oh my god

ThorianB

bluebird wrote: »

ThorianB wrote: »

FinrodMacBeorn wrote: »

ThorianB wrote: »

diminishing returns have been eliminated

That entire horrible percentage system is eliminated and good riddance.

Diminishing returns has nothing to do with the "percentage system" of CP 1.0. It means that if a perk comes in steps, either each step becomes smaller as the previous one for the same cost or each step has the same size but becomes more costly.

Example: 5 steps of +3% for whatsoever costing 10 cp each for a total of +15% becomes
- either 5 steps of +5%/+5%/+2%/+2%/+1% for 10 cp each
- or 5 steps of +3% for 5/5/10/10/20 cp
No fractions involved, and in both cases +15% for 50 cp as in the case of the linear scheme with nondiminishing returns.

These can be easily implemented even within the time frame of pts as only few numbers in some tables adressed by the game have to be changed (or a few lines of code if they have hidden it there).

Such diminishing returns would attenuate the steep vertical progression, and it would really help to narrow the gap between new players and veterans. With your 900+ cp it would also help you in particular.

This could also be fine tuned in a way such that the devs claim is at least approximately true that you don't need more than 1200 cp for your role and afterwards it's only horizontal progression.

Of course, cp-pvp is a different story, but there is always non-cp-pvp (which I anyhow prefer).

Well it does have something to do with the percentage system since the entire percentage system is based on diminishing returns.
Note: Below is generally directed at the entire thread not a direct reply to you Finrod.
But lets look at some of these changes. I picked some ones that people would be familiar with on live:

Piercing: On live this gives physical only penetration. At 50 points you get you get 3960, at 100 points you get 5820. The difference for the second half is 1860

On PTS this skill has five 10 point stages( 50 points total). Each stage you get 350 off pen( so spell and physical) for a total of 1750 for all 5 stages.

Result: There is less of a gap here on PTS than live with the same amount of points. If i have 50 piercing and you have 100 on live you have a 1860 pen advantage over me. If i have zero and you have 50, you have even a bigger advantage over me. Double in fact. On PTS, if we have the same spread between us, you will only have 1750 more pen than me with this star that is 110 pen less spread than the top 50 points of piercing on live. There is a 2100 pen difference between PTS( 1750 pen) and the first 50 points on live( 3960 pen).

Conclusion: Actually, the opposite of the fearmongering here is true. On live the CP difference in this skill matters a lot more especially early on. On PTS 50 points difference in this skill matters less, and for most people will matter significantly less as i doubt their are many builds with 100 points in piercing so the lower numbers will be the ones that matter. In reality, the PTS version lowers the bar for entry into a competitive environment, not raises it.

Your whole post is based on a logical fallacy. Again. I honestly don't know how people still don't see this, but here I have to go again then, debunking these claims again. You are arguing for a system that changes ABCDE because you like A. Despite the fact that you can have A without BCDE.

A) rebalanced stats
B ) removed diminishing returns
C) added linear gating requirements
D) reduce the number of bonuses you can have active, including noncombat benefits
E) continues to give passive bonuses up to 2900cp.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt and read to this point. Then i just skimmed over the rest to see if it was going to the same horse. It was. None of what you are saying is true.Or actually i should say its half truths. It is not in line with what the dev team has said, it is not inline with what other PTS testers have said both publicly and privately to me, it is not in line with what i have personally observed on PTS. This is all fearmongering.

The new system is a big nerf bat to the competitive player crowd and some people in that group just can't let that go. It makes lower CP players MORE competitive not less because it reduces the advantage high CP players have. That is all of my time you are getting on this. So if you are posting this stuff directed at me, you might want to save your time. I know you are using the Gish Gallop debate tactic to try to win an argument with me and i refuse to play such games so just stop.

lillybit

ThorianB wrote: »

bluebird wrote: »

ThorianB wrote: »

FinrodMacBeorn wrote: »

ThorianB wrote: »

diminishing returns have been eliminated

That entire horrible percentage system is eliminated and good riddance.

Diminishing returns has nothing to do with the "percentage system" of CP 1.0. It means that if a perk comes in steps, either each step becomes smaller as the previous one for the same cost or each step has the same size but becomes more costly.

Example: 5 steps of +3% for whatsoever costing 10 cp each for a total of +15% becomes
- either 5 steps of +5%/+5%/+2%/+2%/+1% for 10 cp each
- or 5 steps of +3% for 5/5/10/10/20 cp
No fractions involved, and in both cases +15% for 50 cp as in the case of the linear scheme with nondiminishing returns.

These can be easily implemented even within the time frame of pts as only few numbers in some tables adressed by the game have to be changed (or a few lines of code if they have hidden it there).

Such diminishing returns would attenuate the steep vertical progression, and it would really help to narrow the gap between new players and veterans. With your 900+ cp it would also help you in particular.

This could also be fine tuned in a way such that the devs claim is at least approximately true that you don't need more than 1200 cp for your role and afterwards it's only horizontal progression.

Of course, cp-pvp is a different story, but there is always non-cp-pvp (which I anyhow prefer).

Well it does have something to do with the percentage system since the entire percentage system is based on diminishing returns.
Note: Below is generally directed at the entire thread not a direct reply to you Finrod.
But lets look at some of these changes. I picked some ones that people would be familiar with on live:

Piercing: On live this gives physical only penetration. At 50 points you get you get 3960, at 100 points you get 5820. The difference for the second half is 1860

On PTS this skill has five 10 point stages( 50 points total). Each stage you get 350 off pen( so spell and physical) for a total of 1750 for all 5 stages.

Result: There is less of a gap here on PTS than live with the same amount of points. If i have 50 piercing and you have 100 on live you have a 1860 pen advantage over me. If i have zero and you have 50, you have even a bigger advantage over me. Double in fact. On PTS, if we have the same spread between us, you will only have 1750 more pen than me with this star that is 110 pen less spread than the top 50 points of piercing on live. There is a 2100 pen difference between PTS( 1750 pen) and the first 50 points on live( 3960 pen).

Conclusion: Actually, the opposite of the fearmongering here is true. On live the CP difference in this skill matters a lot more especially early on. On PTS 50 points difference in this skill matters less, and for most people will matter significantly less as i doubt their are many builds with 100 points in piercing so the lower numbers will be the ones that matter. In reality, the PTS version lowers the bar for entry into a competitive environment, not raises it.

Your whole post is based on a logical fallacy. Again. I honestly don't know how people still don't see this, but here I have to go again then, debunking these claims again. You are arguing for a system that changes ABCDE because you like A. Despite the fact that you can have A without BCDE.

A) rebalanced stats
B ) removed diminishing returns
C) added linear gating requirements
D) reduce the number of bonuses you can have active, including noncombat benefits
E) continues to give passive bonuses up to 2900cp.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt and read to this point. Then i just skimmed over the rest to see if it was going to the same horse. It was. None of what you are saying is true.Or actually i should say its half truths. It is not in line with what the dev team has said, it is not inline with what other PTS testers have said both publicly and privately to me, it is not in line with what i have personally observed on PTS. This is all fearmongering.

The new system is a big nerf bat to the competitive player crowd and some people in that group just can't let that go. It makes lower CP players MORE competitive not less because it reduces the advantage high CP players have. That is all of my time you are getting on this. So if you are posting this stuff directed at me, you might want to save your time. I know you are using the Gish Gallop debate tactic to try to win an argument with me and i refuse to play such games so just stop.

