number, then everyone will be on that equal footing, but my question then would be to ask how long until the champion point cap is 700, 1000, or even 1500.

I like the cap and I hope that you make it easy for players to reach the new caps once those new caps are implemented. If players are only able to reach a champion point cap by the time that the cap is about to be increased, then we will be thrown into the same hopeless situation of never being satisfied with champion point levels and always looking to blame inadequacies on those other players who must have higher champion point levels.

Also, here is an interesting thought for you to keep in mind. You are basically controlling how much champion points players can have now. I don't know why you make us even earn them if you plan for us to have certain numbers of them at certain points in time for the content that you will be releasing. Maybe consider getting rid of the need to gain them through getting exp and just tie them to content completion.

PS

I'd also like to point out that players who are at the 501 cap are going to hate feeling like they aren't earning champion points.

PPS

The 501 Cap along with the catch up mechanic for non-capped players is enough. What goal does ramping up the experience needed to gain a cp post 501 cap serve except for frustrating players that are at the cap?

Zinaroth

@ZOS_GinaBruno

I posted an alternative suggestion on how to change the CP system over here:

http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/223595/suggestion-alternative-cp-advancement#latest

I also tagged you and some other ZOS employees in the thread.

Could you possibly check it out and give me some confirmation when you have?
Spend a lot of time on it.

Thank you very much!

nimander99

I still say Champ Points should've just been a PVE progression mechanic and left completely out of PVP... then we would've never had a couple no-lifers tea sacking entire zergs in pvp...

... and we wouldn't need a cap...

... and we wouldn't need a catch up mechanic...

... and we wouldn't need to write our opinions about it in various forums...

MisterBigglesworth

I've published a simple tool online that tells you (based on your current Champion Rank) how much XP you need in order to reach the CP cap of 501. It also compares this to the amount of XP required under the current system (a flat 400k XP).

http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/223685/a-simple-xp-calculator-for-the-upcoming-patch-2-2-cp-cap

Hope you guys find it useful

byrom101b16_ESO

ahstin2001nub18_ESO wrote: »

byrom101b16_ESO wrote: »

ahstin2001nub18_ESO wrote: »

byrom101b16_ESO wrote: »

zornyan wrote: »

byrom101b16_ESO wrote: »

zornyan wrote: »

Xeven wrote: »

ZOS please do not back down from 501 CP and the catch up system, it is fantastic.

The catch up system should help you reach the current cap, meaning the xp required to gain your next CP should probably top out right around the current cap IMO.

I love hearing this... why?

Because when this goes live me and my group will still be face rolling you and everyone bitching about how cp makes you over powered, we will still 1vx and win.

There will still be videos of sypher taking on 10 people and destroying them. Cp doesn't matter. But mark my words, the day this goes live and the constant stream of moaning that will continue about 'xyz is op' I will be sat here enjoying the salty tears.

Btw I've only got 120 cp, but it's still funny when I win 1v6 and get hate mails telling me I must have 600cp and a scrub...

People who publically claim that they "love" the frustrations or 'tears' of others are precisely the kind of people MMOs would be more successful without, especially those who enjoy engendering negative responses from others, who enjoy forcing rage-quitting, like griefing, spawn camping, t-bagging and all the other forms of antisocial and puerile behaviour one sees.

It reflects infinitely better on someone if they can win whilst simultaneously treating their opponents with respect.

Hell, it reflects somewhat better on someone who might be a self-proclaimed and unproven 'faceroller' etc. but who nevertheless doesn't crow about it in pointless posts in the forums.

I love the tears of these kids that think they should be able to load up a game and be good immediately. Mmo's require time spent and progression, don't have that time to dedicate? then just accept you're never going to be as powerful as someone that's invested time.

Take eve online, you have to spend hundreds of hours to even have a hope of getting a remotely good ship, that can easily be destroyed and leave you back where you started, but the model works, and games like this literally hang around for decades.

Catering to casuals and people that barely play is a bad decision, my main rofl point was that you see daily threads of "I died to xyz because they had 500000000 cp it's unfair" yet they refuse to put time in to earn cp, those very same people praising the cap will still be face rolled when it drops, as cp's wernt face rolling them, people with practise and dedicated gear were


Take the new battle leveling, I have a large abundance of gold for a recent console player (around 2.8 million thanks to IC drops and grinding) that means in bwb where gear quality now matters, I can make an alt, level him to 40 and equip him with multiple full gold gear sets without a fuss, those sets will give me more bonuses, damage and mitigation than the average player that may only be able to afford green gear.

