Reworking the Champion Point System to reduce Power Creep

Gnortranermara

John_Falstaff wrote: »

@SidewalkChalk5 , may not be received all too well though. People do have to have a goal towards they're leveling - leveling to get extra power is one thing, leveling to get extra resource node and a potion... not much motivation in such progression. May kill the interest in new players.

New players don't have CP yet, so nah, I don't see them caring.

Who it could potentially anger is endgamers, but not if power is simultaneously returned to class and other skills where it belongs. Incidentally, that would also directly help those "new players" much earlier in their ESO career than these minor CP boosts that'll take a year to accumulate.

tim99

personally, i dont like the idea of stopping the cp system like its done at the last 2 dlc/chapter.
would be 60 points to spend by now...
it fells like stuck now... getting stronger and growing is the base idea of mmo-rpg, isnt it?

at least give us meanwhile you are thinking something different, a quality of life cp-tree e.g. (reduce snares and roots of npc from 100%-now down to 0 in 1% each point, would immediately invest 100, no matter what ^^)

Masel

SidewalkChalk5 wrote: »

John_Falstaff wrote: »

@SidewalkChalk5 , may not be received all too well though. People do have to have a goal towards they're leveling - leveling to get extra power is one thing, leveling to get extra resource node and a potion... not much motivation in such progression. May kill the interest in new players.

New players don't have CP yet, so nah, I don't see them caring.

Who it could potentially anger is endgamers, but not if power is simultaneously returned to class and other skills where it belongs. Incidentally, that would also directly help those "new players" much earlier in their ESO career than these minor CP boosts that'll take a year to accumulate.

That is exactly the point in the bigger picture. Taking out power from the cp system and putting it back on classes while creating a more unique experience while playing them.

John_Falstaff

SidewalkChalk5 wrote: »

John_Falstaff wrote: »

@SidewalkChalk5 , may not be received all too well though. People do have to have a goal towards they're leveling - leveling to get extra power is one thing, leveling to get extra resource node and a potion... not much motivation in such progression. May kill the interest in new players.

New players don't have CP yet, so nah, I don't see them caring.

Who it could potentially anger is endgamers, but not if power is simultaneously returned to class and other skills where it belongs. Incidentally, that would also directly help those "new players" much earlier in their ESO career than these minor CP boosts that'll take a year to accumulate.

I mean players with 200, 300, 400 CPs - they're all looking towards leveling up, growing more powerful. If I was CP200, I wouldn't be looking forward to getting my next five hundred CPs if the only thing it promised me was a little extra ore from a resource node and an extra potion crafted.

troomar

I like the idea of stacking offense / defense into 1 tree, so you have to make a choice which way you want to go (more offense, less defense etc.).

But since you have 2 trees for offense + defense, your proposition would end up with:

1) Mages with extremely good physical defenses
2) Warriors (melee) with extremely good magical defenses
3) Mages having generally more physical reductions than melee warriors
4) Warriors having generally more magical reductions than mages

And this is weird.

Kulvar

The issue with power creep is in how previous earned things are rendered useless.
CP is not an issue as you never lose anything when the ceiling is raised.
Making all your gear useless when a new DLC is released with stronger sets, that's the issue of Power Creep.

Solutions to power creep is to turn gear into a "collection" and have more original effects.
When X happen, Y also happen, can occur once every Z seconds.
Those original effects should be designed so there's no best gear, but several best gear depending of what you'll fight, how you fight, ...

Masel

troomar wrote: »

I like the idea of stacking offense / defense into 1 tree, so you have to make a choice which way you want to go (more offense, less defense etc.).

But since you have 2 trees for offense + defense, your proposition would end up with:

1) Mages with extremely good physical defenses
2) Warriors (melee) with extremely good magical defenses
3) Mages having generally more physical reductions than melee warriors
4) Warriors having generally more magical reductions than mages

And this is weird.

CP would function as a source to improve problems that these builds have, rather than buffing what they can already excel at even more. That is intended in the design.

code65536

Masel wrote: »

troomar wrote: »

I like the idea of stacking offense / defense into 1 tree, so you have to make a choice which way you want to go (more offense, less defense etc.).

But since you have 2 trees for offense + defense, your proposition would end up with:

1) Mages with extremely good physical defenses
2) Warriors (melee) with extremely good magical defenses
3) Mages having generally more physical reductions than melee warriors
4) Warriors having generally more magical reductions than mages

And this is weird.

CP would function as a source to improve problems that these builds have, rather than buffing what they can already excel at even more. That is intended in the design.

Except that the design as proposed will just result in one thing: people will use the minimum amount of defensive CP needed and put everything else into damage. Good reflexes and reaction times mean that you can avoid damage more reliably? More DPS for you. Running with an experienced healer/tank support team that can more effectively protect you from damage? More DPS for you. Running with a high-DPS group that can kill things before they have an opportunity to do too much damage or just outright skip mechanics? More DPS for you.

