Clarification: how is CP getting translated over?

furiouslog

I searched but could not find a definitive answer to this, so apologies if it's redundant. Under the new system, are we retaining our XP earned, or are we retaining our CP earned and having it directly translated to the new system?

My position is that we should retain XP earned and then have our new CP calculated under the new breaks, because otherwise, players over the cap are are artificially losing the time investment represented by their total XP earned.

I currently am at 1296 CP, with a total XP investment of about 612 million XP. If I move to the new system with 1296 CP, and not a recalculated CP based on my XP, my total XP comes down to 237 million - effectively having 60% of my time investment in the game removed from my account.

Can anyone articulate how this is being handled?

stefj68

I really hope, they readjust our cp to the new curved, i feel exactly like that... what they said is cp earned = cp you will have

furiouslog

stefj68 wrote: »

I really hope, they readjust our cp to the new curved, i feel exactly like that... what they said is cp earned = cp you will have

If that's the case, that is ridiculous. Actually worse than the thing they did with the vMA weapons. It's taking 60 percent of the time I spent in game and making it like it never happened.

virtus753

It is not being converted. The CP you have the minute the servers go down on March 8/16 will be the CP you have when the servers come back up.

What will change is the XP required to get to the next CP. Everyone will have significantly less XP to next level.

There was a thread discussing this (although the devs have already confirmed no conversion), but it got closed due to baiting/derailment.

CleymenZero

virtus753 wrote: »

It is not being converted. The CP you have the minute the servers go down on March 8/16 will be the CP you have when the servers come back up.

What will change is the XP required to get to the next CP. Everyone will have significantly less XP to next level.

There was a thread discussing this (although the devs have already confirmed no conversion), but it got closed due to baiting/derailment.

Yup. That's how they're going with this. Nevermind that you've earned 900 million XP and that would make you CP 2400, you are CP 1560 and that's it.

TwinLamps

furiouslog wrote: »

stefj68 wrote: »

I really hope, they readjust our cp to the new curved, i feel exactly like that... what they said is cp earned = cp you will have

If that's the case, that is ridiculous. Actually worse than the thing they did with the vMA weapons. It's taking 60 percent of the time I spent in game and making it like it never happened.

I agree.

Pink_Pixie

It's a terrible move to simply not convert invested time (Experience) into CP, this only shows that the devs find our time less than worthwhile. And only ensures a lot of players won't be happy with said changes. I for one, will be stepping aside to find something else to do. I don't fancy playing zombie grind online, as this is where I'll be with the current change, due to having no quests to do to recoup what is lost.

I'm pretty sure people will say this is overly dramatic, but losing something that I can never get back, is a huge blow. And that is not experience in it self, it is time.

furiouslog

virtus753 wrote: »

It is not being converted. The CP you have the minute the servers go down on March 8/16 will be the CP you have when the servers come back up.

What will change is the XP required to get to the next CP. Everyone will have significantly less XP to next level.

There was a thread discussing this (although the devs have already confirmed no conversion), but it got closed due to baiting/derailment.

If other people have a different perspective on this, I'm open to hearing it, but I don't see how this is anything but an extreme nerf for people already over the cap, and it destroys the value of my sunk time. If you think about all of the scrolls you ever popped or dungeons you grinded to progress your character in anticipation of an eventual retooling of CP, the value of that time spent and the in game resources spent is significantly diminished. If the new incremental XP cost of CP is a fair system and represents the value of the time and effort invested in bettering your character, then the amount we have already invested in that should apply. It's basically punishing veterans and giving new players who have not spent any time an unfair relative benefit for not having ever played the game. In short, the translation mechanism punishes ESO's most loyal and devoted players.

ZOS, I would encourage you to preserve the XP and recalculate the new CP based on XP earned, rather than just translate the CP straight over.

tmbrinks

furiouslog wrote: »

virtus753 wrote: »

It is not being converted. The CP you have the minute the servers go down on March 8/16 will be the CP you have when the servers come back up.

What will change is the XP required to get to the next CP. Everyone will have significantly less XP to next level.

There was a thread discussing this (although the devs have already confirmed no conversion), but it got closed due to baiting/derailment.

