PTS Update 29 - Feedback Thread for Champion Point System

Xebov

silvereyes wrote: »

So, in CP 1.0, we had this:

The star representing the CP of what I imagine the mean or average player may have. Many have more, many less, but let's use CP 1000 to make things easy.

Now, in the current iteration of CP 2.0, we theoretically have this:


Which is much better than it was in PTS 6.3.0 (thank you again!), but it still suffers from two major problems:

• Vertical progression takes way too long. For a system that was supposed to minimize the affect of vertical progression, the fact that there are still combat advantages to be had up to CP 1800 is kind of ridiculous. That's 223% the XP of the old cap!
• The goal post has moved too far. For new and veteran players alike, the combat power per CP has been cut significantly. Wherever we thought we were on the spectrum (1/3 of the way, 2/3 of the way, at cap, whatever), we are now at a fraction of that. It has people feeling disrespected - like they have had something stolen from them.

I would propose that, however you implement it from a constellation perspective, the vertical progression should end much sooner:


This has several advantages:

• Raises the floor on DPS even further, allowing more people to participate and feel effective.
• Respects the existing player base by not taking away power they feel they've already earned.
• Gives newer players an achievable goal that leads them to strive to meet it, rather than feeling hopeless and leaving.
• Frees up more of the XP curve for horizontal progression that players don't race through, leading to a steadier feeling of achievement and more engagement.

Thank you for considering.

P.S. To be clear, when discussing the line between vertical and horizontal progression, I'm not talking about the "soft cap" inflection point where the rate of XP required per level of CP changes by 1.5x and the steepness of the XP leveling curve is determined. I think it is in a great spot right where it is.

Rather, I am talking about the point at which accumulating CP no longer gives any net advantage from a combat perspective, and all of the advantages shift to the convenience of being able to swap between active stars without a redistribution fee, or other non-combat perks.

You should consider mixing enlightnment XP in. We get 400k per day with a cap (i think 4 Million?). Maybe the catch up phase could contain inciresed values to help players as well.

Rungar

silvereyes wrote: »

So, in CP 1.0, we had this:

The star representing the CP of what I imagine the mean or average player may have. Many have more, many less, but let's use CP 1000 to make things easy.

Now, in the current iteration of CP 2.0, we theoretically have this:


Which is much better than it was in PTS 6.3.0 (thank you again!), but it still suffers from two major problems:

• Vertical progression takes way too long. For a system that was supposed to minimize the affect of vertical progression, the fact that there are still combat advantages to be had up to CP 1800 is kind of ridiculous. That's 223% the XP of the old cap!
• The goal post has moved too far. For new and veteran players alike, the combat power per CP has been cut significantly. Wherever we thought we were on the spectrum (1/3 of the way, 2/3 of the way, at cap, whatever), we are now at a fraction of that. It has people feeling disrespected - like they have had something stolen from them.

I would propose that, however you implement it from a constellation perspective, the vertical progression should end much sooner:


This has several advantages:

• Raises the floor on DPS even further, allowing more people to participate and feel effective.
• Respects the existing player base by not taking away power they feel they've already earned.
• Gives newer players an achievable goal that leads them to strive to meet it, rather than feeling hopeless and leaving.
• Frees up more of the XP curve for horizontal progression that players don't race through, leading to a steadier feeling of achievement and more engagement.

Thank you for considering.

P.S. To be clear, when discussing the line between vertical and horizontal progression, I'm not talking about the "soft cap" inflection point where the rate of XP required per level of CP changes by 1.5x and the steepness of the XP leveling curve is determined. I think it is in a great spot right where it is.

Rather, I am talking about the point at which accumulating CP no longer gives any net advantage from a combat perspective, and all of the advantages shift to the convenience of being able to swap between active stars without a redistribution fee, or other non-combat perks.

I agree with your analysis but I wonder how compelling the cp system will really be for vet players who pretty much all have that phase completed now. I think zos needs to add more to horizontal development to make it compelling.

I would add a "collectible" selection of slottable (activatable skills on your hotbar) skills ( only allowed to equip one at a time and uses up a slot) and collectible damage type specialization packages ( only one at a time allowed and uses up to 4 slots).

What I mean by collectible is that they need to be unlocked through the game and then can be purchased with cp points. Both would utilize the slot system so it wouldn't increase the players overall combat power.

silvereyes

Rungar wrote: »

silvereyes wrote: »

So, in CP 1.0, we had this:

The star representing the CP of what I imagine the mean or average player may have. Many have more, many less, but let's use CP 1000 to make things easy.

Now, in the current iteration of CP 2.0, we theoretically have this:


Which is much better than it was in PTS 6.3.0 (thank you again!), but it still suffers from two major problems:

• Vertical progression takes way too long. For a system that was supposed to minimize the affect of vertical progression, the fact that there are still combat advantages to be had up to CP 1800 is kind of ridiculous. That's 223% the XP of the old cap!
• The goal post has moved too far. For new and veteran players alike, the combat power per CP has been cut significantly. Wherever we thought we were on the spectrum (1/3 of the way, 2/3 of the way, at cap, whatever), we are now at a fraction of that. It has people feeling disrespected - like they have had something stolen from them.