As proposed, what you suggest will serve only to magnify the disparities between players. This is unacceptable.

Minno

I love it, but it will require a rework on the values.

Because as it stands, you can hit 20% into raw dmg and still get 10% into regen making it useless.

The best thing for power creep is locking the CP tree to 160 forcing players to make meaningful decisions.
The other idea is to redesign the trees into roles or offer specific trees for each class so every toon is different/meaningful.

Minno

also, IDK about others, but I cant easily read the charts and hate going to outside source to remember what each star/passive does:
- colors are distracting. Make the header the color, while the rest of each chart is black/white
- place the values of what each star does and the max cap so we can understand the value of each star against the diminishing returns (IE 25% stars have different values than the 15% and thus have different perceptions on who values those stars to begin with).

And this is a chance to redo the passives as well. Some of them are boring or too powerful.

idk

Masel wrote: »

Of course I know that many other changes have contributed to power creep, there is a few very prominent examples:

1. Light attack changes. Boosting them led to a significant increase in dps.
2. Enchantment buffs
3. Set bonus buffs to magicka/critical chance
4. CP scaling for food and 5 pc
5. Staff items counting as 2 piece bonuses.
6. Ancient knowledge change.



But cp is undoubtedly one of the contributors that did it in the long run. Comparing 300 to 810 CPs, is a clear and very dominant power difference.

A very, very, small contributor if you set the stat point at Morrowind.

Your idea ignores the real issue and pretends CP is a big contributer. I suggest heading Codes words of wisdom. They seem to have a good grasp and understanding of the actual issue..

TankHealz2015

@Masel and @code65536

I think you both have great points.

First I love @Masel's idea and rework of CP. It may not be related to "power creep" or "power gap" but it looks cool and makes a lot of sense.

@code65536 has lots of points and perhaps other ideas on how to improve the power issues.

Together, you could make a pretty good "dev input team" for ZOS.

Agalloch

Don't forget : 93% of the player base didn't complete last 8 vet dungeons

95% didn't complete a vet trial

100 % want progression in a MMO ( all MMO-s have progression)

All the players play a game for fun and for rewards ( this is a MMO game)

The inflation of mechanics ( especially the one shot ones) make that the last content ( dlc dungeons and last trials) to not be played by the majority .Most of them even don't buy them.

Overland is too easy but the DLC dungeons and non vanilla trials are inaccesible to the majority because without animation canceling u can't finish them properly on vet.
Most of people don't have time to stay in the same dungeon or trials for weeks ..The majority want to play for fun and finish content,
The real gap is between the elitists ( maybe 5%) and the rest. This is the real power creep.

ESO is a MMO and needs VERTICAL and Horizontal progression.

ZOS must encourage the player base to do the last 4 dlc dungeons and non Vanilla trials . ...The return of BOE would be a start.



English is not my native language.

Lightspeedflashb14_ESO

. Don't forget : 93% of the player base didn't complete last 8 vet dungeons

95% didn't complete a vet trial

Citation needed.

Qbiken

Lightspeedflashb14_ESO wrote: »

. Don't forget : 93% of the player base didn't complete last 8 vet dungeons

95% didn't complete a vet trial

Citation needed.

If those numbers are pulled from consol statistics, they're very inaccurate

Elrosahir

LA & HA does no dmg anymore, glyphs proccing from DoTs

LA restore max resource and HA restore Life.

So just skills doing dmg.

Or make a dmg cap in raids like 200k/group

You will never balance without hard restriction

Kesstryl

Enough with the nerfs already, haven't we been nerfed enough in the past year or so? New content is definitely difficult for the majority of players aka. non-elites, and we are tired of going backwards every six months after getting to a place where we might be good enough to do the new hard content. Ask them to buff hard mode or something, not nerf the rest of us.

Lightspeedflashb14_ESO

Qbiken wrote: »

Lightspeedflashb14_ESO wrote: »

. Don't forget : 93% of the player base didn't complete last 8 vet dungeons

95% didn't complete a vet trial

Citation needed.

If those numbers are pulled from consol statistics, they're very inaccurate

I agree. There is no context to them. Really wish that Microsoft and Sony would just not have those numbers displayed.

Arciris

@Masel

The biggest issue I see in this thread is that people are not understanding what @code65536 Power Gap in ESO means.

Power gap doesn't mean the difference in power between a CP 210 and a CP 810. It is perfectly normal to have a power gap between levels, it gives new players something to look forward to.

Power gap means the difference in power between a CP 810 and another CP 810.

As we speak, the Power Gap between a CP 810, in fully golded out BIS or almost BIS gear, and another CP 810 in fully golded out BIS or almost BIS gear, is abysmal. It can be higher than 100%. This is insane.

Nota Bene: I am not talking about myself here, I do not have that issue.

I see all the time complaints of people that after they grinded their butts out to get that BIS gold gear, after reading BIS builds from some famous content maker and spending their CP points all in the right places as indicated by those build makers, and after spending some really boring time in front of a dummy practicing those BIS rotations, still can't barely break 30k dps self buffed on a 6mil.