While other people are posting well thought out arguments with data and examples, yours seems to be entirely "you're wrong and I'm right so I'm not even going to argue with you."

It is not in line with what the dev team has said because the devs have never been wrong before or out of touch with the player base. How's cast time on shields working out for you? There's time to think about it while you sit in your perfectly working queue. Nope, nothing wrong here.

FangOfTheTwoMoons

bluebird wrote: »

ThorianB wrote: »

FinrodMacBeorn wrote: »

ThorianB wrote: »

diminishing returns have been eliminated

That entire horrible percentage system is eliminated and good riddance.

Diminishing returns has nothing to do with the "percentage system" of CP 1.0. It means that if a perk comes in steps, either each step becomes smaller as the previous one for the same cost or each step has the same size but becomes more costly.

Example: 5 steps of +3% for whatsoever costing 10 cp each for a total of +15% becomes
- either 5 steps of +5%/+5%/+2%/+2%/+1% for 10 cp each
- or 5 steps of +3% for 5/5/10/10/20 cp
No fractions involved, and in both cases +15% for 50 cp as in the case of the linear scheme with nondiminishing returns.

These can be easily implemented even within the time frame of pts as only few numbers in some tables adressed by the game have to be changed (or a few lines of code if they have hidden it there).

Such diminishing returns would attenuate the steep vertical progression, and it would really help to narrow the gap between new players and veterans. With your 900+ cp it would also help you in particular.

This could also be fine tuned in a way such that the devs claim is at least approximately true that you don't need more than 1200 cp for your role and afterwards it's only horizontal progression.

Of course, cp-pvp is a different story, but there is always non-cp-pvp (which I anyhow prefer).

Well it does have something to do with the percentage system since the entire percentage system is based on diminishing returns.
Note: Below is generally directed at the entire thread not a direct reply to you Finrod.
But lets look at some of these changes. I picked some ones that people would be familiar with on live:

Piercing: On live this gives physical only penetration. At 50 points you get you get 3960, at 100 points you get 5820. The difference for the second half is 1860

On PTS this skill has five 10 point stages( 50 points total). Each stage you get 350 off pen( so spell and physical) for a total of 1750 for all 5 stages.

Result: There is less of a gap here on PTS than live with the same amount of points. If i have 50 piercing and you have 100 on live you have a 1860 pen advantage over me. If i have zero and you have 50, you have even a bigger advantage over me. Double in fact. On PTS, if we have the same spread between us, you will only have 1750 more pen than me with this star that is 110 pen less spread than the top 50 points of piercing on live. There is a 2100 pen difference between PTS( 1750 pen) and the first 50 points on live( 3960 pen).

Conclusion: Actually, the opposite of the fearmongering here is true. On live the CP difference in this skill matters a lot more especially early on. On PTS 50 points difference in this skill matters less, and for most people will matter significantly less as i doubt their are many builds with 100 points in piercing so the lower numbers will be the ones that matter. In reality, the PTS version lowers the bar for entry into a competitive environment, not raises it.

Your whole post is based on a logical fallacy. Again. I honestly don't know how people still don't see this, but here I have to go again then, debunking these claims again. You are arguing for a system that changes ABCDE because you like A. Despite the fact that you can have A without BCDE.

A) rebalanced stats
B ) removed diminishing returns
C) added linear gating requirements
D) reduce the number of bonuses you can have active, including noncombat benefits
E) continues to give passive bonuses up to 2900cp.

Your fallacy is a false dichotomy. You think that it's only ABCDE together or nothing, and you're happily ignoring atrocious changes just because you like 1 thing about it. While other more logically inclined players have been pointing out that you can approve of A while acknowledging the issues of BCDE. It's possible. It's also possible to revamp a system in a way that has the benefit of A but doesn't introduce the issues of BCDE.

A) B ) All the benefits you're talking about are due to stat rebalancing.
Piercing gives less Penetration on the PTS not because they removed diminishing returns, but because they rebalanced stats. They increased the stats people gain from leveling to 50, and reduced the stats people gain from leveling their CP. This is a separate stat change that could be done with the current system.

You can literally take Thaumaturge on live, cap the CP you can spend in it at 50 rather than 100, and reduce the values by 40%. BOOM. Done. You reduce overall power from CP (which is a separate change) while still keeping diminishing returns. You can't argue that non-dimishing stages are better than diminishing returns because the overall numbers are lower. Lower overall values and the distribution of those values is a separate change. You can have a system that has BOTH dimishing returns AND lower values overall. So stop using your approval of A to argue for B.

Which is better for narrowing the gap between lowCP and highCP players faster, if that's one of your goals?
A system that gives linear bonuses all the way OR A system that front-weights its bonuses and gives less later?


C) Linear gating requirements take choice away.
You can have A and B without CDE. Rebalancing stats separately (A) and keeping diminishing returns that ensure that most power gain happens early on in CP not later (B) do not need the addition of required paths that force people to spend CP on stuff they don't want. If I wanted a Perk on Live, I could immediately get it; but in the new CP system you need to take certain other Perks to get to it.

Furthermore, in CP 1.0 every perk was always active; in CP 2.0 you need to dedicate 1 of your 4 slots for most perks to even do anything. So you'll more often be forced to take something, and on top of that that something won't even have an effect. As a result, it will take more CP to actually get what you want, because it takes more CP levelups to get 50 CP to spend on your perk plus 30 or 50 or 100 CP to get to the perk you want in the first place.

Which system has more freedom to choose?
One that requires predetermined paths OR One that has free-floating stars that you can choose any time?
One that requires CP spent on other perks you may not even want OR One that lets you pick what you want?


On that note is another flawed argument that you (based on the devs) have thrown around in earlier comments about expandability. Creating a new system and new perks doesn't require the addition of linear gating and forced paths.

Which system is easier to expand in the future?
One that can add stars anywhere OR One that fits stars into linear shapes and point requirements and subtrees?


D) The 4-slot limit on slottables, even noncombat ones, creates far more hassle to micromanage.
Due to CP respec costs, most people didn't switch their CP allocation frequently; but due to the 4-slot only limit and the freely switchable slots, it will be reasonable to do so (and good players will do so). In CP 1.0, a noob needed to pick perks once; in CP 2.0 they need to pick perks and keep slotting and unslotting them on an encounter basis to keep up with others. Higher CP also gives more maxed out slottables available, so that high CP players will be BiS all the time, while low CP players won't have that option.

Furthermore, due to dimishing returns most people spent their CP in a balanced mix of perks so they were good overall for most situations, while the limited 4-slot perks and the fact that they give even bonuses all the way will favor stacking all your CP into maxed out specialised perks and switch them to be BiS in every scenario. And if noobs don't do 'minmaxing', then this change introduces a whole new thing that increases the gap between good players and new players (and low CP players and high CP players) that wasn't even an issue in CP 1.0. The lack of a loadout system will make this incredibly cumbersome to anyone who's not on PC or doesn't use min-maxing AddOns.

E) The passive bonuses that go all the way to 2900cp relate to that.
The champion bar's idea that everyone will pick a limited build and go with it collapses due to the no-slotting-needed passives. Vertical progression doesn't end at 1200cp when players continue to get flatout bonuses up to 2900cp. In WoW's endgame system you pick either the output perk or the defensive perk or the utility perk and stick with it. Not just keep picking up everything because you can get all passives with 3000cp. While in CP 1.0 vertical progression stopped at 810cp, in CP 2.0 it will continue to 2900cp. How big the gap is is an entirely independent change from this one. So please stop arguing for D and E just because you liked A.