I would propose that, however you implement it from a constellation perspective, the vertical progression should end much sooner:


This has several advantages:

• Raises the floor on DPS even further, allowing more people to participate and feel effective.
• Respects the existing player base by not taking away power they feel they've already earned.
• Gives newer players an achievable goal that leads them to strive to meet it, rather than feeling hopeless and leaving.
• Frees up more of the XP curve for horizontal progression that players don't race through, leading to a steadier feeling of achievement and more engagement.

Thank you for considering.

P.S. To be clear, when discussing the line between vertical and horizontal progression, I'm not talking about the "soft cap" inflection point where the rate of XP required per level of CP changes by 1.5x and the steepness of the XP leveling curve is determined. I think it is in a great spot right where it is.

Rather, I am talking about the point at which accumulating CP no longer gives any net advantage from a combat perspective, and all of the advantages shift to the convenience of being able to swap between active stars without a redistribution fee, or other non-combat perks.

I agree with your analysis but I wonder how compelling the cp system will really be for vet players who pretty much all have that phase completed now. I think zos needs to add more to horizontal development to make it compelling.

I don't disagree, but I also don't think that the process of earning back raw power vet players already have is particularly compelling either.

How exactly the developers choose to tackle this issue is up to them. However, I will make several observations from my own perspective when it comes to the constellations:

1. There are many passive stars that duplicate the effects of active ones.
   • Eldrich Insight / Arcane Supremacy for max magicka
   • Tireless Discipline / Endless Endurance for max stam
   • Hero's Vigor / Boundless Vitality for max health
2. Wrathful Strikes / Untamed Aggression are essentially duplicate active weapon / spell damage stars. I guess this is fine for vertical progression since both are active, although it seems to be a rulebreaker, since there are no other duplicate active stats like it. It's also weird that Wrathful Strikes grants 33 damage per 10 CP and Untamed Aggression grants 30 damage per 10 CP, making Wrathful the clear choice.
3. The number of passives per tree isn't balanced.
   • Craft: 8 passives
   • Warfare: 13 passives
   • Fitness: 13 passives
4. The number of active stars per tree isn't balanced.
   • Craft: 19 actives
   • Warfare: 26 actives
   • Fitness: 19 actives

Edit: my original comment indicated that Wrathful Strikes / Untamed Aggression included a passive star, but both are active. I have updated my comment to reflect this.

PeacefulAnarchy

1. There are many passive stars that duplicate the effects of active ones.
   • Eldrich Insight / Arcane Supremacy for max magicka
   • Tireless Discipline / Endless Endurance for max stam
   • Hero's Vigor / Boundless Vitality for max health
   • Wrathful Strikes / Untamed Aggression for weapon / spell damage

I think a more accurate way of seeing this it is that the overall bonus is split, half being passive and half requiring an active slot.

silvereyes

I think a more accurate way of seeing this it is that the overall bonus is split, half being passive and half requiring an active slot.

Fair enough, at least for the mag, stam and health ones. However, I would argue that the passive portions of these act just like the the base max mag, stam and health you got from spending 100 points in each tree in CP 1.0.

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

With CP 2.0, we have reduced a lot of that gap by baking in the base max Magicka, Stamina, and Health you got from spending 100 points per “CP color” into your characters as you level up. We have also increased Weapon and Spell damage for players with this change to make up for that gap.

So they took away the CP 1.0 passives and baked them into the normal level 1-50 progression, but then they added similar passives back in to CP 2.0? It makes no sense to me, and seems to only lengthen the vertical progression unnecessarily. Imo, it would be best to remove the passives entirely and bake them into level 1-50 the same way they did with the CP 1.0 passive stats.

lillybit

silvereyes wrote: »

I think a more accurate way of seeing this it is that the overall bonus is split, half being passive and half requiring an active slot.

Fair enough, at least for the mag, stam and health ones. However, I would argue that the passive portions of these act just like the the base max mag, stam and health you got from spending 100 points in each tree in CP 1.0.

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

With CP 2.0, we have reduced a lot of that gap by baking in the base max Magicka, Stamina, and Health you got from spending 100 points per “CP color” into your characters as you level up. We have also increased Weapon and Spell damage for players with this change to make up for that gap.

So they took away the CP 1.0 passives and baked them into the normal level 1-50 progression, but then they added similar passives back in to CP 2.0? It makes no sense to me, and seems to only lengthen the vertical progression unnecessarily. Imo, it would be best to remove the passives entirely and bake them into level 1-50 the same way they did with the CP 1.0 passive stats.

Or could just combine the two into one and make it the combined value, could be a passive or active but one single star makes much more sense

silvereyes

Xebov wrote: »

silvereyes wrote: »

So, in CP 1.0, we had this:

The star representing the CP of what I imagine the mean or average player may have. Many have more, many less, but let's use CP 1000 to make things easy.

Now, in the current iteration of CP 2.0, we theoretically have this:


Which is much better than it was in PTS 6.3.0 (thank you again!), but it still suffers from two major problems:

• Vertical progression takes way too long. For a system that was supposed to minimize the affect of vertical progression, the fact that there are still combat advantages to be had up to CP 1800 is kind of ridiculous. That's 223% the XP of the old cap!
• The goal post has moved too far. For new and veteran players alike, the combat power per CP has been cut significantly. Wherever we thought we were on the spectrum (1/3 of the way, 2/3 of the way, at cap, whatever), we are now at a fraction of that. It has people feeling disrespected - like they have had something stolen from them.