@code65536 is absolutely right. There is the need to cap how much reward skillful play brings to the table in terms of weaving/rotation aka DPS.

Some people are acting as if skillful play doesn't reward players enough when the opposite is happening: it rewards players too much. Skillfull play should be rewarded yes, but not by the insane amounts we see now.
Note that I'm only talking about damage per second output, not the knowledge of mechanics and situational awareness.

In fact, it is kind of ironic that these 2 parameters by which skillfull play can be measured in ESO - DPS and experience/situational awareness - have been in some kind of contradiction in ESO for quite a while.

The contradiction is: the more DPS you have, the more you can skip mechanics and therefore the less rewarding content is in the second parameter when you push the first too high (elites then complaining about content being too easy)

And this is the real problem ESO has to face now - before it's too late and ESO becomes some Wildstar failed experiment - the Power Gap needs to be addressed way before addressing Power Creep.

Power Creep as it stands in the game now is something that is only affecting negatively the Top Tier players, while Power Gap is affecting negatively all players, Top Tier included (boredom from too easy content)

So, before wasting any time trying to chase the Unicorn, It might be wiser to chase the Elephant in the room.

That means, leave CP as is now, address the absurd heights the ceilings are reaching (without affecting the whole building).

Sacrifices have to be make.
If Top players want more fun and rewarding gameplay experiences, for themselves and for others as well (longevity of the game) they will have to let go on some things that anyway, they are labeling as "easy" and "muscle memory" (which monkeys also have, actually higher than humans just btw).

edit: some typos, english is not my first language, sorry.

reiverx

code65536 wrote: »

Masel wrote: »

All I wanted to do is to provide a system That reduces the power of optimised groups overall by introducing tradeoffs.

Then you have not learned the lessons from the Morrowind sustain changes. ZOS's lofty goal at the time was to reduce the gap between the ceiling and floor. And they identified sustain as a key problem: top groups were spec'ed purely for damage and there was no need to consider sustain.

So their goal was to bring down the ceiling by forcing top players to make a trade-off between damage and sustain. And they succeeded--damage at the top was brought down.

But what they also succeeded in doing was cratering the mainstream and increasing the power gap--the exact opposite of what they intended to do.

Why did the sustain changes increase the power gap? Because it favors groups who have the best damage-done-per-resource-spent ratio. If you weave perfectly, you will get more damage from the resources that you spent, because light attacks do resource-free damage. If you use a difficult dynamic rotation that lets you time your DoTs perfectly to minimize early and late recastings, you are getting more damage per resource spent. If your tanks position things well and you place your ground AoEs well, you get more damage per casted ability. If your support have great uptimes, you get better sustain directly (e.g., better Ele uptime) and indirectly (more debuffs on the boss means more damage done per casted ability and thus more damage done per resource spent). If you have great awareness and can avoid damage deftly, that's fewer resources that need to be spent casting a shield.

I can go on forever.

The point is, whatever nerf sustain was for the top, it was a much greater nerf for everyone else. Morrowind's sustan changes served to substantially widen the power gap.

And this is exactly what your suggestion will do. Add trade-offs between damage and defense? Sure, that's a nerf to the top. And an even bigger nerf to everyone else. Explain to me how this will address the power gap problem?

Absolutely. I would say that the Morrowind sustain nerf was the single most damaging change to the game.

Tommy_The_Gun

Can you provide some actuall proofs that CP is a source of power creep ?
The DLC / chapter gear are imho the source of power creep, not the CP. CP is just the source of power. Players dont want to have their progression taken away.
Also this game needs a progresion system past level 50 (other than gear that is). Otherwise people will simply stop playing... Curently CP is such a system. It may not be ideal, but if we will just say anything about it I have a feeling that zos will go on another nerf rampage...

Nolic1

There are alot of thing that factor into the power creep and power gap.

Gears Sets

%Stat increases both undaunted and cp

Traits

Mundus Stones

Skills sets as in which skills you use

And a few other things all play a part the best way to fix most of this is to have cp earned from level 1 instead of level 50

Gear sets and stats being adjusted to material so different material has sets values on them instead of working through the 50 levels on crafting this way the gear you find in the game can be mixed and still offer you a viable setup for most content.

With these changes new players and end game players would be on a more equal footing by end game.

Xvorg

Masel wrote: »

Hello fellow ESO'ers!

I've been wanting to showcase a CP system rework for a while, and now i have the time for it. The goal is to create a system that has clear tradeoffs, as opposed to the current system where the tradeoff is only between specific types of utility/sustain, damage and defense. After the changes, the CP system rather focuses on alleviating weaknesses instead of boosting what builds are already good at. So magicka builds can invest more into their defense against physical damgeand improve stamina management, while stamina builds can boost their healing done/received and their effectiveness against casters.

This system does not fully alleviate the problem of an abundance of CP points. since we have so many points to invest by now, the tardeoffs stilla rent as clear as thy should be.