Which is a more equal system with a reduction in vertical progression?
Where all players commit to choices OR Where high CP players can be BiS in everything on the fly at no extra cost
Where choices matter because they're mutually exclusive OR Where high CP players get passives all the way to 2900cp

______
tl;dr version: If people want to discuss the entire CP 2.0 system, they need to examine the entire CP 2.0 system, not just have a good opinion about it because they liked 1 thing in it. It's fine to say 'I like 'A' about the new system', but it's not fine to say 'The new system is good because I like 'A' and therefore BCDE are great too, or BCDE don't matter because I don't care about that'.

Pretending that it's either only ABCDE -or- nothing is a false dichotomy. Currently people who enjoy the shifting of stats from CP (one change, A) are campaigning for genuinely counterproductive and ill-thought-through changes just because the lustre of one change rubs off on the others in their eyes. If people want to discuss the new system, evaluate it from all angles, not just from the lens of the one good change you like about it.
______
PS: The claims that min-maxing only affects high-end top <10% or whatever players is wrong. In games with more public data (such as WoW), gamer mentality clearly shows that in MMOs, word-of-mouth recommendations, community perceptions about what's BiS or what's Meta, and Flavour-of-the-Month choices filter down into the wider playerbase and are favored by the statistical majority, even those that don't do competitive content.

https://youtu.be/T0eJBv_MDw8

Granted, the data isn't from ESO, but unsubstantiated claims on the forums like 'most players won't care about 2900cp to be competitive' and 'statistically min-maxing is for the top few %' are airy-fairy humbug so far without any proof. And patterns from other games clearly show the opposite - despite the fact that WoW devs had the same assumption as ESO players: that most people wouldn't care about what's good (or better even by a little), and that was proved to be wrong.

Fantastic breakdown/argument.

Couldn't agree more.

ThorianB

FangOfTheTwoMoons wrote: »

Than they will have a new minimum dps requirement to gain access to a trial and the people that were hitting <70k will still be out of luck.

The elite crowd will have to lower their dps requirements in order to get enough players because now everyone will be hitting for lower amounts. This also means there is less pressure on the devs to make future trials much harder to deal with power creep at least for the next few years.

DPS performing at the highest level isn't "cheesing their way out of mechanics." They are being rewarded for putting in the time and effort to mastering their rotation and group optimization.

It is cheesing when you use it to avoid mechanics and then require others that group with you to also do the same to avoid mechanics when it is actually intended for you to do those mechanics not avoid them. The high dps in and of itself isn't bad but using it as a gate to content for others is, especially when you are not supportive of those you deny entry to having their own way of enjoying that content that is more suited to them.

If it was truly "cheesing," everyone would be able to accomplish it.

The opposite is true. Cheesing DPS means doing DPS in an unrealistic setting, usually a training dummy. For example i watched a person who can cheese over 120k DPS on a dummy however that DPS would never be doable in a trial setting or even a vet DLC dungeon. Thus it was cheesed. So when i speak of cheesing their way though content to avoid mechanics this is what i am referring to. Using high DPS as a means to ignore mechanics they are actually suppose to do. It is fine some people want to play that way, but using it as a gate for entry for others is wrong.

Casual players will never be able to complete harder content no matter how much they nerf DPS. They don't even wanna parse on a dummy, you think they will put in the effort to clear harder content that requires in-depth mechanics (to ESO standards). Next thing casual players will complain about it the mechs being to difficult. At what point do the devs make a stand and just say that not everyone should be able to complete all the content, and that's okay.

Before i got married and started my own business i use to run raid guilds both in WoW and Rift( not at the same time). I didn't run guilds for vet/elite players because i actually found those players to be to serious, stuck up and patronizing. Wiping with them often would infuriate them. So my guilds had casual players and newer players who were left of the vet player raids( which i usually healed or tanked on).

Those casual players can do those raids just like those vet players. it takes them longer and they wipe more but they are 10X more fun to raid with because they don't get all bent out of shape when something goes sideways or someone messes up or isn't quite pulling the DPS they need too. Casual players in raids don't try to make YOU fix the problem, they try to figure out how WE can solve the problem without putting it all on the one that had the shortcoming.

Despite what some people may think, raids/trials are not for end game Pvers. The normal version is designed to provide a challenge to a group of average players that meet the minimum requirements to do that trial. The vet version is designed to do the same but for a group of advanced players. It is a HUGE misconception that you need to be some special elite hardcore player to do raids and trials. I have literally taken complete noobs through raids that are in green gear with a couple of blue pieces. I am not talking about carrying 1 person through either i am talking 1/4 to 1/2 the players never have done this boss before and most of the rest could count on one hand how many times they have done it.

Trials are not nearly has hard as elite players make them out to be. Casual players can 100% successfully run those trials just not as efficiently as elite trial players but it can still be done. I proved it in WoW when they said newbies and casuals can't complete raids, i proved it in Rift, and i would love to prove it in ESO but my life doesn't allow me to play for the hours and hours a day required to take on that task and it really needs to be proved in this game because the elite crowd has given everyone the impression that only they are good enough to do trials and that is absolutely 100% not even close to true.

Games are meant to reward players, if you can face roll everything in the game, it takes away from the juicy dopamine rush you get when clearing difficult content.

This is a confusing statement since its the elite players who are facerolling and not the casuals? I am confused by this given the paragraph before it.

ThorianB

lillybit wrote: »

ThorianB wrote: »

bluebird wrote: »

ThorianB wrote: »

FinrodMacBeorn wrote: »

ThorianB wrote: »

diminishing returns have been eliminated

That entire horrible percentage system is eliminated and good riddance.

Diminishing returns has nothing to do with the "percentage system" of CP 1.0. It means that if a perk comes in steps, either each step becomes smaller as the previous one for the same cost or each step has the same size but becomes more costly.

Example: 5 steps of +3% for whatsoever costing 10 cp each for a total of +15% becomes
- either 5 steps of +5%/+5%/+2%/+2%/+1% for 10 cp each
- or 5 steps of +3% for 5/5/10/10/20 cp
No fractions involved, and in both cases +15% for 50 cp as in the case of the linear scheme with nondiminishing returns.

These can be easily implemented even within the time frame of pts as only few numbers in some tables adressed by the game have to be changed (or a few lines of code if they have hidden it there).

Such diminishing returns would attenuate the steep vertical progression, and it would really help to narrow the gap between new players and veterans. With your 900+ cp it would also help you in particular.

This could also be fine tuned in a way such that the devs claim is at least approximately true that you don't need more than 1200 cp for your role and afterwards it's only horizontal progression.

Of course, cp-pvp is a different story, but there is always non-cp-pvp (which I anyhow prefer).

Well it does have something to do with the percentage system since the entire percentage system is based on diminishing returns.
Note: Below is generally directed at the entire thread not a direct reply to you Finrod.
But lets look at some of these changes. I picked some ones that people would be familiar with on live:

Piercing: On live this gives physical only penetration. At 50 points you get you get 3960, at 100 points you get 5820. The difference for the second half is 1860

On PTS this skill has five 10 point stages( 50 points total). Each stage you get 350 off pen( so spell and physical) for a total of 1750 for all 5 stages.