If other people have a different perspective on this, I'm open to hearing it, but I don't see how this is anything but an extreme nerf for people already over the cap, and it destroys the value of my sunk time. If you think about all of the scrolls you ever popped or dungeons you grinded to progress your character in anticipation of an eventual retooling of CP, the value of that time spent and the in game resources spent is significantly diminished. If the new incremental XP cost of CP is a fair system and represents the value of the time and effort invested in bettering your character, then the amount we have already invested in that should apply. It's basically punishing veterans and giving new players who have not spent any time an unfair relative benefit for not having ever played the game. In short, the translation mechanism punishes ESO's most loyal and devoted players.

ZOS, I would encourage you to preserve the XP and recalculate the new CP based on XP earned, rather than just translate the CP straight over.

It was beaten to death in the other thread.

But, the other ~10 times they changed the CP curve, they did the exact same thing, they have never retroactively given CP along the new XP curve. This is just a bigger change because of a larger change to the "cap".

If the adjusted curve is meant as a "catch up" mechanic, so that new players don't have to spend as much time to achieve "parity" (a word used in the other thread, which I take to mean equal CP), then moving current players along the curve defeats the entire purpose if we keep time "equivalent"

One suggestion was to split it 50/50, give half, and lose half... well, that's essentially what the 50% penalty for above the cp Cap did. At least we were able to earn XP (and thus CP) above the cap. many other games don't let you do that at all. And ESO used to be that way in the VR days. Once you hit cap, you didn't get any credit for any XP earned above that.

furiouslog

tmbrinks wrote: »

It was beaten to death in the other thread.

But, the other ~10 times they changed the CP curve, they did the exact same thing, they have never retroactively given CP along the new XP curve. This is just a bigger change because of a larger change to the "cap".

If the adjusted curve is meant as a "catch up" mechanic, so that new players don't have to spend as much time to achieve "parity" (a word used in the other thread, which I take to mean equal CP), then moving current players along the curve defeats the entire purpose if we keep time "equivalent"

One suggestion was to split it 50/50, give half, and lose half... well, that's essentially what the 50% penalty for above the cp Cap did. At least we were able to earn XP (and thus CP) above the cap. many other games don't let you do that at all. And ESO used to be that way in the VR days. Once you hit cap, you didn't get any credit for any XP earned above that.

All of these counterpoints are communicated with full respect intended.

I would have argued against their prior implementations of the translation process if I were this invested. At the time, I was not super active and probably also just missed the implications, but I still would have argued against the principle of it. Also, I think we'd agree that the existence of a precedent of having done a bad thing is not necessarily adequate justification for repeating the bad thing.

The current design ought to be a pure function of their intentions re: effort spent = abilities earned. If it was deliberately adjusted to allow newer players to increase at a greater rate of progress relative to veteran players, there are other ways to provide buffs and incentives to new players that would let them catch up.

Furthermore, if everything over the cap is meaningless and there was never any expectation that there was value added to your character as a result of effort, why don't they just take everyone who is over 810 CP and reset them to 810 CP? That is basically the same thing they are doing with this scheme, but the reduction in your character's abilities is not as transparent, and the outcry would be louder, I would think.

If they had hard set the cap and not recorded experience after that, it would have been a fair way to tell your players that progress over 810 is meaningless - but it would reduce incentives to continue playing if progression is a personal objective for the player. However, by leaving it in and letting you continue to experience the illusion of progress, players can infer that there will eventually be some meaning to their effort spent as the game evolves. It's basically a bait and switch.

I also think that what other games do is not relevant to this situation - another game doing a bad thing is not adequate justification for ZOS doing a bad thing in this game. MMOs exist that allow you to directly purchase elite gear that give you an in-game advantage, but I would not use that as an argument for ZOS implementing that in ESO.

Thanks for sharing your perspective.

ApoAlaia

I sincerely hope that they reconsider their position on this matter.

If this would happen in the real world with anything requiring 'x' amount of experience to qualify for 'y' (civil aviation, multiple professions where to exercise them one has to be chartered etc.) where the appropriate governing body decides to devalue the experience of existing aspirants to this degree using the flimsiest of arguments (we need to allow for the newer generation to catch up!) there would be riots.

Either you keep the requirements consistent or if is deemed that they can be lowered they are lowered for everyone. 'Rejoice, now is only going to take you 1000 hours more to get your license instead of 2000, never mind that you already have 2000 hours invested, let's forget about that and move on shall we' is not going to fly (maybe pun intended?).

I understand that the analogy is flawed because we are not going to cause bridges to collapse or planes to fall from the sky but is still a better analogy than the currency one that everyone seemed hellbent on using.