I would propose that, however you implement it from a constellation perspective, the vertical progression should end much sooner:


This has several advantages:

• Raises the floor on DPS even further, allowing more people to participate and feel effective.
• Respects the existing player base by not taking away power they feel they've already earned.
• Gives newer players an achievable goal that leads them to strive to meet it, rather than feeling hopeless and leaving.
• Frees up more of the XP curve for horizontal progression that players don't race through, leading to a steadier feeling of achievement and more engagement.

Thank you for considering.

P.S. To be clear, when discussing the line between vertical and horizontal progression, I'm not talking about the "soft cap" inflection point where the rate of XP required per level of CP changes by 1.5x and the steepness of the XP leveling curve is determined. I think it is in a great spot right where it is.

Rather, I am talking about the point at which accumulating CP no longer gives any net advantage from a combat perspective, and all of the advantages shift to the convenience of being able to swap between active stars without a redistribution fee, or other non-combat perks.

You should consider mixing enlightnment XP in. We get 400k per day with a cap (i think 4 Million?). Maybe the catch up phase could contain inciresed values to help players as well.

I'm already considering enlightenment. The vertical progression cap of CP 1800 (1,235,390,402 XP) is still too darned high. A new player joining the game and only playing enough each week to use up their enlightenment would take nearly 8-and-a-half years (3,088.476 days, to be precise) to reach CP 1800!

Ringod123

silvereyes wrote: »

So they took away the CP 1.0 passives and baked them into the normal level 1-50 progression, but then they added similar passives back in to CP 2.0? It makes no sense to me, and seems to only lengthen the vertical progression unnecessarily. Imo, it would be best to remove the passives entirely and bake them into level 1-50 the same way they did with the CP 1.0 passive stats.

Wait until you realise that having a cap of 3600 now makes absolutely 0 sense considering 3600 only even existed as the theoretical cap as there were 36 stars that could have 100 points spent in each.
So, how does 3600CP make any sense what-so-ever in the new system? simple, it doesn't, it's just typical poor design where they want to move away form an old system but for 0 benefit keep bringing thigs back from the old system that make no sense in the new.

silvereyes

lillybit wrote: »

silvereyes wrote: »

I think a more accurate way of seeing this it is that the overall bonus is split, half being passive and half requiring an active slot.

Fair enough, at least for the mag, stam and health ones. However, I would argue that the passive portions of these act just like the the base max mag, stam and health you got from spending 100 points in each tree in CP 1.0.

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

With CP 2.0, we have reduced a lot of that gap by baking in the base max Magicka, Stamina, and Health you got from spending 100 points per “CP color” into your characters as you level up. We have also increased Weapon and Spell damage for players with this change to make up for that gap.

So they took away the CP 1.0 passives and baked them into the normal level 1-50 progression, but then they added similar passives back in to CP 2.0? It makes no sense to me, and seems to only lengthen the vertical progression unnecessarily. Imo, it would be best to remove the passives entirely and bake them into level 1-50 the same way they did with the CP 1.0 passive stats.

Or could just combine the two into one and make it the combined value, could be a passive or active but one single star makes much more sense

That's another option, but I fear that would make the combined stars so overtuned that players wouldn't really have a choice but to slot them.

lillybit

Ringod123 wrote: »

Fennwitty wrote: »

CP 2.0 Craft Passive Stars 'Out of Sight,' 'Breakfall' Impact PvP; Recommend Making Active Stars

From https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/562025/cp-2-0-craft-passive-stars-out-of-sight-breakfall-impact-pvp-recommend-making-active-stars#latest, posting here at advice of others it might be more visible.

Two of the fully passive stars in the green Craft CP line will actually have noticeable gameplay impact, especially in PvP situations. A character doesn't have to slot these on their 4 active stars to gain the benefit.

PTS 6.3.3

Out of Sight, Non-Slotted
Reduces the radius you can be detected while sneaking by 1 meter per stage. (Max 3 meters, 10 points each).

• Out of Sight will buff the “gank” playstyle in PvP, by offering additional stealth bonuses. Today stealth reduction comes from specific medium armor sets, medium armor passive skill, or the Khajiit racial ability.
• Out of Sight also offsets the new heavy armor penalty to stealth detection radius.
• Because a player that trains Out of Sight will have a ‘perceptible’ advantage in PvP, and also because it allows players to equip different gear or potentially copy a racial ability, I believe it should require active slotting.

Breakfall, Non-Slotted
Reduces your fall damage taken by 7% per stage. (Max 35%, 10 points each)

• Reduced falling damage will be a noticeable help in PvP.
• Jumping off a wall or cliff to evade pursuers in Cyrodiil, or dropping down from above onto another player in Imperial City are common occurrences. The player with this star trained will be better able to survive or attack another player.
• Additionally, any character with 20 points in Breakfall gets 14% fall damage reduction, immediately stronger than the Bosmer racial 10% fall reduction.
• Because this star can directly impact play, and actually exceeds a racial ability, I believe it should require active slotting.

So you want absolutely 0 usable passive buffs in the green tree for PvP? No thanks, it's already been gimped enough for P

silvereyes wrote: »

I think a more accurate way of seeing this it is that the overall bonus is split, half being passive and half requiring an active slot.

Fair enough, at least for the mag, stam and health ones. However, I would argue that the passive portions of these act just like the the base max mag, stam and health you got from spending 100 points in each tree in CP 1.0.

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

With CP 2.0, we have reduced a lot of that gap by baking in the base max Magicka, Stamina, and Health you got from spending 100 points per “CP color” into your characters as you level up. We have also increased Weapon and Spell damage for players with this change to make up for that gap.