What do we have now?

Currently, we have a CP level of 810 Points. This allows us to distribute 270 Points into each of the three main CP Stars (Mage/Warrior/Serpent). These trees are overall clearly defined:

1. The Warrior is basically the defensive tree. Here you find all the different defensive options that you might need. Nte that this includes physical and magical resistances.
2. The Serpent is the sustain/utility tree. Here you find everything that will reduce cost of your actions and increase recovery.
3. The Mage is the Damage tree. Here we have all stars that directly boost damage of all types.

Within this distribution of the CP stars, the problem is pretty obvious: You can invest 270 points into Damage of your type, 270 Points into utility of your liking and 270 points into defense. This makes the System allow you to be very tanky while dealing a load of damage and sustain very well, which leads to significant power creep that steadily increased over the years.

How can we reduce power creep and improve the system?

Well, there are many approaches hat ahve been suggested, but I'll tkae one that is practical in a sense that it doesnt not require any additonal perks/trees/stars. It simply reorders them to obtain a higher level of tradeoff between damage, utility/sustain and defense of a specific type. So if you want high magic damage fro example, you will lose magic sustain and damage for it. Here's the full reorder:



Lets start with the Warrior. I designed this tree to be a "general" option. So here we have stars and perks that are not tied to magicka and stamina specifically, but grants defensive and offensive options instead:



As you can see, i basically reordered pretty much all the stars and perks here. Now, if i want to invest into CP stars that increase my damage done, i cannot invest as many into CP trees that reduce my damage taken. I also cannot invest as amny point sinto critical damage taken and health recovery if i want to improve the other options.

The Mage tree contains all stars and perks that are related to magicka and magic damage, utility/sustain and defense. So if i want more Magicka Recovery, i have to reduce the points i invest into the Stars that grant Magic Damage and Healing.




Since more abilities that heal scale with magicka, i also wanted to create a clear tradeoff between magic damage and healing. If you want to heal more effectively or receive more healing, it will reduce the damage you do with Magic Abilities and your magicka recovery. Same goes for Stars that interact with shields. Incuding elemental defender and light armor focus/spell shield here also creates a tradeoff between the damage trees and the respective defensive tree.

The Serpent follwos that paradigm:



So again, we have a clear tradeoff: if i put more points into hardy, i cannot invest as many into Precise Strikes and Mooncalf. Stamina Builds need to think about whether they want to be able to rolldodge more, sprint more, sustain better through recovery or deal more damage overall.

Now this system technically allows for a full glass cannon build and for higher damage than on live, but the tradeoff is clearly there. Builds that do that will not be able to invest into sustain and defense a lot, so they will basically fall very quickly. in PvE, this system can technically allow groups to go for more damage than we have now, but the loss of defensive cps will prevent that in any content that is challenging anyway. So on top of that Iwould like the number of CP points to be reduced significantly to 510. We simply have too many points to actually allow for tradeoffs, since we can invest a sizable amount into all stars anyway.

Keep in mind that the diminishing returns of each specific star and the scaling values will be retained.


Feedback is welcome!

Just to point out that it is not the Serpent, but the Thief

code65536

So I want to take a moment to elaborate on what I wrote earlier, specifically:

code65536 wrote: »

Sure, I can come up with one very easy solution right now to nerf power in a way that hits the top more than the mainstream or the floor: Any light/heavy attacks that land within 2s of a direct damage ability will do only half damage.

I seriously do want to see this change implemented, and this is something that I had given some amount of thought about.

When thinking about the power gap problem, you need to think about it like an engineer and define the parameters of what your solution should look like.

1. It needs to either increase power at the bottom and middle more so than it increases power at the top, or it needs to nerf power in a way that affects the top more so than the bottom or middle.
2. It needs to lessen the penalties of unskillful play, or it needs to reduce the rewards of skillful play.
3. It needs to still preserve some amount of gap between skillful and unskillful play--swinging the pendulum too far to the other extreme and eliminating rewards for skillful play isn't good either, because the point of a game is to challenge a player and reward them for meeting that challenge.

So with those things in mind, let's consider some bad ideas.

Bad idea #1: Increase light attack damage. I can understand why ZOS wanted to increase light attack damage. In most combat games, you basic weapon attacks are the lion's share of damage. You fire your gun, swing your sword, etc., and your abilities generally exist in a utilitarian capacity. ESO is unique in that abilities are spammable with just a 1s cooldown and that the bulk of your damage come from abilities. I'm not saying that this is bad--I rather like this about ESO, actually--I mention it because it provides some insight into how newcomers to ESO behave. If just spamming left click is how you do damage in most other games, then of course your first instinct if you are new to ESO is to just spam left click.