Furthermore the other argument beaten to death: 'this is how things have always been' is even worse. I'm pretty sure anyone bothering to read this can think on 5 things that are 'no longer they way they always were' in the next minute and we are all the better for it.

The argument is in itself a non-argument unless you specify why it would be preferable to keep thing the way they always were over changing it to what is being proposed.

CleymenZero

furiouslog wrote: »

stefj68 wrote: »

I really hope, they readjust our cp to the new curved, i feel exactly like that... what they said is cp earned = cp you will have

If that's the case, that is ridiculous. Actually worse than the thing they did with the vMA weapons. It's taking 60 percent of the time I spent in game and making it like it never happened.

I missed your comment on it being worse than the perfected MA and perfected Master's gear and it is exactly that.

Erasing progress because they think that's a good way to keep you involved with the content...

CleymenZero

tmbrinks wrote: »

furiouslog wrote: »

virtus753 wrote: »

It is not being converted. The CP you have the minute the servers go down on March 8/16 will be the CP you have when the servers come back up.

What will change is the XP required to get to the next CP. Everyone will have significantly less XP to next level.

There was a thread discussing this (although the devs have already confirmed no conversion), but it got closed due to baiting/derailment.

If other people have a different perspective on this, I'm open to hearing it, but I don't see how this is anything but an extreme nerf for people already over the cap, and it destroys the value of my sunk time. If you think about all of the scrolls you ever popped or dungeons you grinded to progress your character in anticipation of an eventual retooling of CP, the value of that time spent and the in game resources spent is significantly diminished. If the new incremental XP cost of CP is a fair system and represents the value of the time and effort invested in bettering your character, then the amount we have already invested in that should apply. It's basically punishing veterans and giving new players who have not spent any time an unfair relative benefit for not having ever played the game. In short, the translation mechanism punishes ESO's most loyal and devoted players.

ZOS, I would encourage you to preserve the XP and recalculate the new CP based on XP earned, rather than just translate the CP straight over.

It was beaten to death in the other thread.

But, the other ~10 times they changed the CP curve, they did the exact same thing, they have never retroactively given CP along the new XP curve. This is just a bigger change because of a larger change to the "cap".

If the adjusted curve is meant as a "catch up" mechanic, so that new players don't have to spend as much time to achieve "parity" (a word used in the other thread, which I take to mean equal CP), then moving current players along the curve defeats the entire purpose if we keep time "equivalent"

One suggestion was to split it 50/50, give half, and lose half... well, that's essentially what the 50% penalty for above the cp Cap did. At least we were able to earn XP (and thus CP) above the cap. many other games don't let you do that at all. And ESO used to be that way in the VR days. Once you hit cap, you didn't get any credit for any XP earned above that.

They didn't adjust cp everytime they adjusted the xp curve but it was always without the same system. Now they are completely turning everything on its head and in that case, would be an opportunity to adjust CP based on experience like they did when they got rid of vet ranks (wasn't there back then but that's what I think they did).

relentless_turnip

They are just moving us with our cp level as it is. I don't agree with the argument that we are entitled to anything though... Time is not relative to the new scale imo. You haven't lost any of the time you spent. Yes spending the same time again would put you at a higher cp level, but that that doesn't entitle you to anything. As this is a new standard.

Doesn't anyone want something to work towards?

furiouslog

relentless_turnip wrote: »

They are just moving us with our cp level as it is. I don't agree with the argument that we are entitled to anything though... Time is not relative to the new scale imo. You haven't lost any of the time you spent. Yes spending the same time again would put you at a higher cp level, but that that doesn't entitle you to anything. As this is a new standard.

Doesn't anyone want something to work towards?

One of the things I did do, though, was build a main character that. when maxed out, can both craft and do combat at the highest level of competence. WIth the CP changes, I will now have to do crafting on another toon (at the cost of doing effective combat on that toon), and abandon crafting on my main if I want to retain my current damage potential on my main. If my playing experience were such that there was no perceptible change that did not necessitate paying 3000g for a CP respec, it would be a lot less annoying. If I received points relative to the equivalent XP effort already spent, I would not be forced to make those tradeoffs in the wake of these changes.

FWIW, I broadly like the changes that they made. What I object to is that I earned a certain number of XP, and the majority of my representative effort is being removed. That it affects my playing style profoundly is a side negative.

That commentary is aside from the principle of allowing people to keep the equivalent of their time invested which is an independent issue, but it does point to the issue of how it directly affects me negatively given how I currently enjoy playing the game.