So they took away the CP 1.0 passives and baked them into the normal level 1-50 progression, but then they added similar passives back in to CP 2.0? It makes no sense to me, and seems to only lengthen the vertical progression unnecessarily. Imo, it would be best to remove the passives entirely and bake them into level 1-50 the same way they did with the CP 1.0 passive stats.

Wait until you realise that having a cap of 3600 now makes absolutely 0 sense considering 3600 only even existed as the theoretical cap as there were 36 stars that could have 100 points spent in each.
So, how does 3600CP make any sense what-so-ever in the new system? simple, it doesn't, it's just typical poor design where they want to move away form an old system but for 0 benefit keep bringing thigs back from the old system that make no sense in the new.

Well it doesn't but it's probably hard wired into the CP system and there wasn't incentive to change it right now. There aren't very many people currently at cap. I expect it'll change at some point, they've said it will be expandable and it makes no sense to endlessly bolt things on without raising the cap at all.

AlexWaff

The most recent changes to the Craft tree are nice, but ultimately dodging the real problem.

Making "Soul Reservoir" a passive, instead of a slottable, was the right choice.
Now please, consider doing it for most of the other skills, too.

What about the fence skill? That 10% buff is irrelevant - the problem is not "Make this skill more appealing for people to put points in." - they will either way.
The problem is nobody want to bother going into their champion points, respeccing into the Fence skill - selling their stolen goods, and then going back into the tree to undo the change.
That's tedious and pointless. Just make it passive, like the soul reservoir. It's a skill that ONLY makes any difference when you're fencing stolen goods, and you're already spending your CP for it. No need to punish people extra by making them micromanage it.

And you can apply this exact logic to ALMOST EVERY slottable Craft skill. Quality of items in treasure chests? Only matters when you do the said thing, which you do rarely and infrequently. So don't punish people like this.
I understand the idea behind the plentiful harvest and faster gathering skills being slottable - so people will slot them when they go on a gathering spree, and un-slot them when not.
BUT WHY? Why would you un-slot them? It literally changes nothing. You can have it slotted permanently (like it is on life, a passive skill) and it will only ever many a difference whenever you gather nodes, which you either set out to do specifically, or you do randomly and infrequently while questing. It's simply conterintuitive to have most of the skills in Craft be slottable, if not all of them. Please, really reconsider, especially when we already have the exact same or analogous skills in the current system that are passive, and the game's better for it.

silvereyes

AlexWaff wrote: »

The most recent changes to the Craft tree are nice, but ultimately dodging the real problem.

Making "Soul Reservoir" a passive, instead of a slottable, was the right choice.
Now please, consider doing it for most of the other skills, too.

What about the fence skill? That 10% buff is irrelevant - the problem is not "Make this skill more appealing for people to put points in." - they will either way.
The problem is nobody want to bother going into their champion points, respeccing into the Fence skill - selling their stolen goods, and then going back into the tree to undo the change.
That's tedious and pointless. Just make it passive, like the soul reservoir. It's a skill that ONLY makes any difference when you're fencing stolen goods, and you're already spending your CP for it. No need to punish people extra by making them micromanage it.

And you can apply this exact logic to ALMOST EVERY slottable Craft skill. Quality of items in treasure chests? Only matters when you do the said thing, which you do rarely and infrequently. So don't punish people like this.
I understand the idea behind the plentiful harvest and faster gathering skills being slottable - so people will slot them when they go on a gathering spree, and un-slot them when not.
BUT WHY? Why would you un-slot them? It literally changes nothing. You can have it slotted permanently (like it is on life, a passive skill) and it will only ever many a difference whenever you gather nodes, which you either set out to do specifically, or you do randomly and infrequently while questing. It's simply conterintuitive to have most of the skills in Craft be slottable, if not all of them. Please, really reconsider, especially when we already have the exact same or analogous skills in the current system that are passive, and the game's better for it.

I love the craft tree, but it has several oddities:

• It's called craft, but includes a grab bag of stealth, murder and justice system stars.
• There's very few combat-related skills that would warrant needing to be classified as active to limit vertical progression
• The active stars involve almost no choices. If you are doing a certain activity, you must chose certain stars, leading to annoying micromanagement, as has been stated.
• It's green, but has no stamina-related stars like max stam or core combat abilities like sprint, roll dodge, or block cost.

I feel like there's an opportunity here to solve some of the progression problems from the other two trees by making most of the existing green tree stars to be passive and distributing them into the other trees, and then moving some active stars from the other trees here. I feel like that could help improve the horizontal progression of the other trees, while adding actual choices to the green tree.

Xebov

silvereyes wrote: »

Xebov wrote: »

silvereyes wrote: »

So, in CP 1.0, we had this:

The star representing the CP of what I imagine the mean or average player may have. Many have more, many less, but let's use CP 1000 to make things easy.

Now, in the current iteration of CP 2.0, we theoretically have this:


Which is much better than it was in PTS 6.3.0 (thank you again!), but it still suffers from two major problems:

• Vertical progression takes way too long. For a system that was supposed to minimize the affect of vertical progression, the fact that there are still combat advantages to be had up to CP 1800 is kind of ridiculous. That's 223% the XP of the old cap!
• The goal post has moved too far. For new and veteran players alike, the combat power per CP has been cut significantly. Wherever we thought we were on the spectrum (1/3 of the way, 2/3 of the way, at cap, whatever), we are now at a fraction of that. It has people feeling disrespected - like they have had something stolen from them.