So basically the next common qq will be " why can xyz have gold gear that gives them 5k more armor than me!"

The so called justification for your way of putting your point is irrelevant.

It's how you state your case that I have issue with.

Maybe you missed that...

... I certainly didn't miss your reference to EVE, which a number of my friends play, is a game with low population, eats up half your life and massively discourages new players.

That works for EVE because their vanishingly small team make enough money of the number-static game population of players they do have, but comparing it's vanishingly small profits to a mainstream game is not a point worth making.

Catering to MORE players is the best commercial goal there is; ego-stroking a TINY niche percentage of leetist no-lifers is a fast way to make your game the equivalent of a cottage industry, or more likely a commercial failure, with the margin between depending on how many people without jobs you can find yo play 18 hours a day, who nevertheless have the money to pay.

'Money talks, *** walks' is a old saying, and one that the tiny noisy minority who think they should own the game as much as it owns their lives should really take note of before spending hours every day ranting about how outraged they are that the game isn't acting like their personal train set.

Bless...

first off, screw you and your "no-lifer" mentality. i play more than average right now and the last few months because im 1200 miles from my family, and this game is what keeps me in some aspect of contact with at least my wife. you don't know *** about what the "other sides" personal life is so shut the hell up about it, and mind your own damn business...

quite frankly you are both correct in the overall assessment, unfortunately you both are missing the middle 50%. this new system is going to effect them as well. cut the 50% of the middle in two groups- 25% that will gain and 25% which will not. this new system cuts out the top 25% of the hardcore, hiders the top 25% of the current median, slightly helps the lower 25% of the current median, while completely catering to the lower 25%.

in other words, this new system is catering to the exact polar opposite of the spectrum that EVE does. thats bad business... period. there is another old saying as well: "a bird in the hand, is worth two in the bush". if you think that catering to the lower end of the spectrum, with the expectation you are gonna get "new players" in such mass as to offset the players lost, you are really bad at business decisions. they should be catering to the median 50% who are much larger, and more impactful for business, without alienating the top and bottom 25%.

the new system would have been perfect at the launch of the system, but thats not the environment we have. we have different sets of groups, that now need even attention, and not catering or pandering to one end of the spectrum in either direction.

the system needs changes, but this one won't produce good results- long term. its only a short term bandaid without fixing the over all issue, of power gaps and catch-up mechanics. this will only net the bottom rung to be in constant catch-up, to unobtainable levels, while killing a good segment of cash flow this game needs to produce new content.

the game needs the top for consistent cash flow for production, while needing the bottom for burst cash flow. this is exactly how buy to play/free to play succeeds. if they take out the consistent cash flow, they have to make sure they encourage more burst cash flow. at this point in the games life there are NOT a large amount of "new players" there are some new players but more RETURN players. when word of mouth gets out that this company will do more to cut the top 1%, the fewer new players they will get. then they have to keep the lower 1% even more to ensure they have any customers at all, but since they are alienating the top consistently, its only a matter of time before the alienate even the bottom 1% and have no customer base to keep the game over all afloat.

the new system is a great system at the wrong time. a different one needs to be figured out, and those of us that actually participate in the number crunching and actual labor in the process agree to that. there are many good ideas, and many bad ones. most don't include this new system.

I wasn't referring to you, and so you should have kept your points to the point instead.

I have issue with anyone insulting casuals, especially the self serving immature players I WAS referring to. You want to jump into bed with them by telling me to screw myself, so be it.

You only cheapen your otherwise sound response.

dude, yeah take your own advice...

Such an ironic response. Considering this, I thought it might be useful to end this 'discussion' and my involvement in it with something constructive, so here's a link you might find useful to reflect upon;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Zinaroth

nimander99 wrote: »

I still say Champ Points should've just been a PVE progression mechanic and left completely out of PVP... then we would've never had a couple no-lifers tea sacking entire zergs in pvp...

... and we wouldn't need a cap...

... and we wouldn't need a catch up mechanic...

... and we wouldn't need to write our opinions about it in various forums...

Yeah because *** Trial and Arena leaderboards right?