We disagree about your argument re: entitlement. I also don't think that's the right word, because if applied in the reverse or to any other situation, we are not entitled to anything as players of this game. We do not own our own accounts, and the T&Cs of the game make our participation conditional on any changes that ZOS chooses to make. I'll stipulate that. I also did not use the word "entitled" at all in the statement of any of my arguments. I'm saying how I believe that the representation of effort spent building anything in the game should be preserved and implemented given the current intentions of the dev team and their designs as if a new player were coming into the game, because that is a trust issue that pertains to player satisfaction. If I spent time achieving a certain level of playability, and then my playability is changed in a way to undermine my current experience, which is a function of effort spent, I think that is horribly unfair, and it betrays trust in the stability of the game's design such that it undermines my incentive to keep playing.

EDIT: For context: I already went and specced out my inheritable CP in the new tree. In order to get back to a point where I am having an equivalent player experience on my main toon, I will need to grind out approximately 200 more champion points, representing about 72 million experience points. If you think of that in terms of the game hours at their most efficient: it takes about 10 minutes to group and run a random normal in the best circumstances. If I make potions or use scrolls to buff that, I can expect to pull down about 180,000 per ten minutes on average, assuming I get easy dungeons every time. Given log times and grouping times with people doing the same thing, in an hour I can make maybe about 720,000 xp, equating to about 100 hours to close the gap.

So I will have to do something I don't really want to do for 100 hours in the game before I can get to a point where I'm back to where I started before the changes, and invest money or in-game resources for the XP buffs as well. The alternative? Spend even more time doing activities in the game that I enjoy at the cost of continuing to play with a nerfed character and naturally attaining the point I'd achieved before the changes.

So, it's also an issue of making a grind necessary to retain the experience I currently enjoy, which is a function of time already spent. But that is only context, it's not the core principle of my position.

NoSoup

Your CP before patch maintenance will be your CP post patch.

I honestly don't think they have the ability to pull our total XP to adjust CP. When CP 1.0 first came out we were allocated X amount of CP for every VR level we were when we logged in on each character. Obviously if they could it would have been so much more efficient to allocate CP based on your total XP when logging in. Because they didn't go down that route last time I believe it's simply not possible or far too difficult of an option for them.

stefj68

always tought a mmo should bring improvement, over previous... new cp system 2.0 its a total lost for me on every aspect... i will do less damage, take less damage, heal for less etc...

all my characters are setup for dual-role... just swapping gear when i need to be a healer, or dps gear when i need to dps... im currrently at 1000 cp and i am able to achieve dual role status...

now to do the samething on pts i need an average of 1800cp...

way to go ZOS

its not an improvement system, its a freaking nerffffffffff

if my experience was converted to the new curved i should be around 1400cp, which is like 400 to go to the new points
all those hours grinding cp pas 810 went to total waste...

its way more worst then the vma fiesco

when this goes live, i have werewolf farmers, with medium armor that are unable to do same dungeon for cash farming as they were on lives, i have characters that won't be able to do vets trials anymore cause they were borderline...

ie: stamplar on live i do 75k ... but on pts i have issue pusing 62-64k... they need to fix jabs so it can be weave more easily, but sure they won't do that...

they not even reading those forums or listening to what people are saying...

this is not acceptable in the current forms

micro management you added is not fun, its just pains all over...

furiouslog

NoSoup wrote: »

Your CP before patch maintenance will be your CP post patch.

I honestly don't think they have the ability to pull our total XP to adjust CP. When CP 1.0 first came out we were allocated X amount of CP for every VR level we were when we logged in on each character. Obviously if they could it would have been so much more efficient to allocate CP based on your total XP when logging in. Because they didn't go down that route last time I believe it's simply not possible or far too difficult of an option for them.

I hear your theory, but a technical issue seems unlikely. People with multiple toons under 50 have their experience points individually retained in the data, and the collective XP for toons over 50 is also retained. It would be a matter of storing the data and then retrieving it, so it seems unlikely that XP is not stored in a retrievable way.

But even if that were impossible, It would also be conceivable to have a "translation" table that is based on a cross-rerference of current and future XP progression, which "preserves" your XP earned just by hard coding the new CP equivalent to the old CP when they do the changeover.

Fischblut

If that's the case, that is ridiculous. Actually worse than the thing they did with the vMA weapons. It's taking 60 percent of the time I spent in game and making it like it never happened.