I would propose that, however you implement it from a constellation perspective, the vertical progression should end much sooner:


This has several advantages:

• Raises the floor on DPS even further, allowing more people to participate and feel effective.
• Respects the existing player base by not taking away power they feel they've already earned.
• Gives newer players an achievable goal that leads them to strive to meet it, rather than feeling hopeless and leaving.
• Frees up more of the XP curve for horizontal progression that players don't race through, leading to a steadier feeling of achievement and more engagement.

Thank you for considering.

P.S. To be clear, when discussing the line between vertical and horizontal progression, I'm not talking about the "soft cap" inflection point where the rate of XP required per level of CP changes by 1.5x and the steepness of the XP leveling curve is determined. I think it is in a great spot right where it is.

Rather, I am talking about the point at which accumulating CP no longer gives any net advantage from a combat perspective, and all of the advantages shift to the convenience of being able to swap between active stars without a redistribution fee, or other non-combat perks.

You should consider mixing enlightnment XP in. We get 400k per day with a cap (i think 4 Million?). Maybe the catch up phase could contain inciresed values to help players as well.

I'm already considering enlightenment. The vertical progression cap of CP 1800 (1,235,390,402 XP) is still too darned high. A new player joining the game and only playing enough each week to use up their enlightenment would take nearly 8-and-a-half years (3,088.476 days, to be precise) to reach CP 1800!

Thats what i mean, you calculate with the current enlightnment gain and the current enlightnment use. Which is 400k per day adding a 4x XP boost. But these numbers are not set in stone, so in cases where tehy get higher things would change. You could for example have a higher bonus on lower levels that reduces so its a good catchup mechanic where players can plow through the beginning much faster.

majulook

Having to slot Stars to get benefits that used to be passives such as Treasure Finder, and Plentiful Harvest seams like a slap in the face.

Having to pause every time you do something to change out one Star for another that you have to slot to get a benefit to non combat game play is silly.

its not just a CP grind that's going to turn away players.

Its this slotting of stars micro management game play that will turn away players.

silvereyes

Xebov wrote: »

silvereyes wrote: »

Xebov wrote: »

silvereyes wrote: »

So, in CP 1.0, we had this:

The star representing the CP of what I imagine the mean or average player may have. Many have more, many less, but let's use CP 1000 to make things easy.

Now, in the current iteration of CP 2.0, we theoretically have this:


Which is much better than it was in PTS 6.3.0 (thank you again!), but it still suffers from two major problems:

• Vertical progression takes way too long. For a system that was supposed to minimize the affect of vertical progression, the fact that there are still combat advantages to be had up to CP 1800 is kind of ridiculous. That's 223% the XP of the old cap!
• The goal post has moved too far. For new and veteran players alike, the combat power per CP has been cut significantly. Wherever we thought we were on the spectrum (1/3 of the way, 2/3 of the way, at cap, whatever), we are now at a fraction of that. It has people feeling disrespected - like they have had something stolen from them.

I would propose that, however you implement it from a constellation perspective, the vertical progression should end much sooner:


This has several advantages:

• Raises the floor on DPS even further, allowing more people to participate and feel effective.
• Respects the existing player base by not taking away power they feel they've already earned.
• Gives newer players an achievable goal that leads them to strive to meet it, rather than feeling hopeless and leaving.
• Frees up more of the XP curve for horizontal progression that players don't race through, leading to a steadier feeling of achievement and more engagement.

Thank you for considering.

P.S. To be clear, when discussing the line between vertical and horizontal progression, I'm not talking about the "soft cap" inflection point where the rate of XP required per level of CP changes by 1.5x and the steepness of the XP leveling curve is determined. I think it is in a great spot right where it is.

Rather, I am talking about the point at which accumulating CP no longer gives any net advantage from a combat perspective, and all of the advantages shift to the convenience of being able to swap between active stars without a redistribution fee, or other non-combat perks.

You should consider mixing enlightnment XP in. We get 400k per day with a cap (i think 4 Million?). Maybe the catch up phase could contain inciresed values to help players as well.

I'm already considering enlightenment. The vertical progression cap of CP 1800 (1,235,390,402 XP) is still too darned high. A new player joining the game and only playing enough each week to use up their enlightenment would take nearly 8-and-a-half years (3,088.476 days, to be precise) to reach CP 1800!

Thats what i mean, you calculate with the current enlightnment gain and the current enlightnment use. Which is 400k per day adding a 4x XP boost. But these numbers are not set in stone, so in cases where tehy get higher things would change. You could for example have a higher bonus on lower levels that reduces so its a good catchup mechanic where players can plow through the beginning much faster.

I'm certainly not against expanding Enlightenment. I think the daily pool could stand to be expanded. 400k / day is nothing when you consider that the usable XP curve reaches into the billions now.

That said, I don't think Enlightenment really solves any of the main issues.

• The current player base still feels like they are losing something. Even with a sizeable boost, making people grind XP again just to stay in place feels bad.
• Half of the available CP will still feel like a race
• New players will still be turned away by the high CP numbers needed to be considered viable in group content.