So in this light, I can understand and appreciate why ZOS moved to increase the damage from basic weapon attacks, because it makes the game more accessible to players who are new to ESO and not yet used to ESO's unique ability-centric combat design. So why do I consider this to be a bad idea? Because it violates parameter #1: it increases power at the bottom for the newcomers who just spam left click, but it increases power at the top even more, for people who almost never miss a weave. And it violates parameter #2: It increases the rewards given to players who weave perfectly. Not missing any weaves is more rewarding than ever before.

That having been said, the idea of making the game more accessible to left-click-spam newbies isn't a bad one. Perhaps the idea could be amended?

Bad idea #2: A someone suggested in this thread, outright removing the damage done by light attacks. This is a terrible idea for the reasons I just outlined above, about newcomers to this game being mostly left-click spammers until they learn the ways of ESO's ability-centric combat model. This violates parameter #1 by destroying the absolute bottom floor.

Bad idea #3: This one gets floated on the forums a lot: "Animation cancelling is an exploit!!!!!!1111one". No, weaving is not an exploit. It's something that ZOS actively promotes. In fact, in Update 21, there is now a load screen tooltip that essentially advises people on how to light-attack weave. Suggestions like this violate parameter #3, because we don't want to eliminate skillful play. As I said, I like weaving. I think it's one way in which the game rewards skillful play and allows players to differentiate themselves from others. It's something that players can practice, and they are rewarded for that practice with combat power.

Bad idea #4: Morrowind sustain nerf. See post #18 on the previous page. Violates #1 because it nerfed the mainstream more than it nerfed the top. Violates #2 because it increases the penalty for unskillful play.

Bad idea #5: Meaningful offense/defense tradeoffs in CP, as suggested by this thread's OP. See post #39. Violates #1 because it will nerf the mainstream more so than the the top. Violates #2 because it will increase the rewards for skillful play by allowing those players to shift more points from defense to offense.

Good idea #1: So what would a good idea look like? Well, weaving is probably one of the biggest differentiators of skill in this game--in my parses, as a magicka DD, light attacks are by far the biggest source of damage, and one of the things that experienced players know to look for when examining a parse is the LA/s. And it's easy to see why: it involves deft finger gymnastics that require practice and it's not something that most players can do.

So let's give weaving a haircut. If a light/heavy attack is weaved, then give it a damage penalty. So let's run this idea through our three parameters. Parameter #1: This is a nerf to power, but who does this power nerf affect the most? The absolute floor--people new to ESO who just spam light attack--won't be affected at all since their attacks aren't weaved. The mainstream--people who mostly use abilities but don't weave or can't weave consistently will take a little hit if they weave a little, but for people who can't weave consistently, weaving is not a huge part of their damage. And finally, for people weave perfectly, this will be a pretty substantial hit. Perfect, it meets the criteria of parameter #1.

Parameter #2: This clearly lessens the rewards of skillful play--i.e., perfect weaving.

Parameter #3: Even with a substantial damage nerf, weaving is still free damage. It's still damage that you are squeezing in between each ability's GCD, so it's still "free" in the timing sense. It's still damage that's done with zero cost to resources, so it's still "free" in the resource sense. So you are still being rewarded for weaving--just not as much. And if you want to have the absolute best competitive parse, you will still need to weave because, even reduced, this free damage is too good to pass up. And this is why I suggested only halving the damage, not eliminating it (which is probably what the "weaving is exploiting" crowd would've liked).

Finally, a change like this is exactly what is needed to fix "Bad idea #1" above. You can buff unweaved weapon attacks to help newcomers and tamp down on weaved weapon attacks so that this buff to the bottom doesn't turn into an even greater buff to the top.

Good idea #2: Here's another little adjustment that could be made: If a DoT ability is recasted before the DoT has run out, the player should be given a prorated refund of the cost of the ability.

Parameter #1: This is a very minor (indirect) buff to power by way of a buff to resource sustain. For players with perfect dynamic rotations who almost never recast DoTs early, this change would have no effect on them. For everyone else, running with simplified static rotations or no rotation or people who flub their rotations, they will be recasting DoTs early much more often, and this will help them.

Parameter #2: This falls into the category of lessening the penalty of unskillful play.

Parameter #3: There are other penalties for recasting DoTs early. You are not getting as much out of the GCD that you spent casting the DoT if you don't let the DoT run its full course. That is the biggest and most important penalty to early recasting, and that penalty won't be touched. But this would eliminate the second penalty, where in addition to wasting the full potential of the GCD, you also waste resources. Players who want the absolute best DPS will still need to manage their DoTs carefully. They just won't be double-penalized for failing to do so.

Closing thoughts: I'm sure people can brainstorm up more ideas that could meet this 3-parameter test. But the point I want to make here is that people need to carefully consider these kinds of things when suggesting combat changes, and we get bad and harmful suggestions when people fail to ask themselves these kinds of important questions. This is really an engineering problem. Treat it like one, and it's possible to methodically come up with good solutions.

idk

code65536 wrote: »

So I want to take a moment to elaborate on what I wrote earlier, specifically:

code65536 wrote: »

Sure, I can come up with one very easy solution right now to nerf power in a way that hits the top more than the mainstream or the floor: Any light/heavy attacks that land within 2s of a direct damage ability will do only half damage.