Atarax

@ZOS_GinaBruno

Just saw this after I posted to the other thread, so I'll repost here:

Atarax wrote: »

@ZOS_RyanRuzich

Not a fan of the way this was implemented. Here's what we asked for:

-A way for players with less CP to get within striking distance of players with more CP in a reasonable period of time

What you've done is:
1. Dis-incentivized players with lots of CP from playing by not only putting in a cap, but also significantly increasing their cost per CP
2. Made it HARDER for players with fewer CP to catch up once they get above a certain point
3. Lowered the cost of CP early on, but not enough to get someone on a level playing field in a reasonable period of time

A better implementation would be:
1. If you're over cap, you earn CP for each 400,000xp (it should never be above this).
2. If you're below cap, you earn CP more quickly (lower cost) the further away from the cap you are.

Design criteria should be as follows:
-A new VR player, earning an average amount of XP per day (I'll assume 1,000,000 as that is doable in a single play session if you try), should be able to get within X% of the cap (I'll assume 30%) within X days (I'll assume 30 days, as a month of constant play seems reasonable).

A formula that will allow that to happen is as follows (using excel terminology):
XP Cost for next CP=MIN(400,000,400,000/(CAP/(NEXT CP^(NEXT CP/CAP))))

I'll give two examples of how this formula will work, one at 500 CP Cap, and one at 3600 CP Cap (any formula needs to work for both):

500 CP Cap Example: 30,000,000 XP (or 30 days of playing)=503 CP, so you hit the cap in 30 days

Illustrative cost of some of the CP is as follows:

CP1=800 XP
CP100=2,009XP
CP400=96,546XP
CP500=400,000XP


3,600 CP Cap Example: 30,000,000 XP (or 30 days of playing)=2,928 CP, so you're within 80% of the cap in 30 days

Illustrative cost of some of the CP is as follows:

CP1=111 XP
CP100=126XP
CP500=263XP
CP1000=757XP
CP2000=7,580XP
CP3000=87,773XP
CP3600=400,000XP

Yep, players can become somewhat effective compared to the cap within a few days, and competitive within a month of playing. That's the point of a catch-up mechanic. They still have to work at it, but we're not talking about it taking 4 years on an average person's play schedule before they'll be able to compete in PvP or get into raids.

Note: If the previous poster is correct that we'll be able to generate more XP in the same play time going forward, then, obviously, you'd need to change this formula.

However, given that they are doing away with veteran ranks, and Orsimar will effectively battle-level players, I assume that maximum XP gain per hour will remain constant going forward.

Stickleback

Sorry if this has been answered already, I admit I did not read all the responses in this thread..

What happens with the next cap (presumably 1001 CP?), will the XP needed per CP continue in the same line or will it start over?
As it is now, I have 290 CP, which to get to 501 in the new system means I have to grind more than in the old system due to the slowing down mechanic.
If I were to wait for the next cap, would the amount of XP needed stay the same, or would I suddenly require less?

Zinaroth

Stickleback wrote: »

Sorry if this has been answered already, I admit I did not read all the responses in this thread..

What happens with the next cap (presumably 1001 CP?), will the XP needed per CP continue in the same line or will it start over?
As it is now, I have 290 CP, which to get to 501 in the new system means I have to grind more than in the old system due to the slowing down mechanic.
If I were to wait for the next cap, would the amount of XP needed stay the same, or would I suddenly require less?

If they go live with the current system an increase in cap to let's just say 1001 CP would most likely mean the extention of the catch-up mechanic to that amount aswell. Meaning each point would require less up to a certain amount, depending on where they put the "soft cap". Right now the "soft cap" for Orsinium is at 338 CP after which every CP will cost more XP.

The CP needed to get from 300-501 is the same on live as on PTS with the current iteration. Which basically means that if you're currently under 300 CP you will benefit and if you're over you'll be bummed.

Enodoc

Stickleback wrote: »

Sorry if this has been answered already, I admit I did not read all the responses in this thread..

What happens with the next cap (presumably 1001 CP?), will the XP needed per CP continue in the same line or will it start over?
As it is now, I have 290 CP, which to get to 501 in the new system means I have to grind more than in the old system due to the slowing down mechanic.
If I were to wait for the next cap, would the amount of XP needed stay the same, or would I suddenly require less?

You would require less, as the cap is part of the formula. To get from 290 to 501 with the cap at 501 will require 97 mil. XP, and to get from 290 to 501 with the cap at 1002 would require 53 mil. XP. (Right now, pre-capping, it would cost 84 mil. XP.)