What's more, Enlightenment isn't even a particularly great catch-up mechanic for anyone who wants to level quickly (i.e. most current players after the patch drops). Enlightenment gets used up, and even more quickly during double-XP events when people are most likely to want to grind out XP.

virtus753

master_vanargand wrote: »

virtus753 wrote: »

Flurry is a clear rulebreaker here in being a single-target DoT spammable, thus the only spammable able to be buffed twice with these stars.

Is Flurry a DoT?
If I remember correctly, Flurry was changed to channel skill of direct damage in the update.

I just confirmed on PTS that Thaumaturge IS buffing Flurry, despite Flurry now having a channel time. That should be a bug, and it's a highly impactful one.

FinrodMacBeorn

For my taste, the adjusted champion point curve now is very reasonable as for most purposes (except solo arenas and cp-pvp, where for the latter, there are the non-cp alternatives) vertical progression effectively end between 1500 and 1600 cp, and we'll get a decent cp/xp ratio until 1800 cp.

I only would like that the xp per hour which we get by usual gaming activities would be comparable to mindless grinding. At least, instanced grinding locations like skyreach should be nerfed considerably - also in view of selling skyreach runs which are at least frowned upon (https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/426907/skyreach-price)

This is not without precedence. I recall that, some years ago, an instanced location in the main quest line of Grahtwood or Greenshade could be used for power levelling by killing skeletons if you just entered repeatedly without completing the quest. This grinding ground was disabled by setting the xp for killing those skeletons to 0.

dannv

The new system looks ot have many good points to it. My only real concern so far is the changes to moving the speed buff for Rapids to CP and making the skill only 8 seconds. This won't really bother p0layters with a lot of CP) but definitely is an issue for new players who don't have a lot of CP or don't have any. And, FWIW< when I just went out a played with it, the new rapids skill says an 8 second speed increase in the tool tip, but I saw no change at all when using it. For quality of life for newer players, this really needs to be changed.

tmbrinks

dannv wrote: »

The new system looks ot have many good points to it. My only real concern so far is the changes to moving the speed buff for Rapids to CP and making the skill only 8 seconds. This won't really bother p0layters with a lot of CP) but definitely is an issue for new players who don't have a lot of CP or don't have any. And, FWIW< when I just went out a played with it, the new rapids skill says an 8 second speed increase in the tool tip, but I saw no change at all when using it. For quality of life for newer players, this really needs to be changed.

That's 8 seconds of Major Expedition (on foot)

The passive for Major Gallop (the one on your horse) is now in the "Continuous Attack" Passive under the Assault Line so, at rank 3 in assault you can put 1 point in there and get permanent Major Gallop while mounted

Which is an ENORMOUS QOL improvement.

QuebraRegra

Rungar wrote: »

silvereyes wrote: »

So, in CP 1.0, we had this:

The star representing the CP of what I imagine the mean or average player may have. Many have more, many less, but let's use CP 1000 to make things easy.

Now, in the current iteration of CP 2.0, we theoretically have this:


Which is much better than it was in PTS 6.3.0 (thank you again!), but it still suffers from two major problems:

• Vertical progression takes way too long. For a system that was supposed to minimize the affect of vertical progression, the fact that there are still combat advantages to be had up to CP 1800 is kind of ridiculous. That's 223% the XP of the old cap!
• The goal post has moved too far. For new and veteran players alike, the combat power per CP has been cut significantly. Wherever we thought we were on the spectrum (1/3 of the way, 2/3 of the way, at cap, whatever), we are now at a fraction of that. It has people feeling disrespected - like they have had something stolen from them.

I would propose that, however you implement it from a constellation perspective, the vertical progression should end much sooner:


This has several advantages:

• Raises the floor on DPS even further, allowing more people to participate and feel effective.
• Respects the existing player base by not taking away power they feel they've already earned.
• Gives newer players an achievable goal that leads them to strive to meet it, rather than feeling hopeless and leaving.
• Frees up more of the XP curve for horizontal progression that players don't race through, leading to a steadier feeling of achievement and more engagement.

Thank you for considering.

P.S. To be clear, when discussing the line between vertical and horizontal progression, I'm not talking about the "soft cap" inflection point where the rate of XP required per level of CP changes by 1.5x and the steepness of the XP leveling curve is determined. I think it is in a great spot right where it is.

Rather, I am talking about the point at which accumulating CP no longer gives any net advantage from a combat perspective, and all of the advantages shift to the convenience of being able to swap between active stars without a redistribution fee, or other non-combat perks.

I agree with your analysis but I wonder how compelling the cp system will really be for vet players who pretty much all have that phase completed now. I think zos needs to add more to horizontal development to make it compelling.

I would add a "collectible" selection of slottable (activatable skills on your hotbar) skills ( only allowed to equip one at a time and uses up a slot) and collectible damage type specialization packages ( only one at a time allowed and uses up to 4 slots).

What I mean by collectible is that they need to be unlocked through the game and then can be purchased with cp points. Both would utilize the slot system so it wouldn't increase the players overall combat power.

I think yer on the right track with

majulook wrote: »

Having to slot Stars to get benefits that used to be passives such as Treasure Finder, and Plentiful Harvest seams like a slap in the face.

Having to pause every time you do something to change out one Star for another that you have to slot to get a benefit to non combat game play is silly.

its not just a CP grind that's going to turn away players.

Its this slotting of stars micro management game play that will turn away players.

Agreed, things like treasure finder, and no combat progression QOL features should not require star juggling, in a game without loadouts (sans add-ons).