I seriously do want to see this change implemented, and this is something that I had given some amount of thought about.

When thinking about the power gap problem, you need to think about it like an engineer and define the parameters of what your solution should look like.

1. It needs to either increase power at the bottom and middle more so than it increases power at the top, or it needs to nerf power in a way that affects the top more so than the bottom or middle.
2. It needs to lessen the penalties of unskillful play, or it needs to reduce the rewards of skillful play.
3. It needs to still preserve some amount of gap between skillful and unskillful play--swinging the pendulum too far to the other extreme and eliminating rewards for skillful play isn't good either, because the point of a game is to challenge a player and reward them for meeting that challenge.

So with those things in mind, let's consider some bad ideas.

Bad idea #1: Increase light attack damage. I can understand why ZOS wanted to increase light attack damage. In most combat games, you basic weapon attacks are the lion's share of damage. You fire your gun, swing your sword, etc., and your abilities generally exist in a utilitarian capacity. ESO is unique in that abilities are spammable with just a 1s cooldown and that the bulk of your damage come from abilities. I'm not saying that this is bad--I rather like this about ESO, actually--I mention it because it provides some insight into how newcomers to ESO behave. If just spamming left click is how you do damage in most other games, then of course your first instinct if you are new to ESO is to just spam left click.

So in this light, I can understand and appreciate why ZOS moved to increase the damage from basic weapon attacks, because it makes the game more accessible to players who are new to ESO and not yet used to ESO's unique ability-centric combat design. So why do I consider this to be a bad idea? Because it violates parameter #1: it increases power at the bottom for the newcomers who just spam left click, but it increases power at the top even more, for people who almost never miss a weave. And it violates parameter #2: It increases the rewards given to players who weave perfectly. Not missing any weaves is more rewarding than ever before.

That having been said, the idea of making the game more accessible to left-click-spam newbies isn't a bad one. Perhaps the idea could be amended?

Bad idea #2: A someone suggested in this thread, outright removing the damage done by light attacks. This is a terrible idea for the reasons I just outlined above, about newcomers to this game being mostly left-click spammers until they learn the ways of ESO's ability-centric combat model. This violates parameter #1 by destroying the absolute bottom floor.

Bad idea #3: This one gets floated on the forums a lot: "Animation cancelling is an exploit!!!!!!1111one". No, weaving is not an exploit. It's something that ZOS actively promotes. In fact, in Update 21, there is now a load screen tooltip that essentially advises people on how to light-attack weave. Suggestions like this violate parameter #3, because we don't want to eliminate skillful play. As I said, I like weaving. I think it's one way in which the game rewards skillful play and allows players to differentiate themselves from others. It's something that players can practice, and they are rewarded for that practice with combat power.

Bad idea #4: Morrowind sustain nerf. See post #18 on the previous page. Violates #1 because it nerfed the mainstream more than it nerfed the top. Violates #2 because it increases the penalty for unskillful play.

Bad idea #5: Meaningful offense/defense tradeoffs in CP, as suggested by this thread's OP. See post #39. Violates #1 because it will nerf the mainstream more so than the the top. Violates #2 because it will increase the rewards for skillful play by allowing those players to shift more points from defense to offense.

Good idea #1: So what would a good idea look like? Well, weaving is probably one of the biggest differentiators of skill in this game--in my parses, as a magicka DD, light attacks are by far the biggest source of damage, and one of the things that experienced players know to look for when examining a parse is the LA/s. And it's easy to see why: it involves deft finger gymnastics that require practice and it's not something that most players can do.

So let's give weaving a haircut. If a light/heavy attack is weaved, then give it a damage penalty. So let's run this idea through our three parameters. Parameter #1: This is a nerf to power, but who does this power nerf affect the most? The absolute floor--people new to ESO who just spam light attack--won't be affected at all since their attacks aren't weaved. The mainstream--people who mostly use abilities but don't weave or can't weave consistently will take a little hit if they weave a little, but for people who can't weave consistently, weaving is not a huge part of their damage. And finally, for people weave perfectly, this will be a pretty substantial hit. Perfect, it meets the criteria of parameter #1.

Parameter #2: This clearly lessens the rewards of skillful play--i.e., perfect weaving.

Parameter #3: Even with a substantial damage nerf, weaving is still free damage. It's still damage that you are squeezing in between each ability's GCD, so it's still "free" in the timing sense. It's still damage that's done with zero cost to resources, so it's still "free" in the resource sense. So you are still being rewarded for weaving--just not as much. And if you want to have the absolute best competitive parse, you will still need to weave because, even reduced, this free damage is too good to pass up. And this is why I suggested only halving the damage, not eliminating it (which is probably what the "weaving is exploiting" crowd would've liked).