NewBlacksmurf

Enodoc wrote: »

hackforjub17_ESO wrote: »

I'm not pissed about the cap; pissed that the "catch up" makes one of my CPs worth 100 of some beginner's. So I have to gain over 1.5 MILLION exp to feel some kind of progression? In an MMO? And that "progression" is an already minuscule amount due to a system that already has diminishing returns? It's bull ***.

And I'm not some lifeless grinder. I PVP and run the pledges about two hours a day. I have a wife and kids and a 9-5, and I'm being punished for spending my gaming time exclusively in ESO since launch.

It should "catch up" people to 300 then plateau at 400k exp. With the cap, I won't over power anyone, but I'll still feel like my investment is going somewhere. That is reasonable; this 1.5 mil to earn a point I can't even use is not.

Perhaps this is ZOS trying to get back to what they always wanted post-50 progression to be. Not something to specifically work towards, but something that you're rewarded with anyway through playing. Instead of people grinding solely for CPs, maybe now they'll play for the content again.

Endoc.....

just jumping in here.

Lets say this is correct...and honestly it would fine if that's their goal BUT IF THAT's THEIR GOAL
-then this update DLC should remove VR levels entirely and in the near future look at removing CP's too or adjusting CP's so that 1 cp earned gives 1 point to each section (3)
Instead of 3600cp's have 1200 to earn but it still ends up as 3600 pts to use.


...In my observation...
-This system they are working with in PTS seems to be like a exp bonus weekend concept in COD or Battlefield where some are awarded higher benefits than others based on a "someone has fallen behind" idea.

If someone has fallen behind and is trying to catch-up, the only change that needs to occur is to offer those groups of players a enlightenment bonus and apply it until they reach X level and then reduce it once they reach the intended "catch-up" range which would seem to be around 400 cps.

This isn't allowing people to catch up, its only allowing people to get past 150 faster and then it gradually slows them down more and more which is the exact problem they created when adding more VR levels and changing exp rates and hanging exp required as well as NPC difficulty with a quest and level limitation for VR content. Its this doing the same things expecting different results that has me concerned with the thought process.

But knowing this team as many others are very talented, very intelligent and not stupid, missing something or unaware of the results that will occur. Its being done intentionally to create their desired outcome and keep separation but appease some others so that the disparity between CP variance is smaller.

If I'm aware that CP's will cap at 501 and I have anywhere from 300 - 450 I'm best to use this month to gain more in whatever best fits my desires. But if I'm below 200 I can just mess around and then get boosted by this catch up system which is a slap in the face to people who earned their points and are further along.
If I'm at 600 - 1500 I realize no one will EVER catch up to me because I'm so far ahead that for the next few caps I'm still months ahead of all and sadly get gimped by not having access to my earned progression.

Its the glass motif or VR Craglorn exp, silver and gold quests changes all over again.

jbradley1989b14_ESO

The next cap will be 999 or 1002 :-)

Anyway, has ZOS said anywhere that the amount of xp for earlier champion points won't change with the next DLC?

With the changes it seems that when you get about 2/3 of the way to cap it starts to cost more per CP than it does on live (400k per point). Right now 2/3 of cap is in the mid 300s. Now people seem to be assuming that even when the cap is raised the 400kxp for a your ~350th champion will remain. That seems illogical, one would think the CP cost is a mathematic formula that takes into account the current cap (as some people have suggested as a "change"). I think when they raise the cap, the 666th champion point will now be the one at 400kxp.

I also agree though that there should be a max cap (and floor) for CP cost. I understand why people shouldn't get too far ahead (no more incentive to play), but a 1milxp cap doesn't seem unreasonable. How much incentive do you have if your at the point of 4 vet levels for 1 CP?

NewBlacksmurf

jbradley1989b14_ESO wrote: »

The next cap will be 999 or 1002 :-)

Anyway, has ZOS said anywhere that the amount of xp for earlier champion points won't change with the next DLC?

With the changes it seems that when you get about 2/3 of the way to cap it starts to cost more per CP than it does on live (400k per point). Right now 2/3 of cap is in the mid 300s. Now people seem to be assuming that even when the cap is raised the 400kxp for a your ~350th champion will remain. That seems illogical, one would think the CP cost is a mathematic formula that takes into account the current cap (as some people have suggested as a "change"). I think when they raise the cap, the 666th champion point will now be the one at 400kxp.