HugoG92

The new system just sounds painful for console players
But I guess nobody on ZOS cares about us anyways

Duplomancer

FinrodMacBeorn wrote: »

For my taste, the adjusted champion point curve now is very reasonable as for most purposes (except solo arenas and cp-pvp, where for the latter, there are the non-cp alternatives) vertical progression effectively end between 1500 and 1600 cp, and we'll get a decent cp/xp ratio until 1800 cp.

I only would like that the xp per hour which we get by usual gaming activities would be comparable to mindless grinding. At least, instanced grinding locations like skyreach should be nerfed considerably - also in view of selling skyreach runs which are at least frowned upon (https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/426907/skyreach-price)

This is not without precedence. I recall that, some years ago, an instanced location in the main quest line of Grahtwood or Greenshade could be used for power levelling by killing skeletons if you just entered repeatedly without completing the quest. This grinding ground was disabled by setting the xp for killing those skeletons to 0.

SR should not be nerfed. You started off in the right direction, bring other activities up instead. Bring back that power level spot. We need more options, not less.

Hotdog_23

virtus753 wrote: »

master_vanargand wrote: »

virtus753 wrote: »

Flurry is a clear rulebreaker here in being a single-target DoT spammable, thus the only spammable able to be buffed twice with these stars.

Is Flurry a DoT?
If I remember correctly, Flurry was changed to channel skill of direct damage in the update.

I just confirmed on PTS that Thaumaturge IS buffing Flurry, despite Flurry now having a channel time. That should be a bug, and it's a highly impactful one.

This is one of the main reasons I really wish each skill would list in it's description what kind of skill it is such as direct, channel skill fire, etc.

Use whatever naming language they want as long as it corresponds with the same language in the CP stars. Stop hiding this information especially from console who don't have the benefit of add-ons to tell us what type of damage we are doing. Plus help with finding bugs.

Stay safe and have fun

virtus753

Hotdog_23 wrote: »

virtus753 wrote: »

master_vanargand wrote: »

virtus753 wrote: »

Flurry is a clear rulebreaker here in being a single-target DoT spammable, thus the only spammable able to be buffed twice with these stars.

Is Flurry a DoT?
If I remember correctly, Flurry was changed to channel skill of direct damage in the update.

I just confirmed on PTS that Thaumaturge IS buffing Flurry, despite Flurry now having a channel time. That should be a bug, and it's a highly impactful one.

This is one of the main reasons I really wish each skill would list in it's description what kind of skill it is such as direct, channel skill fire, etc.

Use whatever naming language they want as long as it corresponds with the same language in the CP stars. Stop hiding this information especially from console who don't have the benefit of add-ons to tell us what type of damage we are doing. Plus help with finding bugs.

Stay safe and have fun

I think it would help the developers keep it straight too! Many of the changes made to skills over the course of the past few years suggest that the devs themselves have been surprised to find skills or their components were being classed as DoT damage instead of direct or vice versa.

It would definitely also help us alert the devs to bugs. It seems to be the case that each skill or proc condition has to be programmed manually to respect individual skills, which would require a lot of time and attention to detail and explain the erroneous inclusions and omissions we've seen over the years. Flurry, for example, is buffed by Thaumaturge but does NOT proc Azureblight -- those things are incompatible, because Flurry can't both be a DoT and not be a DoT at the same time. What we can't tell is which is intended, since the devs don't tell us outright. Similarly, Arterial Burst is a 5m (melee) skill but does NOT proc Selene's -- since Selene's procs on melee damage (not specifically light or heavy, pace the post above), one of those things is likewise a mistake, but we don't know which. On the other hand, Relequen used to proc Selene's when it required "direct melee damage" even though Relequen itself could be procced at range. Relequen was subsequently removed from Selene's proc list, which is what many players expected would happen eventually.

Labeling the skills thoroughly (some are already marked as channels and/or have areas of effect listed, but this doesn't cover DoT vs. direct) would certainly help with transparency.

WrathOfInnos

Duplomancer wrote: »

FinrodMacBeorn wrote: »

For my taste, the adjusted champion point curve now is very reasonable as for most purposes (except solo arenas and cp-pvp, where for the latter, there are the non-cp alternatives) vertical progression effectively end between 1500 and 1600 cp, and we'll get a decent cp/xp ratio until 1800 cp.

I only would like that the xp per hour which we get by usual gaming activities would be comparable to mindless grinding. At least, instanced grinding locations like skyreach should be nerfed considerably - also in view of selling skyreach runs which are at least frowned upon (https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/426907/skyreach-price)

This is not without precedence. I recall that, some years ago, an instanced location in the main quest line of Grahtwood or Greenshade could be used for power levelling by killing skeletons if you just entered repeatedly without completing the quest. This grinding ground was disabled by setting the xp for killing those skeletons to 0.

SR should not be nerfed. You started off in the right direction, bring other activities up instead. Bring back that power level spot. We need more options, not less.

Agreed. Trials and Cyrodiil seem to give really low experience gains. Dungeons and Battlegrounds are a little better, but still lower than mindlessly grinding enemies. This seems backward IMO, let hard content reward more experience than overworld or skyreach grinds.

FinrodMacBeorn

WrathOfInnos wrote: »

Duplomancer wrote: »

FinrodMacBeorn wrote: »

For my taste, the adjusted champion point curve now is very reasonable as for most purposes (except solo arenas and cp-pvp, where for the latter, there are the non-cp alternatives) vertical progression effectively end between 1500 and 1600 cp, and we'll get a decent cp/xp ratio until 1800 cp.