Result: There is less of a gap here on PTS than live with the same amount of points. If i have 50 piercing and you have 100 on live you have a 1860 pen advantage over me. If i have zero and you have 50, you have even a bigger advantage over me. Double in fact. On PTS, if we have the same spread between us, you will only have 1750 more pen than me with this star that is 110 pen less spread than the top 50 points of piercing on live. There is a 2100 pen difference between PTS( 1750 pen) and the first 50 points on live( 3960 pen).

Conclusion: Actually, the opposite of the fearmongering here is true. On live the CP difference in this skill matters a lot more especially early on. On PTS 50 points difference in this skill matters less, and for most people will matter significantly less as i doubt their are many builds with 100 points in piercing so the lower numbers will be the ones that matter. In reality, the PTS version lowers the bar for entry into a competitive environment, not raises it.

Your whole post is based on a logical fallacy. Again. I honestly don't know how people still don't see this, but here I have to go again then, debunking these claims again. You are arguing for a system that changes ABCDE because you like A. Despite the fact that you can have A without BCDE.

A) rebalanced stats
B ) removed diminishing returns
C) added linear gating requirements
D) reduce the number of bonuses you can have active, including noncombat benefits
E) continues to give passive bonuses up to 2900cp.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt and read to this point. Then i just skimmed over the rest to see if it was going to the same horse. It was. None of what you are saying is true.Or actually i should say its half truths. It is not in line with what the dev team has said, it is not inline with what other PTS testers have said both publicly and privately to me, it is not in line with what i have personally observed on PTS. This is all fearmongering.

The new system is a big nerf bat to the competitive player crowd and some people in that group just can't let that go. It makes lower CP players MORE competitive not less because it reduces the advantage high CP players have. That is all of my time you are getting on this. So if you are posting this stuff directed at me, you might want to save your time. I know you are using the Gish Gallop debate tactic to try to win an argument with me and i refuse to play such games so just stop.

While other people are posting well thought out arguments with data and examples, yours seems to be entirely "you're wrong and I'm right so I'm not even going to argue with you."

It is not in line with what the dev team has said because the devs have never been wrong before or out of touch with the player base. How's cast time on shields working out for you? There's time to think about it while you sit in your perfectly working queue. Nope, nothing wrong here.

I actually did post several times in this thread with "arguments" and debated a few so i have no clue what you are on about. However, bluebird is using a debate tactic in which you overwhelm your opponent( that would be me) with a bunch of half truths, strawmans, or false statements that don't take a lot of time to claim but would take a large amount of time for me to refute. So burying me in a bunch of "paperwork" to try to disprove those statements.

I could spend all day refuting those statements( and i can refute them) or i could choose to spend my day doing something i enjoy which is not proving someone wrong who already knows they are wrong.

Probably 9 out of 10 players are onboard with CP changes. There are things we don't like and for each of us that will be something different. But the system as a whole is a huge improvement to what we have now. The funny part is i don't even disagree with some of the naysayers here on some of the issues they have. I just don't see them as the major issues they do.

An example of this is the "pathways" you have to take in the trees to unlock things. This adds no value to me. It doesn't, in my opinion, add value for elite or high CP players and it doesn't add value for low or casual players. It just becomes an annoyance for all players. It also counters the horizontal progression/variety of builds that the dev team was going for.

I see this as a minor issue, however some act as if the sky is falling.

Barbaran

Wow, these are long replys.
all n all, nothing's getting fixed.
All d problems have been deleted and a new system is in place riddled with huge problems.
It buys them a but of time before we all find the broken stuff and are back with the exact same issue, but different problems.

Anyone saying this will include server preformance, no.
Everytime people say " they are changing this, it will improve the server" it doesn't.
We just had a year of performance updates,
And for the first time in 5 yrs I cancelled ESO+ and have played a handful of times this month for VERY short timeframes.
This game needs a re-do. The Microsoft buy is the only thing keeping me and buddies of mine holding on to see what the big move is gonna be by them.

Starlock

Just want to say thanks for your insights, @ThorianB - the perspective you've brought has been very informative. It's very difficult to tell what is an actual issue versus the "sky is falling" hyperbole that is too common on forums. That's not to say I necessarily agree with everything you've pointed out - as someone who can't PTS I'm frankly not in a position to make a good assessment - but the comparisons you've made to current CP and the new CP (Post #77 for example) are very useful.

lillybit

ThorianB wrote: »

lillybit wrote: »

ThorianB wrote: »

bluebird wrote: »

ThorianB wrote: »

FinrodMacBeorn wrote: »

ThorianB wrote: »

diminishing returns have been eliminated

That entire horrible percentage system is eliminated and good riddance.

Diminishing returns has nothing to do with the "percentage system" of CP 1.0. It means that if a perk comes in steps, either each step becomes smaller as the previous one for the same cost or each step has the same size but becomes more costly.

Example: 5 steps of +3% for whatsoever costing 10 cp each for a total of +15% becomes
- either 5 steps of +5%/+5%/+2%/+2%/+1% for 10 cp each
- or 5 steps of +3% for 5/5/10/10/20 cp
No fractions involved, and in both cases +15% for 50 cp as in the case of the linear scheme with nondiminishing returns.

These can be easily implemented even within the time frame of pts as only few numbers in some tables adressed by the game have to be changed (or a few lines of code if they have hidden it there).

Such diminishing returns would attenuate the steep vertical progression, and it would really help to narrow the gap between new players and veterans. With your 900+ cp it would also help you in particular.

This could also be fine tuned in a way such that the devs claim is at least approximately true that you don't need more than 1200 cp for your role and afterwards it's only horizontal progression.

Of course, cp-pvp is a different story, but there is always non-cp-pvp (which I anyhow prefer).

Well it does have something to do with the percentage system since the entire percentage system is based on diminishing returns.
Note: Below is generally directed at the entire thread not a direct reply to you Finrod.
But lets look at some of these changes. I picked some ones that people would be familiar with on live:

Piercing: On live this gives physical only penetration. At 50 points you get you get 3960, at 100 points you get 5820. The difference for the second half is 1860

On PTS this skill has five 10 point stages( 50 points total). Each stage you get 350 off pen( so spell and physical) for a total of 1750 for all 5 stages.

Result: There is less of a gap here on PTS than live with the same amount of points. If i have 50 piercing and you have 100 on live you have a 1860 pen advantage over me. If i have zero and you have 50, you have even a bigger advantage over me. Double in fact. On PTS, if we have the same spread between us, you will only have 1750 more pen than me with this star that is 110 pen less spread than the top 50 points of piercing on live. There is a 2100 pen difference between PTS( 1750 pen) and the first 50 points on live( 3960 pen).

Conclusion: Actually, the opposite of the fearmongering here is true. On live the CP difference in this skill matters a lot more especially early on. On PTS 50 points difference in this skill matters less, and for most people will matter significantly less as i doubt their are many builds with 100 points in piercing so the lower numbers will be the ones that matter. In reality, the PTS version lowers the bar for entry into a competitive environment, not raises it.

Your whole post is based on a logical fallacy. Again. I honestly don't know how people still don't see this, but here I have to go again then, debunking these claims again. You are arguing for a system that changes ABCDE because you like A. Despite the fact that you can have A without BCDE.

A) rebalanced stats
B ) removed diminishing returns
C) added linear gating requirements
D) reduce the number of bonuses you can have active, including noncombat benefits
E) continues to give passive bonuses up to 2900cp.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt and read to this point. Then i just skimmed over the rest to see if it was going to the same horse. It was. None of what you are saying is true.Or actually i should say its half truths. It is not in line with what the dev team has said, it is not inline with what other PTS testers have said both publicly and privately to me, it is not in line with what i have personally observed on PTS. This is all fearmongering.