I also agree though that there should be a max cap (and floor) for CP cost. I understand why people shouldn't get too far ahead (no more incentive to play), but a 1milxp cap doesn't seem unreasonable. How much incentive do you have if your at the point of 4 vet levels for 1 CP?

Here is the thing....they way they (ZOS) are going about it....they ZOS) are capping the amount that can be used. That makes sense in certain situations but not all.

They are increasing the rate that they can be earned below a certain amount...that makes sense

What doesn't make sense (and I'm not one who has over 200 CP's) is why they are increasing or decreasing the amount of exp required for CP's for anyone at any levels. For people who need to catch up to the usable CP's, allow them to have constant increased enlightenment for longer periods of time until whatever level.

For people who are above 501, allow them to gain CP's even tho they cant use them at the current rate and rules.

One person may have more time at any given moment than another but penalizing and removing a possible incentive earned isn't the way too go. CP's are an issue for PvP and soon to be Leader-boards so in those specific instances, cap CP's allowed but here is whats silly, even the 500 club is so far ahead of the average player, its still an issue.

Outside of that...leave well enough alone and focus on removing VR levels which is part of the bigger problem.

The other simple logic is to remove CP's from PvP, Leader-board events or timed events whether it be, PvP, VR raids, VR dungeons, or any regular stuff, etc.

Zinaroth

jbradley1989b14_ESO wrote: »

The next cap will be 999 or 1002 :-)

Anyway, has ZOS said anywhere that the amount of xp for earlier champion points won't change with the next DLC?

With the changes it seems that when you get about 2/3 of the way to cap it starts to cost more per CP than it does on live (400k per point). Right now 2/3 of cap is in the mid 300s. Now people seem to be assuming that even when the cap is raised the 400kxp for a your ~350th champion will remain. That seems illogical, one would think the CP cost is a mathematic formula that takes into account the current cap (as some people have suggested as a "change"). I think when they raise the cap, the 666th champion point will now be the one at 400kxp.

I also agree though that there should be a max cap (and floor) for CP cost. I understand why people shouldn't get too far ahead (no more incentive to play), but a 1milxp cap doesn't seem unreasonable. How much incentive do you have if your at the point of 4 vet levels for 1 CP?

It has all been calculated. You can see the calculations here:
forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/222867/champion-system-catch-up-mechanic/p3

Enodoc

jbradley1989b14_ESO wrote: »

The next cap will be 999 or 1002 :-)

Anyway, has ZOS said anywhere that the amount of xp for earlier champion points won't change with the next DLC?

With the changes it seems that when you get about 2/3 of the way to cap it starts to cost more per CP than it does on live (400k per point). Right now 2/3 of cap is in the mid 300s. Now people seem to be assuming that even when the cap is raised the 400kxp for a your ~350th champion will remain. That seems illogical, one would think the CP cost is a mathematic formula that takes into account the current cap (as some people have suggested as a "change"). I think when they raise the cap, the 666th champion point will now be the one at 400kxp.

I also agree though that there should be a max cap (and floor) for CP cost. I understand why people shouldn't get too far ahead (no more incentive to play), but a 1milxp cap doesn't seem unreasonable. How much incentive do you have if your at the point of 4 vet levels for 1 CP?

You are correct. The CP cost is a mathematical formula, and this is it:

ZOS_RyanRuzich wrote: »

With the new system, the formula used to calculate the amount of XP needed to gain a single Champion Point is as follows:
((TotalPoints / (Cap ^ 0.95)) + 0.08) * 400000, where Total Points is how many CP points you’ve earned.
If you exceed the cap, the XP required is calculated given the above formula, and then tripled. (So, the XP you would need to earn 512 Champion Points is 589,807, which is then tripled to 1,769,421.)
For the first Champion Point (going from 0 Champion Points to 1 Champion Point) 1XP is required.
We only triple the point values if you are over the current Champion Point cap—once we raise the cap, the values will return to normal.

Important parts in bold. The cap is part of the formula, so when the cap changes, so will the amount of XP needed for the lower CPs.

Relmyna

ZOS, I'm really confused about how this is a "catch-up" mechanic. How does increasing the amount of experience needed to reach the season's CP cap help players "catch-up" to the players who are already at the cap? Increasing the total amount of XP needed to reach the season cap will cause players to fall further behind, not catch up. I guess I need to grind my heart out until this patch drops, or I am totally screwed.

With this new system, I will have fewer CP at the end of the season than I would have if you had just left it alone.

jrkhan

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

• How do you feel about the new gain rate of Champion Points?