Finally, a change like this is exactly what is needed to fix "Bad idea #1" above. You can buff unweaved weapon attacks to help newcomers and tamp down on weaved weapon attacks so that this buff to the bottom doesn't turn into an even greater buff to the top.

Good idea #2: Here's another little adjustment that could be made: If a DoT ability is recasted before the DoT has run out, the player should be given a prorated refund of the cost of the ability.

Parameter #1: This is a very minor (indirect) buff to power by way of a buff to resource sustain. For players with perfect dynamic rotations who almost never recast DoTs early, this change would have no effect on them. For everyone else, running with simplified static rotations or no rotation or people who flub their rotations, they will be recasting DoTs early much more often, and this will help them.

Parameter #2: This falls into the category of lessening the penalty of unskillful play.

Parameter #3: There are other penalties for recasting DoTs early. You are not getting as much out of the GCD that you spent casting the DoT if you don't let the DoT run its full course. That is the biggest and most important penalty to early recasting, and that penalty won't be touched. But this would eliminate the second penalty, where in addition to wasting the full potential of the GCD, you also waste resources. Players who want the absolute best DPS will still need to manage their DoTs carefully. They just won't be double-penalized for failing to do so.

Closing thoughts: I'm sure people can brainstorm up more ideas that could meet this 3-parameter test. But the point I want to make here is that people need to carefully consider these kinds of things when suggesting combat changes, and we get bad and harmful suggestions when people fail to ask themselves these kinds of important questions. This is really an engineering problem. Treat it like one, and it's possible to methodically come up with good solutions.

First, this should be it's own thread, though Zos seems to not acknowledge your many of your threads even though they provide fantastic detail and critical thinking that seems to be lacking within Zos.

Second, this is the type of critical thinking that Zos needs with their review of CP and combat as they say they are in the process of doing. Ideas like the one in the OP not only misdiagnoses an issue but only looks at the surface for a solution.

Code demonstrates a deep knowledge of this game at the various levels and different areas along with causation top see the actual impacts that are felt across the game. It is great to have someone like them in the community and hopefully Zos listens and heeds the advice and thoughts Code provides.

My guess is they do not want to be a "class rep" but they would probably be one of the best to provide feedback to Zos. I can think of few that have provided such insightful and well thought ideas as Code.

Sorry Code.

Joy_Division

code65536 wrote: »

Masel wrote: »

Of course I know that many other changes have contributed to power creep, there is a few very prominent examples:

1. Light attack changes. Boosting them led to a significant increase in dps.
2. Enchantment buffs
3. Set bonus buffs to magicka/critical chance
4. CP scaling for food
5. Staff items counting as 2 piece bonuses.



But cp is undoubtedly one of the contributors that did it in the long run. Comparing 300 to 810 CPs, is a clear and very dominant power difference.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. There are definitely balance problems in this game, but the the amount of scapegoating on CP is bewildering, particularly from class representatives (not just you).

@code65536

I won't speak for the OP or other representatives, but it is not accurate to characterize my objection to CP as scapegoating. I think it is extremely harmful to the PvP community as CP splits it into two and creates an impossible situation as the devs have to balance two completely different systems of PvP that use the same abilities, gear sets, mechanics, etc. That is not scapegoating, that is a rational objection to a system that has impaired and created divisions in what I spend most of my time playing this game.

I also dislike how ZOS has found it necessary to implement fundamental changes to the game or flat out take away powers and abilities that made up our classes because of the generic percentage bonuses in the CP system. The current Battlespirit formula, a band aid measure to address what the devs called "ping ponging" health pools (via too much damage and healing) that is arguably anachronistic as it was implemented way back in 2015, is one example. The removal and nerfing of various templar passives because of the Blessed and quick recovery stars are another. Also, as you correctly point out, one of the most damaging ZOS adjustments was during the Morrowind patch where ZOS not only nerfed or took away certain CP bonuses, but implemented class and armor nerfs. This is another reason I am frustrated by the CP system.

People may misinterpret my dislike of the CP system as that ZOS should do away with it all together. No. I do believe some sort of an "end-game" progression is necessary. My problem is how ZOS went about it with the CP system: flat percentage bonuses are about as unimaginative as it comes, the perks are not balanced at all with respect to each other (some of them are very powerful +12% crit and the Unchained Passive is extremely strong in PvP whereas some others have relatively trifling effects), and I worry about the psychological daunting grind ahead of new or returning players who stare at so many people with 810 CPs. I very much dislike playing no CP PvP because the game and the classes are not balanced for no CP; it just feels like a huge pointless overall nerf. So while I am frustrated by the CP system and would prefer something different, I understand that doing away with it or severely nerfing it will only negatively impact the game.

If I had my druthers, I would have rather they designed a system that would have offered us meaningful ways to customize our characters with a modest amount of power, or provide them with means to do things beyond the normal mechanics of the game (such as making Ice themed top DPS or providing bonus that aren't generic and have an actual game purpose like for PvP siege). And one that would not have divided the PvP community. But that ship has sailed a long time ago.

usmcjdking

@Masel

I think you would have better fanfare if CP were literally class specific.