The new system is a big nerf bat to the competitive player crowd and some people in that group just can't let that go. It makes lower CP players MORE competitive not less because it reduces the advantage high CP players have. That is all of my time you are getting on this. So if you are posting this stuff directed at me, you might want to save your time. I know you are using the Gish Gallop debate tactic to try to win an argument with me and i refuse to play such games so just stop.

While other people are posting well thought out arguments with data and examples, yours seems to be entirely "you're wrong and I'm right so I'm not even going to argue with you."

It is not in line with what the dev team has said because the devs have never been wrong before or out of touch with the player base. How's cast time on shields working out for you? There's time to think about it while you sit in your perfectly working queue. Nope, nothing wrong here.

I actually did post several times in this thread with "arguments" and debated a few so i have no clue what you are on about. However, bluebird is using a debate tactic in which you overwhelm your opponent( that would be me) with a bunch of half truths, strawmans, or false statements that don't take a lot of time to claim but would take a large amount of time for me to refute. So burying me in a bunch of "paperwork" to try to disprove those statements.

I could spend all day refuting those statements( and i can refute them) or i could choose to spend my day doing something i enjoy which is not proving someone wrong who already knows they are wrong.

Probably 9 out of 10 players are onboard with CP changes. There are things we don't like and for each of us that will be something different. But the system as a whole is a huge improvement to what we have now. The funny part is i don't even disagree with some of the naysayers here on some of the issues they have. I just don't see them as the major issues they do.

An example of this is the "pathways" you have to take in the trees to unlock things. This adds no value to me. It doesn't, in my opinion, add value for elite or high CP players and it doesn't add value for low or casual players. It just becomes an annoyance for all players. It also counters the horizontal progression/variety of builds that the dev team was going for.

I see this as a minor issue, however some act as if the sky is falling.

I strongly dispute that "9 out of 10 players are onboard with CP changes." They people I've talked to have probably been closer to the diametrical opposite. The only thing you can say is that your circle approve of the changes but this is not representative of the entire payer base.

For myself, I'm very definitely a mid range player - I've done some harder content but things like GS and TTT will always be beyond me. My circles include guilds who very much cater to new players and casuals as well as others at a similar level to myself. So far the best argument I've heard for the new system is along the lines of "wait to see what changes they make before you start panicking." Not exactly resoundingly positive. I'm not, however, asserting that my personal experience is representative of everyone.

The reality (as in most things!) will lie somewhere in the middle. Some people will like the changes and some will hate them but most will straddle the middle - they'll accept them but have concerns about some aspects and would like to see changes. They are valid and legitimate concerns (for example the gating/pathing issue that very few feel is a good idea) that need to be talked about so the devs are aware of people's feelings about them. If this didn't happen, we'd have shield cast times right now.

It helps no-one to dismiss them out of hand because in your opinion, most people like the changes.

bluebird

ThorianB wrote: »

bluebird wrote: »

ThorianB wrote: »

FinrodMacBeorn wrote: »

ThorianB wrote: »

diminishing returns have been eliminated

That entire horrible percentage system is eliminated and good riddance.

Diminishing returns has nothing to do with the "percentage system" of CP 1.0. It means that if a perk comes in steps, either each step becomes smaller as the previous one for the same cost or each step has the same size but becomes more costly.

Example: 5 steps of +3% for whatsoever costing 10 cp each for a total of +15% becomes
- either 5 steps of +5%/+5%/+2%/+2%/+1% for 10 cp each
- or 5 steps of +3% for 5/5/10/10/20 cp
No fractions involved, and in both cases +15% for 50 cp as in the case of the linear scheme with nondiminishing returns.

These can be easily implemented even within the time frame of pts as only few numbers in some tables adressed by the game have to be changed (or a few lines of code if they have hidden it there).

Such diminishing returns would attenuate the steep vertical progression, and it would really help to narrow the gap between new players and veterans. With your 900+ cp it would also help you in particular.

This could also be fine tuned in a way such that the devs claim is at least approximately true that you don't need more than 1200 cp for your role and afterwards it's only horizontal progression.

Of course, cp-pvp is a different story, but there is always non-cp-pvp (which I anyhow prefer).

Well it does have something to do with the percentage system since the entire percentage system is based on diminishing returns.
Note: Below is generally directed at the entire thread not a direct reply to you Finrod.
But lets look at some of these changes. I picked some ones that people would be familiar with on live:

Piercing: On live this gives physical only penetration. At 50 points you get you get 3960, at 100 points you get 5820. The difference for the second half is 1860

On PTS this skill has five 10 point stages( 50 points total). Each stage you get 350 off pen( so spell and physical) for a total of 1750 for all 5 stages.

Result: There is less of a gap here on PTS than live with the same amount of points. If i have 50 piercing and you have 100 on live you have a 1860 pen advantage over me. If i have zero and you have 50, you have even a bigger advantage over me. Double in fact. On PTS, if we have the same spread between us, you will only have 1750 more pen than me with this star that is 110 pen less spread than the top 50 points of piercing on live. There is a 2100 pen difference between PTS( 1750 pen) and the first 50 points on live( 3960 pen).

Conclusion: Actually, the opposite of the fearmongering here is true. On live the CP difference in this skill matters a lot more especially early on. On PTS 50 points difference in this skill matters less, and for most people will matter significantly less as i doubt their are many builds with 100 points in piercing so the lower numbers will be the ones that matter. In reality, the PTS version lowers the bar for entry into a competitive environment, not raises it.

Your whole post is based on a logical fallacy. Again. I honestly don't know how people still don't see this, but here I have to go again then, debunking these claims again. You are arguing for a system that changes ABCDE because you like A. Despite the fact that you can have A without BCDE.

A) rebalanced stats
B ) removed diminishing returns
C) added linear gating requirements
D) reduce the number of bonuses you can have active, including noncombat benefits
E) continues to give passive bonuses up to 2900cp.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt and read to this point. Then i just skimmed over the rest to see if it was going to the same horse. It was. None of what you are saying is true. Or actually i should say its half truths. It is not in line with what the dev team has said, it is not inline with what other PTS testers have said both publicly and privately to me, it is not in line with what i have personally observed on PTS. This is all fearmongering.

The new system is a big nerf bat to the competitive player crowd and some people in that group just can't let that go. It makes lower CP players MORE competitive not less because it reduces the advantage high CP players have. That is all of my time you are getting on this. So if you are posting this stuff directed at me, you might want to save your time. I know you are using the Gish Gallop debate tactic to try to win an argument with me and i refuse to play such games so just stop.

I'm breaking down your claims and providing detailed proof. That's not a 'method to overwhelm your opponent', that's a method to accurately address the whole picture and to call out unsubstantiated claims and logical fallacies. In fact, you're not my opponent, and I'm not writing comments to 'win' against you or 'overwhelm' you. I'm writing my comments in this forum thread to dispel the misinformation that's being spread, and so that people discussing the changes can do so with reason.

You say you stopped reading after that point, because 'none of what Im saying is true'. Pray tell, which part isn't true? That the new CP system has A) rebalanced stats B ) removed diminishing returns C) added linear gating requirements D) reduce the number of bonuses you can have active, including noncombat benefits E) continues to give passive bonuses up to 2900cp?