As a player with right around 350ish champion points, I feel like I'm getting the short end of the stick.
Everyone with 501 champ points - the folks I'm trying to catch up to - I now need nearly 20 million more xp to catch up to them.

It also trivializes the work I've already done... 20-30 million less xp needed to get to where I am now.
Though I understand that's just how it goes with a catchup mechanic.

As it stands, I feel like I aught to grind as many champion points as I can now, because it will only get harder next patch.

Also, those who are already far above the cap, have the equivalent of several hundred million more xp worth of cp then they had before.

Though they don't immediately benefit from having those CP, just the fact they never have to work again and that I'll have to grind day and night to have that level of CP, somewhat irks me.


It feels like a tax on the upper middle class that leaves the super rich untouched!



Overall, it's an improvement over the existing system - but I think making it more difficult for people to catch up who are in that upper middle range then is strictly necessary.

jrkhan

**Duplicate post**

Relmyna

jrkhan wrote: »

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

• How do you feel about the new gain rate of Champion Points?

As a player with right around 350ish champion points, I feel like I'm getting the short end of the stick.
Everyone with 501 champ points - the folks I'm trying to catch up to - I now need nearly 20 million more xp to catch up to them.

It also trivializes the work I've already done... 20-30 million less xp needed to get to where I am now.
Though I understand that's just how it goes with a catchup mechanic.

As it stands, I feel like I aught to grind as many champion points as I can now, because it will only get harder next patch.

Also, those who are already far above the cap, have the equivalent of several hundred million more xp worth of cp then they had before.

Though they don't immediately benefit from having those CP, just the fact they never have to work again and that I'll have to grind day and night to have that level of CP, somewhat irks me.


It feels like a tax on the upper middle class that leaves the super rich untouched!



Overall, it's an improvement over the existing system - but I think making it more difficult for people to catch up who are in that upper middle range then is strictly necessary.

QFT, although I disagree that it is an improvement. Yes, the gap between players like us and those with tons of CP will be smaller during the first season, but after a couple of seasons, we will be right back where we started because we have to work so much harder to gain these points. Why even bother capping them if it's just kicking the can down the road a few months?

ZOS, you need to rethink this.

SirDopey

kaorunandrak wrote: »

Darkonflare15 wrote: »

I find it sad that there is always a split in opinions for the player base every time zos makes a decision. They can never win.

Opinions are like butt-holes everyone has one, and some people don't clean em either >;p. But yeah man they will never be able to "win" it's the internet mentality "its not what I want so lets thrown down like a 3 year old fighting a nap". And then there's the "over protective mother, my child can do no wrong he just became a *** because he had to" apologist mentality that some people have developed as well.

But here is a middle of the lane opinion from me, I think this is a solid idea and a fair change, I am however concerned with how they came to this number based off the averages put up to defend it by Rich, it is hard to believe the average CP for pc is only 96, especially when almost every person I team with and most people on these and other forums are claiming to have over 500+.

That said as long as this cap doesn't over stay it's welcome and doesn't introduce some other glitch where people are able to by pass it, or take advantage of it some way I think we will be in good shape moving forward. But I think that will be the struggle for them.

I think the cap is pretty spot on. Our guild has 70+ active members and I can assure you not a single one of our members has over 500 yet, only a handful will by the time the DLC comes out but the absolute vast majority of our members will be between 150 - 300.

Atarax

The catch-up mechanism is the problem, they should use this formula instead:

XP Cost for next CP=MIN(400000,400000/(CAP/(NEXT CP^(NEXT CP/CAP))))

Hiero_Glyph

1) This should not be a catch up mechanic, only a system to allow low CP players to reach a fair median value.

2) CP should be an indication of how much time you spend playing the game and all players should be rewarded for playing the game.

3) You should not give players with high amounts of CP nothing to work towards.

4) A multiplier for being above cap is artificial and purposely hurts players that are near/above the current season's cap.

5) The exp curve should slow down progress according to the time they invest but not stop their progress.

6) All players should be rescaled accoording to the new CP exp system since this is a new start of sorts for everyone (CP 2.0).

7) Cap increases should occur at regular and defined intervals. The new system needs to account for these increases or it is already flawed.