I only would like that the xp per hour which we get by usual gaming activities would be comparable to mindless grinding. At least, instanced grinding locations like skyreach should be nerfed considerably - also in view of selling skyreach runs which are at least frowned upon (https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/426907/skyreach-price)

This is not without precedence. I recall that, some years ago, an instanced location in the main quest line of Grahtwood or Greenshade could be used for power levelling by killing skeletons if you just entered repeatedly without completing the quest. This grinding ground was disabled by setting the xp for killing those skeletons to 0.

SR should not be nerfed. You started off in the right direction, bring other activities up instead. Bring back that power level spot. We need more options, not less.

Agreed. Trials and Cyrodiil seem to give really low experience gains. Dungeons and Battlegrounds are a little better, but still lower than mindlessly grinding enemies. This seems backward IMO, let hard content reward more experience than overworld or skyreach grinds.

I completely agree with this viewpoint. Currently, vMSA, e.g., gives about 1/3 to 1/4 of xp/time compared to skyreach. However, I fear that such a change would require too much time for launch compared to just disabling SR as the main grinding culprit. For Blackwood, I really would wish that the xp for real gaming activities would be raised, i.e. a shift from granting xp for killing mobs to finishing harder repeatable quests - in particular pvp, trials, vet dungeons, ...

silvereyes

I am disappointed that there have been no further efforts to limit vertical progression in today's PTS patch. I anticipate many months of very dissatisfied players complaining about the grind.

Ringod123

silvereyes wrote: »

I am disappointed that there have been no further efforts to limit vertical progression in today's PTS patch. I anticipate many months of very dissatisfied players complaining about the grind.

Completely agree, I have already been left completely unmotivated to log in the past week, looks like im not going to bother for the forseeable either, the game will literally be dead to me if it goes ahead with such a ridiculously high raise in the effective cap or with no total XP conversion. Not an idle threat, just literally how it is when you tell someone who has played 3.5K hours that they will need to play another 2K or so just to get back what they had before in terms of parity.

FinrodMacBeorn

Ringod123 wrote: »

silvereyes wrote: »

I am disappointed that there have been no further efforts to limit vertical progression in today's PTS patch. I anticipate many months of very dissatisfied players complaining about the grind.

Completely agree, I have already been left completely unmotivated to log in the past week, looks like im not going to bother for the forseeable either, the game will literally be dead to me if it goes ahead with such a ridiculously high raise in the effective cap or with no total XP conversion. Not an idle threat, just literally how it is when you tell someone who has played 3.5K hours that they will need to play another 2K or so just to get back what they had before.

I wouldn't be so pessimistic and at least give it a chance. Yes, vertical progression runs to 1500+ cp for pve group content and to about 1800 cp for solo arenas. However, I tested vMSA with 1200 cp, using the Ring of Pale Order, but otherwise rather damage orientated, and I saw no real difference to life. So survivability seems to be ok for most vet content even without spending cp in the blue defence perks. Also, after the adaptation of the cp/xp rate, new players will reach 1200 cp now faster than 810 cp under cp 1.0.

More than 1200 cp are hopefully only needed if you are doing score runs, cp-pvp and some of the more difficult HMs of vet DLC dungeon and trials - or if you are running vet DLC dungeons with 4 dds.

What we shall have to cope with is a damage loss of 10-15%, but that is to the major part due to the crit nerfs and some other modifications not directly related to the new cp system. There also may be a problem with the armor changes, in pve in particular for tanks.

Ringod123

FinrodMacBeorn wrote: »

Ringod123 wrote: »

silvereyes wrote: »

I am disappointed that there have been no further efforts to limit vertical progression in today's PTS patch. I anticipate many months of very dissatisfied players complaining about the grind.

Completely agree, I have already been left completely unmotivated to log in the past week, looks like im not going to bother for the forseeable either, the game will literally be dead to me if it goes ahead with such a ridiculously high raise in the effective cap or with no total XP conversion. Not an idle threat, just literally how it is when you tell someone who has played 3.5K hours that they will need to play another 2K or so just to get back what they had before.

I wouldn't be so pessimistic and at least give it a chance. Yes, vertical progression runs to 1500+ cp for pve group content and to about 1800 cp for solo arenas. However, I tested vMSA with 1200 cp, using the Ring of Pale Order, but otherwise rather damage orientated, and I saw no real difference to life. So survivability seems to be ok for most vet content even without spending cp in the blue defence perks. Also, after the adaptation of the cp/xp rate, new players will reach 1200 cp now faster than 810 cp under cp 1.0.

More than 1200 cp are hopefully only needed if you are doing score runs, cp-pvp and some of the more difficult HMs of vet DLC dungeon and trials - or if you are running vet DLC dungeons with 4 dds.

What we shall have to cope with is a damage loss of 10-15%, but that is to the major part due to the crit nerfs and some other modifications not directly related to the new cp system. There also may be a problem with the armor changes, in pve in particular for tanks.

My argument has nothing to do with perceived damage loss or anything like that, my main playtime is CP PvP, which under this new system, even though I have had parity (been at CP810, which took me 2.5k hours) with everyone else for the last 1K hours now, will see that parity removed and I will now have to play for another 2K hours to ragain that parity with other players who have played longer than me.