Because all of the above is true. All of that is happening with the new CP system. And you don't get to hand-wave away BCDE just because you like A. No matter how many posts you dedicate to praising A, BCDE will still be there. And if you feel 'overwhelmed' then that's because you're overwhelmed by evidence against your points, not because you're overwhelmed by some insidious argumentative technique. You may be overwhelmed with facts. Because it's really simple, actually.

1.Which is better for narrowing the gap between lowCP and highCP players faster, if that's one of your goals?
A system that gives linear bonuses all the way OR A system that front-weights its bonuses and gives less later?

2. Which system has more freedom to choose?
One that requires predetermined paths OR One that has free-floating stars that you can choose any time?
One that requires CP spent on other perks you may not even want OR One that lets you pick what you want?

3. Which system is easier to expand in the future?
One that can add stars anywhere OR One that fits stars into linear shapes and point requirements and subtrees?

4.Which is a more equal system with a reduction in vertical progression?
Where all players commit to choices OR Where high CP players can be BiS in everything on the fly at no extra cost
Where choices matter because they're mutually exclusive OR Where high CP players get passives all the way to 2900cp

Those are the simple, factual questions we should all be asking when examining the new CP system in its entirety. Because clearly, some components of the new system don't do what they are allegedly supposed to do and are demonstrably worse than other solutions would be. Because you don't have to campaign for a bag of dung just because there's a juicy apple in the bag. You can have an apple separately, in fact you can have a whole fruitbasket that all juicy fruits and none of the dung. If you let go of this 'they are my opponent' and 'they're trying to overwhelm me' nonsense, you'd see that what we all want is a system that's better on every count, not better on one count and worse on four counts.

In fact, I have made a thread several days ago which included all the benefits of reducing the power gap (with a stat rebalance which ZOS already did), while at the same time preventing the new problems from being added alongside the system:
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/560109/introducing-cp-1-5-an-alternative-suggestion-to-the-cp-2-0-revamp/p1

ThorianB wrote: »

lillybit wrote: »

ThorianB wrote: »

bluebird wrote: »

ThorianB wrote: »

FinrodMacBeorn wrote: »

ThorianB wrote: »

diminishing returns have been eliminated

That entire horrible percentage system is eliminated and good riddance.

Diminishing returns has nothing to do with the "percentage system" of CP 1.0. It means that if a perk comes in steps, either each step becomes smaller as the previous one for the same cost or each step has the same size but becomes more costly.

Example: 5 steps of +3% for whatsoever costing 10 cp each for a total of +15% becomes
- either 5 steps of +5%/+5%/+2%/+2%/+1% for 10 cp each
- or 5 steps of +3% for 5/5/10/10/20 cp
No fractions involved, and in both cases +15% for 50 cp as in the case of the linear scheme with nondiminishing returns.

These can be easily implemented even within the time frame of pts as only few numbers in some tables adressed by the game have to be changed (or a few lines of code if they have hidden it there).

Such diminishing returns would attenuate the steep vertical progression, and it would really help to narrow the gap between new players and veterans. With your 900+ cp it would also help you in particular.

This could also be fine tuned in a way such that the devs claim is at least approximately true that you don't need more than 1200 cp for your role and afterwards it's only horizontal progression.

Of course, cp-pvp is a different story, but there is always non-cp-pvp (which I anyhow prefer).

Well it does have something to do with the percentage system since the entire percentage system is based on diminishing returns.
Note: Below is generally directed at the entire thread not a direct reply to you Finrod.
But lets look at some of these changes. I picked some ones that people would be familiar with on live:

Piercing: On live this gives physical only penetration. At 50 points you get you get 3960, at 100 points you get 5820. The difference for the second half is 1860

On PTS this skill has five 10 point stages( 50 points total). Each stage you get 350 off pen( so spell and physical) for a total of 1750 for all 5 stages.

Result: There is less of a gap here on PTS than live with the same amount of points. If i have 50 piercing and you have 100 on live you have a 1860 pen advantage over me. If i have zero and you have 50, you have even a bigger advantage over me. Double in fact. On PTS, if we have the same spread between us, you will only have 1750 more pen than me with this star that is 110 pen less spread than the top 50 points of piercing on live. There is a 2100 pen difference between PTS( 1750 pen) and the first 50 points on live( 3960 pen).

Conclusion: Actually, the opposite of the fearmongering here is true. On live the CP difference in this skill matters a lot more especially early on. On PTS 50 points difference in this skill matters less, and for most people will matter significantly less as i doubt their are many builds with 100 points in piercing so the lower numbers will be the ones that matter. In reality, the PTS version lowers the bar for entry into a competitive environment, not raises it.

Your whole post is based on a logical fallacy. Again. I honestly don't know how people still don't see this, but here I have to go again then, debunking these claims again. You are arguing for a system that changes ABCDE because you like A. Despite the fact that you can have A without BCDE.

A) rebalanced stats
B ) removed diminishing returns
C) added linear gating requirements
D) reduce the number of bonuses you can have active, including noncombat benefits
E) continues to give passive bonuses up to 2900cp.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt and read to this point. Then i just skimmed over the rest to see if it was going to the same horse. It was. None of what you are saying is true.Or actually i should say its half truths. It is not in line with what the dev team has said, it is not inline with what other PTS testers have said both publicly and privately to me, it is not in line with what i have personally observed on PTS. This is all fearmongering.

The new system is a big nerf bat to the competitive player crowd and some people in that group just can't let that go. It makes lower CP players MORE competitive not less because it reduces the advantage high CP players have. That is all of my time you are getting on this. So if you are posting this stuff directed at me, you might want to save your time. I know you are using the Gish Gallop debate tactic to try to win an argument with me and i refuse to play such games so just stop.

While other people are posting well thought out arguments with data and examples, yours seems to be entirely "you're wrong and I'm right so I'm not even going to argue with you."

It is not in line with what the dev team has said because the devs have never been wrong before or out of touch with the player base. How's cast time on shields working out for you? There's time to think about it while you sit in your perfectly working queue. Nope, nothing wrong here.

I actually did post several times in this thread with "arguments" and debated a few so i have no clue what you are on about. However, bluebird is using a debate tactic in which you overwhelm your opponent( that would be me) with a bunch of half truths, strawmans, or false statements that don't take a lot of time to claim but would take a large amount of time for me to refute. So burying me in a bunch of "paperwork" to try to disprove those statements.

I could spend all day refuting those statements( and i can refute them) or i could choose to spend my day doing something i enjoy which is not proving someone wrong who already knows they are wrong.

Probably 9 out of 10 players are onboard with CP changes. There are things we don't like and for each of us that will be something different. But the system as a whole is a huge improvement to what we have now. The funny part is i don't even disagree with some of the naysayers here on some of the issues they have. I just don't see them as the major issues they do.

Look you can't claim that others are using some devious debating technique to overwhelm you when I'm simply providing detailed factual breakdowns and you're countering that with 'I could disprove you I just don't have the time' ( ) and pull utter unsubstantiated nonsense out of nowhere like 'Probably 9 out of 10 players are onboard with CP changes'. So again, if you feel overwhelmed, that's due to the overwhelming evidence against you, not because of me.

FangOfTheTwoMoons

The elite crowd will have to lower their dps requirements in order to get enough players because now everyone will be hitting for lower amounts. This also means there is less pressure on the devs to make future trials much harder to deal with power creep at least for the next few years.

Lowering the ceiling will not somehow make casual players more appealing to try hard trial groups.