Here is what I propose: Remove the exp multiplier for being above cap. Adjust the exp curve so that it lets new players gain enough CP to become ceompetitive but keeps high CP players earning CP at a controlled rate. Rescale all players according to the new exp curve (think of this as CP 2.0). And implement regular cap increases that adjust the curve to encourage new players to reach a fair median value.

Elsonso

.

Hiero_Glyph wrote: »

Here is what I propose: Remove the exp multiplier for being above cap. Adjust the exp curve so that it lets new players gain enough CP to become ceompetitive but keeps high CP players earning CP at a controlled rate. Rescale all players according to the new exp curve (think of this as CP 2.0). And implement regular cap increases that adjust the curve to encourage new players to reach a fair median value.

I actually see two possibilities with Champion System.

They do a linear system where each CP requires the same XP. This is what they have today, but doing it this way makes the system too small, so multiply the max CP by something like 4x while keeping the overall power benefit. So, for example, if today a players is 25% better with 3600 CP, they would still be 25% better, but it would take 14,400 CP to get there. Under today's 400k XP per CP, that would be 5.78 billion XP and would make the system very large. It would not, however, solve the problem of a person starting the game with 1 CP in a game where someone has 14,000 CP, which is a real possibility several years from now.

They do a linear system where each CP requires more XP to attain than the one before it. Make the system linear across the entire range of 1-3600 and eliminate the cap completely. Let everyone keep and use their CP, but make the diminishing returns part of the XP cost such that each additional CP adds the same as the one before it. Each CP adds the same amount to the passive while keeping the max for each passive the same. Overall power of the system would be the same. In this way, each CP is worth the same, but it just takes longer to get it. Catch up works because CP are cheap to begin with, but get more expensive as the player continues to play, which slows down the upper end players by using an elastic band to slow them down. If the current system requires 1.44 billion XP to get to 3600, make it require close to 5 billion. The current catch up formula works just fine for this: ((TotalPoints / (Cap ^ 0.995)) + 0.085) * 400000, where Cap = 500

In both cases, Enlightenment should be discontinued.

Atarax

Hiero_Glyph wrote: »

1) This should not be a catch up mechanic, only a system to allow low CP players to reach a fair median value.

2) CP should be an indication of how much time you spend playing the game and all players should be rewarded for playing the game.

3) You should not give players with high amounts of CP nothing to work towards.

4) A multiplier for being above cap is artificial and purposely hurts players that are near/above the current season's cap.

5) The exp curve should slow down progress according to the time they invest but not stop their progress.

6) All players should be rescaled accoording to the new CP exp system since this is a new start of sorts for everyone (CP 2.0).

7) Cap increases should occur at regular and defined intervals. The new system needs to account for these increases or it is already flawed.

Here is what I propose: Remove the exp multiplier for being above cap. Adjust the exp curve so that it lets new players gain enough CP to become ceompetitive but keeps high CP players earning CP at a controlled rate. Rescale all players according to the new exp curve (think of this as CP 2.0). And implement regular cap increases that adjust the curve to encourage new players to reach a fair median value.

The formula I propose accomplishes everything you just suggested.

remilafo

@ZOS_RichLambert @ZOS_GinaBruno

I like the new formula but PLEASE PLEASE

you can't hurt existing players by taking away their earned time.

You must perform a xp conversion from the current system to the new one. please PLEASE convert the XP otherwise people end up losing DAYS of time , you can't do this..

Convert the XP.

ahstin2001nub18_ESO

lordrichter wrote: »

.

Hiero_Glyph wrote: »

Here is what I propose: Remove the exp multiplier for being above cap. Adjust the exp curve so that it lets new players gain enough CP to become ceompetitive but keeps high CP players earning CP at a controlled rate. Rescale all players according to the new exp curve (think of this as CP 2.0). And implement regular cap increases that adjust the curve to encourage new players to reach a fair median value.

I actually see two possibilities with Champion System.

They do a linear system where each CP requires the same XP. This is what they have today, but doing it this way makes the system too small, so multiply the max CP by something like 4x while keeping the overall power benefit. So, for example, if today a players is 25% better with 3600 CP, they would still be 25% better, but it would take 14,400 CP to get there. Under today's 400k XP per CP, that would be 5.78 billion XP and would make the system very large. It would not, however, solve the problem of a person starting the game with 1 CP in a game where someone has 14,000 CP, which is a real possibility several years from now.