Minno

usmcjdking wrote: »

@Masel

I think you would have better fanfare if CP were literally class specific.

Agreed. Could go like this(broadly based on how Oblivion organized the game):

160 max points.
Warrior:
- stars that resemble certain Nord, redguard, orc characteristics, but any race can use them as well. Nord, redguard, orc, imperial can also get a slight increase(Like 1-2% for those races, not game breaking). Some RP flavor like extra speed when sprinting in specific terrain, or costs of weapon skills dropped when fighting outnumbered, etc.
- stars that give slight increase to certain passives that resemble things you'll find in DK/templar kit. Same mechanic above; they get some tiny benefit but nothing broken. (I.e. ultimate generation on skill activation, x% boost to your ground based attacks, etc.)
- stars that help boost your snb and 2h weapon skill lines. Chance to disarm, increase duration on stun, increase chance to bleed, etc.
- heavy armor related unique boosts (x% seconds to immovable skill, etc)
- boosts to blacksmith, clothing, woodworking, jewel crafting as well.
- tank related tree

Thief:
- bonuses that increase certain racial passives for bosmer, kitty, dunmer. Obviously stealth and speed related and available to all.
- medium armor based. Maybe small Parry chance on melee DMG done to you (10% max star), cheaper roll dodge costs, etc.
-similar mechanic as above classes but for nightblades and wardens.
- alchemy boosted stars (extended effect duration on poisons, .
- bow and DW weapon line boosts
- thieving related line.

Mage:
- boosts for argonian, Breton, high elf
- boosts for light armor (shield boosts, channels, having less armor raiting, etc)
- enchanting boosts (extra enchant values, etc)
- boost to destro/resto lines
- boost to sorcs and the future necromancer.

The actual stars and passives unlocked can be discussed at length too, just wanted to keep it outlined quickly. I like the flexibility of this, and the fact that if I make a stealthy Breton Templar, I can make a combination of items that feels more unique than the current flat+boring system we have now.

idk

Joy_Division wrote: »

code65536 wrote: »

Masel wrote: »

Of course I know that many other changes have contributed to power creep, there is a few very prominent examples:

1. Light attack changes. Boosting them led to a significant increase in dps.
2. Enchantment buffs
3. Set bonus buffs to magicka/critical chance
4. CP scaling for food
5. Staff items counting as 2 piece bonuses.



But cp is undoubtedly one of the contributors that did it in the long run. Comparing 300 to 810 CPs, is a clear and very dominant power difference.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. There are definitely balance problems in this game, but the the amount of scapegoating on CP is bewildering, particularly from class representatives (not just you).

@code65536

I won't speak for the OP or other representatives, but it is not accurate to characterize my objection to CP as scapegoating.

TBH you have blamed CP on a number of things. Off the top of my head you blamed CP as being the reason Zos reduced the resource return from shards when it was sustain in CP that was severally gutted.

As Code has stated previously, what CP now provides is rather pitiful to what other sources in the game provide.

That is just related to one of your comments where you blame CP for things, but seemingly fail to see the big picture. It surprised me to read some of your posts considering you are a class rep. I can provide some references.

Joy_Division

idk wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

code65536 wrote: »

Masel wrote: »

Of course I know that many other changes have contributed to power creep, there is a few very prominent examples:

1. Light attack changes. Boosting them led to a significant increase in dps.
2. Enchantment buffs
3. Set bonus buffs to magicka/critical chance
4. CP scaling for food
5. Staff items counting as 2 piece bonuses.



But cp is undoubtedly one of the contributors that did it in the long run. Comparing 300 to 810 CPs, is a clear and very dominant power difference.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. There are definitely balance problems in this game, but the the amount of scapegoating on CP is bewildering, particularly from class representatives (not just you).

@code65536

I won't speak for the OP or other representatives, but it is not accurate to characterize my objection to CP as scapegoating.

TBH you have blamed CP on a number of things. Off the top of my head you blamed CP as being the reason Zos reduced the resource return from shards when it was sustain in CP that was severally gutted.

As Code has stated previously, what CP now provides is rather pitiful to what other sources in the game provide.

That is just related to one of your comments where you blame CP for things, but seemingly fail to see the big picture. It surprised me to read some of your posts considering you are a class rep. I can provide some references.

I do not doubt I have said some things about the CP system out of frustration with it that, after reflection, I would disagree with now.

But as much as I am frustrated with it, I have not and will not advocate to ZOS in my position as a Rep that ZOS should just do away with it or just flat out nerf the power we get from it. I haven't and won';t because I dislike no CP PvP because it just feels like everything is nerfed, so I have zero desire to see that extended to the base game. This isn;t to say changes aren;t needed, but just flat out getting rid of it or nerfing it is too simplistic. What we get (or at least most of it) from CP makes the game better, my issue is more the mechanics in how CP gives that power and dividing the PvP community. I hope that is clear.