It is cheesing when you use it to avoid mechanics and then require others that group with you to also do the same to avoid mechanics when it is actually intended for you to do those mechanics not avoid them. The high dps in and of itself isn't bad but using it as a gate to content for others is, especially when you are not supportive of those you deny entry to having their own way of enjoying that content that is more suited to them.

Wut? Like seriously what are you even saying? If you're in a group that can skip mechs no one is "required" to also do the same. They joined the group for that specific reason, so that they can skip mechs and be optimized. No one joins a optimized raid group and goes; "Well jeez I'm feeling really pressured to pull high dps to skip mechs," it's what they signed up to do!

No ones gating anyone from joining anything. You seem to think that you are entitled to join any group and no group should have requirements for joining. There are plenty of casual guilds to join and do content with, you shouldn't be shoehorning your way into any group.

The opposite is true. Cheesing DPS means doing DPS in an unrealistic setting, usually a training dummy. For example i watched a person who can cheese over 120k DPS on a dummy however that DPS would never be doable in a trial setting or even a vet DLC dungeon. Thus it was cheesed. So when i speak of cheesing their way though content to avoid mechanics this is what i am referring to. Using high DPS as a means to ignore mechanics they are actually suppose to do. It is fine some people want to play that way, but using it as a gate for entry for others is wrong.

Cheesing a dummy is a thing and I can agree with that, but as I said above; no one is gating anyone from anything. You play at the level you are currently at. Every group doesn't need to have the same requirements to join.

People skipping mechs shouldn't even concern you. Why even be mad about it? It's the way the fights are designed, it has nothing to do with the players. ZOS can easily prevent this by introducing different types of mechs that punish you for DPS'ing so hard.

This is a confusing statement since its the elite players who are facerolling and not the casuals? I am confused by this given the paragraph before it.

Completing hard content is a reward in and of itself. It feels good to progress and finally clear hard content. What's hard to understand about this? Elite players still get this feeling when they complete things.

Honestly from reading all your post, it just feels like you wanna see top players nerfed for no reason other than, "if a majority of players can't do it, they shouldn't be able to either."

I first experienced this in ESO running normal Darkshade Caverns II for the first time when i was i was expected to just heal everyone through the end boss damage instead of us just doing the actual mechanics. I understand that would have been a little more work for everyone else than just DPSing it down but it is A LOT more work for me to keep them all alive while they do. So it didn't make it better it just offloaded all their work on to me. I have been against the use of high DPS to avoid mechanics ever since.

You also seem to be completely against optimization when you say something like this. The natural progression is to optimize and it seems you are totally against it. What's the problem with the group ignoring a mech that can easily be healed through? That's optimization at it's finest. I can understand if you were a new healer and couldn't perform good enough, but by the time you get to a final boss of a dungeon you should have a clear understanding of how good everyone is and what they're capable of. If the group tried to burn though it's because they thought you could handle it. It sounds like you just wanted to do the mech for the sake of the mech existing. Spamming Breath of Life though a heal check isn't difficult at all. You're pressing 1 skill, maybe even throwing Healing orb out too.

@Bluebird is giving fantastic arguments and it's clear that they have a better understanding of this game than you do. If you truly had an understanding of the game they wouldn't be "overwhelming you with information." Any good player that knows what they're talking about would understand exactly what @Bluebird is saying.

Just come out and say it, you don't like to see players performing on a level that you cannot reach. It's blatantly obvious by your comments on this thread.

ThorianB

Starlock wrote: »

Just want to say thanks for your insights, @ThorianB - the perspective you've brought has been very informative. It's very difficult to tell what is an actual issue versus the "sky is falling" hyperbole that is too common on forums. That's not to say I necessarily agree with everything you've pointed out - as someone who can't PTS I'm frankly not in a position to make a good assessment - but the comparisons you've made to current CP and the new CP (Post #77 for example) are very useful.

I do try to be factual and unbiased. Obviously, i have my opinions about what is good or not and that will differ from others. But i play for fun not meta or leaderboards, or anything like that. So i really do look at the system from the point of a casual player rather than a competitive player as i am not competitive at all.

Some of the things other people don't seem to consider in their arguments against:

• CP 2.0 is a lot more flexible than 1.0 in that the devs can edit and make changes to it to tweak it later. I get the impression this was impossible with the current version because of the way that system was designed.
• We don't know why some things were done the way they were. There are things done on the backend that have to be done a certain way. One thing that comes to mind is the champion bar. The old system made it so that the server had to perform 30-40 checks every time you performed almost any action. The new system reduces that to 12 checks. There is a reason why this was reduced and that was at least in no small part because of performance which EVERYONE complains about. This should actually have a big affect in Cyro fights where everyone is spamming buff abilities every 3 seconds incase a fight breaks out and then doing it even more when their is someone to kill.
• This system was designed with the companion system in mind. They would not release CP2.0 and then release companions 3 months later and then immediately have to make changes to the system to make it compatible. So we can only assume that this system is balanced, internally, with companions in mind. We don't have access to companion yet, so we do need to keep that in mind when testing various parts of the system especially when it comes to balance.

lillybit

ThorianB wrote: »

Starlock wrote: »

Just want to say thanks for your insights, @ThorianB - the perspective you've brought has been very informative. It's very difficult to tell what is an actual issue versus the "sky is falling" hyperbole that is too common on forums. That's not to say I necessarily agree with everything you've pointed out - as someone who can't PTS I'm frankly not in a position to make a good assessment - but the comparisons you've made to current CP and the new CP (Post #77 for example) are very useful.

I do try to be factual and unbiased. Obviously, i have my opinions about what is good or not and that will differ from others. But i play for fun not meta or leaderboards, or anything like that. So i really do look at the system from the point of a casual player rather than a competitive player as i am not competitive at all.

Some of the things other people don't seem to consider in their arguments against:

• CP 2.0 is a lot more flexible than 1.0 in that the devs can edit and make changes to it to tweak it later. I get the impression this was impossible with the current version because of the way that system was designed.
• We don't know why some things were done the way they were. There are things done on the backend that have to be done a certain way. One thing that comes to mind is the champion bar. The old system made it so that the server had to perform 30-40 checks every time you performed almost any action. The new system reduces that to 12 checks. There is a reason why this was reduced and that was at least in no small part because of performance which EVERYONE complains about. This should actually have a big affect in Cyro fights where everyone is spamming buff abilities every 3 seconds incase a fight breaks out and then doing it even more when their is someone to kill.
• This system was designed with the companion system in mind. They would not release CP2.0 and then release companions 3 months later and then immediately have to make changes to the system to make it compatible. So we can only assume that this system is balanced, internally, with companions in mind. We don't have access to companion yet, so we do need to keep that in mind when testing various parts of the system especially when it comes to balance.

You don't play as a competitive player so you can't really dismiss, or even understand, the concerns of those who do.

Most things you said there is true. As far as it goes.

Your impression of the current system is not a valid argument. Saying they've done thing the way they have because they have to is pure conjecture. Because they've said they plan to expand the new system doesn't mean it would be impossible with the current one.

The theory of less checks is good. But why then add so many passives that put them back again? What point is there to restricting how many can be slotted when you can add new always-on effects until nearly 3000cp?

If the system doesn't work without companions there are serious problems with it, given that companions will be a chapter feature that won't be available for everyone. Also if it depends on companions to make sense, maybe it shouldn't come out 3 or 4 months before them.