They do a linear system where each CP requires more XP to attain than the one before it. Make the system linear across the entire range of 1-3600 and eliminate the cap completely. Let everyone keep and use their CP, but make the diminishing returns part of the XP cost such that each additional CP adds the same as the one before it. Each CP adds the same amount to the passive while keeping the max for each passive the same. Overall power of the system would be the same. In this way, each CP is worth the same, but it just takes longer to get it. Catch up works because CP are cheap to begin with, but get more expensive as the player continues to play, which slows down the upper end players by using an elastic band to slow them down. If the current system requires 1.44 billion XP to get to 3600, make it require close to 5 billion. The current catch up formula works just fine for this: ((TotalPoints / (Cap ^ 0.995)) + 0.085) * 400000, where Cap = 500

In both cases, Enlightenment should be discontinued.

the bold is essentially how all these systems have behaved over time, in indirect means. so what they do is have the 3600, then the add to the system that increases the CP by say 300, so now to have the newest you have to earn another 300, or respend points to diversify into the ones you would rather have. what this allows is continued progression, and lowers the expenditures into previous "lesser" results, in this case diminished returns. so if you have 30 points in <x> you may elect to drop from thirty down to twenty and place the 10 points in another area. its a fairly large balancing act if done improperly (as we are seeing now), but can be done as other games already have done it. as time goes on, catch-up mechanisms (real ones not faux ones like the one presented to us by ZoS) are implemented to ensure a minimum return. originally the system was built around 7200, they cut it in half to current 3600 because 7200 perceived as "too much". i couldn't give two craps.... its not a system that should be maxed, and if it does get maxed, its ZoS' failing... what really made the system "small" was that there really wasn't much more to do than grind CPs, for a long while. now there is a divide that they made as much as the players. i don't think it unreasonable that some stopped playing due to lack of content, nor do i think it unreasonable the some continued and just sought CPs.

ZoS won't adjust to the system and work with current content to allow for smooth, rewarding progression for average players, without making the system too easy to max out the system.... not sure why, but they seem to think bunching us up on CPs, then making us gear grind is better. some players agree, but i sure as hell don't. i rather grind out CP than gear that gets replaced. it also points in the direction, that they have no real intent, or thought, to expand the current system. which is dangerous since they aren't thinking about down the road. that is where id say just dump the champion system....

Kronuxx

First off, the concept of the champion system is enjoyable and adds depth to the game. That I do believe. The issue is that it adds imbalance to the game, especially in this scenario due to the fact that the progression and gain of CP had been left unchecked for so long. If only ZOS had implemented such a system at the beginning, this would have not been as much of an issue, but as the saying goes "hindsight is 20/20". I do believe a cap should be in a place, but to what level, I'm not entirely sure. There are some few useful posts here by players who have posted alternative formulas to be used, which ZOS I do recommend you look at. The problem is that, in order to bring new players to this game, you need a drastic measure of allowing a catch up mechanism to reach the CP cap, and this should be beyond 501. The fact that I need more exp than I do now to get from 330something to 501, is a bad mechanic and a turn off to new players, as that struggle will be fully realized compared to those who are sitting at 600+. And let's be honest, the amount of players who have above 600+ is quite numerous. It is not a handful. I feel that there should be a soft cap, and then ultimately a hard cap to CP. Especially because having 3600 cp is just wrong. Anybody remember the time when ZOS first introduced the CP system, and allowed us to test 3600 CP on PTS. It was wrong. I wasn't even playing a meaningful game. I had excellent damage mitigation, great damage output, excellent recovery. I was in god mode. Now when you fight others who are in "god mode" it was just a long monotonous fight. But herein lies the problem. Not everyone has 3600, but there quite a few who have well over 1500. And for all intensive purposes, they may as well be considered in god mode compared to all the other players with less than 600 cp. Also note, that each point of CP in Mage, Thief, or Warrior increases your base stat of Magicka, Stamina, or Health respectively. At 3600 cp, your base stats are increased by 54% all around.

Essentially, there must be a cap, where? I do not know that answer. The soft cap should be at some acceptable point, to where at which point, gaining more CP becomes more difficult, and then there must be a hard cap, and no it should not be 3600. What's the point of making meaningful decisions and having unique builds if I can have it all, and so can everyone else. Might as well as make the live server like your PTS when you first introduced the CP system and just give everybody 3600 cp to have everyone on equal footing (not saying that I actually want this, just trying to make a point here). Problem is that we'll all be hitting each other with wet noodles as there is more CP passives directed towards damage mitigation compared to damage output.