It's safe to say we'll get 2.0 no matter what. They never backtrack on big things they want to do. At best we can hope for minor changes to the most objectionable aspects of it. If enough people speak up they might abandon the gating/pathing and maybe put back in diminishing returns or change some of the very many passives to actives. Baby steps that keep the spirit of 2.0 but make it vastly more user friendly. You would have us accept it all wholesale but it needn't be an all or nothing situation

phantasmalD

ThorianB wrote: »

I first experienced this in ESO running normal Darkshade Caverns II for the first time when i was i was expected to just heal everyone through the end boss damage instead of us just doing the actual mechanics. I understand that would have been a little more work for everyone else than just DPSing it down but it is A LOT more work for me to keep them all alive while they do. So it didn't make it better it just offloaded all their work on to me. I have been against the use of high DPS to avoid mechanics ever since.

This is such a weird comment to make.
Activating the levers is how you avoid the mechanism of the fight. They are literally an 'I don't want to deal with this phase, let's avoid it completely' button, so it's like completely the other way around. The actual mechanism is dealing with each phase correctly without skipping them.

Especially weird to use DC2 as an example when it's like one of the only 2 base game dungeons with an actual dps race boss, high DPS is literally the intended mechanic for the Netch boss. You aren't cutting corners with high DPS, the mechanism IS avoding X with high DPS/heals, like that's literally the intended design.

For years now healers have been complaining that they are obsolete as DPS can self heal through damage so complaining about having to heal is just such a backwards thing to do.

ThorianB

lillybit wrote: »

You don't play as a competitive player so you can't really dismiss, or even understand, the concerns of those who do.

I wasn't dismissing it, i was making a statement. Don't read into it and don't assume things about me.

Your impression of the current system is not a valid argument.

Wow that was REALLY condescending.

Saying they've done thing the way they have because they have to is pure conjecture.

Actually, its not. They actually explained quite a few things. Maybe you should go watch those videos instead of being condescending to me?

Because they've said they plan to expand the new system doesn't mean it would be impossible with the current one.

Actually I am pretty sure they said this too in the same video.

But why then add so many passives that put them back again? What point is there to restricting how many can be slotted when you can add new always-on effects until nearly 3000cp?

You really need to watch that video. You might learn something.

If the system doesn't work without companions there are serious problems with it, given that companions will be a chapter feature that won't be available for everyone. Also if it depends on companions to make sense, maybe it shouldn't come out 3 or 4 months before them.

I never said that. Why are so many people arguing strawmen in this thread? I said balanced with that in mind. What you said is NOT EVEN CLOSE to what i said.

If enough people speak up they might abandon the gating/pathing and maybe put back in diminishing returns

Might be able to get the linear progression removed but i can tell you that diminishing returns is DOA and that is a good thing.

Baby steps that keep the spirit of 2.0 but make it vastly more user friendly.

I consider it very user friendly now especially compared to live.

You would have us accept it all wholesale but it needn't be an all or nothing situation

Look another strawman. I didn't say that either. In fact i have voiced some things i would change one of them what you call "pathing". That doesn't add any value at 300 CP or 3000 CP all it does is mean i have follow route X to get to the abilities i really want. That goes against the spirit of one of the main goals of the new system which was more choices.

phantasmalD wrote: »

ThorianB wrote: »

I first experienced this in ESO running normal Darkshade Caverns II for the first time when i was i was expected to just heal everyone through the end boss damage instead of us just doing the actual mechanics. I understand that would have been a little more work for everyone else than just DPSing it down but it is A LOT more work for me to keep them all alive while they do. So it didn't make it better it just offloaded all their work on to me. I have been against the use of high DPS to avoid mechanics ever since.

This is such a weird comment to make.
Activating the levers is how you avoid the mechanism of the fight. They are literally an 'I don't want to deal with this phase, let's avoid it completely' button, so it's like completely the other way around. The actual mechanism is dealing with each phase correctly without skipping them.

Especially weird to use DC2 as an example when it's like one of the only 2 base game dungeons with an actual dps race boss, high DPS is literally the intended mechanic for the Netch boss. You aren't cutting corners with high DPS, the mechanism IS avoding X with high DPS/heals, like that's literally the intended design.

For years now healers have been complaining that they are obsolete as DPS can self heal through damage so complaining about having to heal is just such a backwards thing to do.

You quote mined the comment and didn't even use the full sentence and then tried to argue it which is really weird thing to do. Also a strawman. I bolded the important part of the sentence for you, you know the part you forgot to bold because it didn't suit your argument.

I first experienced this in ESO running normal Darkshade Caverns II for the first time when i was i was expected to just heal everyone through the end boss damage instead of us just doing the actual mechanics.

Also, FYI, you called a recollection of an experience a weird comment. So i am not allowed to share my experiences and thoughts/feelings on those experiences when it is related to the topic? There is something weird about that?

---

To anyone else who tagged or quoted me, if i didn't respond it is because:
1. i am getting an excessive amount of strawmans and people putting words in my mouth.
2. People are getting way off topic
3. You had nothing i considered worthy of having a discussion on.( no offense just not interested in arguing every little argument especially ones that are actually irrelevant or were already debated by me)

I see a lot if people are starting to quote mine me and take things out of context and present strawmans almost constantly and that is basically just a tag team vs solo Gish Gallop. So if you want me to respond in the future, present me with a rational on topic debate and not a bunch of nonsensical hyperbole or waste your time writing a long post i won't read. Your choice.

AmendmentI

ThorianB wrote: »

The elite crowd will have to lower their dps requirements in order to get enough players because now everyone will be hitting for lower amounts. This also means there is less pressure on the devs to make future trials much harder to deal with power creep at least for the next few years.

@ThorianB If the dps ceiling lowers people won't suddenly ask lower hitting dps to do trials. No one would "lower requirements". That's not how it works when everyone gets lowered. You'd just have the same spread as you do now. For example if damage is cut by 50% then you get everyone hitting 100k lowered to 50k. And everyone who hits 50k gets lowered to 25k. Meaning you're still working within the same group of players. You're just all hitting lower for the same amount of effort. So the "enough players" thing doesn't work. It would just be the same players unless there was some sort of mass exodus.

Changing cp doesn't suddenly make it easier to hit a number you couldn't before. The skill gap would still be there and groups would just set new requirements and have new expectations in line with the highest damage output possible. This doesn't suddenly bridge any sort of gaps.

Being able to add in newer cp trees/skills later under the new system is a lie for pve. If it doesn't compete then any new changes would get ignored just like half the new dungeon sets we get every year. Doesn't matter how much new stuff they add if it doesn't do more for you than the old stuff does. And if the newer stuff benefits you more then all you get is power creep all over again.

Psiion

Greetings all,

After review, we have decided to close this thread as it seems to have derailed into mostly back and forth Baiting, which is against the Forum's Community Rules and generally non-constructive. Please remember to keep the Community Rules in mind when posting or replying on the Forums.

Trolling or Baiting: The act of trolling is defined as something that is created for the intent to provoke conflict, shock others, or to elicit a strong negative or emotional reaction. It’s okay and very normal to disagree with others, and even to debate, but provoking conflict, baiting, inciting, mocking, etc. is never acceptable in the official The Elder Scrolls Online community. If you do not have something constructive or meaningful to add to a discussion, we strongly recommend you refrain from posting in that thread, and find another discussion to participate in instead. It is also not constructive or helpful to publicly call out others and accuse them of trolling, or call them a troll—please refrain from doing so. If you genuinely believe someone is trolling, please report the post or thread to the ESO Team, and leave it at that.