Honestly, vMA and vDSA weapons change was so disrespectful that nothing else (gameplay related) can beat that

If we could have all stars active at the same time in new CP system, I would support the idea of scaling our CPs to our earned experience. But I also wouldn't mind some daily random BGs and mob grind - if I would feel like "the more CPs I get, the more powerful I become".
Sadly, if developers will keep their decision of 4 active star slots per tree, new CP system will actually stop any feeling of progress for me. No reason to grind more CPs if I can't use all CP perks at the same time

furiouslog

Fischblut wrote: »

If that's the case, that is ridiculous. Actually worse than the thing they did with the vMA weapons. It's taking 60 percent of the time I spent in game and making it like it never happened.

Honestly, vMA and vDSA weapons change was so disrespectful that nothing else (gameplay related) can beat that

If we could have all stars active at the same time in new CP system, I would support the idea of scaling our CPs to our earned experience. But I also wouldn't mind some daily random BGs and mob grind - if I would feel like "the more CPs I get, the more powerful I become".
Sadly, if developers will keep their decision of 4 active star slots per tree, new CP system will actually stop any feeling of progress for me. No reason to grind more CPs if I can't use all CP perks at the same time

I respect your perspective, but I request to you and any others participating in the discussion that we all please don't conflate the XP/CP issue at hand with other complaints about the new system, as it would then likely result in the closure of the thread under the justification that it's been derailed.

And to restate, I'm open to hearing what other perspectives are on the XP/CP issue, and am hoping that someone can actually change my mind as to why I think the current migration implementation is unfair to veteran players of the game. The only one I've heard that reasonably appeals to me as a justification is that my reward for having skills taken away is the pleasure of regrinding them to enjoy the opportunity of continuing my progression. If it were mostly providing the opportunity to add new abilities or flexibility to my character, I would agree. As I pointed out by sharing my particular context, I have to regrind considerably to get to where I was, which is not fun and adds no value to my gaming experience.

remosito

I really hope they at least partially adjust our cp.

I could live with a 50/50 split of xp difference kept/thrown out. Or the difference given as enlightenment.

Keeping cp same and throwing out 60% of my xp gained (that's 2500 hours for me) . That's no way to treat your most loyal and active players in my book.

already cancelled my eso+ and doubt I will renew. Or buy future chapters if they go through with it like this.

Vaoh

It will be converted CP for CP. In other words:
• High levels lose hundreds of million of EXP. Hundreds. Of. Millions.....
• Low levels miss out on vital CPs to fulfill their passive stat stars.

Literally taking years of experience gain and deleting it lol.

CleymenZero

relentless_turnip wrote: »

They are just moving us with our cp level as it is. I don't agree with the argument that we are entitled to anything though... Time is not relative to the new scale imo. You haven't lost any of the time you spent. Yes spending the same time again would put you at a higher cp level, but that that doesn't entitle you to anything. As this is a new standard.

Doesn't anyone want something to work towards?

There's plenty to work towards without having progress over the years completely erased.

Also, you see this all the time: common sense being argued against with "entitlement".

Remove the fact that one can feel cheated with the absence of a conversion on the basis of experience. Just consider the fact that x amount of hours amounted to that much CP and that much exp therefore if you change the scale, there's someone getting short changed because the CP you have is not representative of the time you spent in the game and the number of activities you did.

So I don't feel entitled to more CP, the cold hard calculation that would lead to a new number in the new system is the principle that irks me. It's like accepting that it's ok to say that an inequality is an equality.

Basically, CP 1500 in CP 1.0 is simply not equal to CP 1500 in CP 2.0, nothing more.

It feels inconsiderate or [snip]

Got a question for you if you can be honest with yourself and others: What woukd be your position if they HAD done the conversion? Would you have said that they are unjustly rewarding higher CP? I'm curious.

[Edited to remove Bashing]

ExistingRug61

furiouslog wrote: »

Fischblut wrote: »

If that's the case, that is ridiculous. Actually worse than the thing they did with the vMA weapons. It's taking 60 percent of the time I spent in game and making it like it never happened.

Honestly, vMA and vDSA weapons change was so disrespectful that nothing else (gameplay related) can beat that

If we could have all stars active at the same time in new CP system, I would support the idea of scaling our CPs to our earned experience. But I also wouldn't mind some daily random BGs and mob grind - if I would feel like "the more CPs I get, the more powerful I become".
Sadly, if developers will keep their decision of 4 active star slots per tree, new CP system will actually stop any feeling of progress for me. No reason to grind more CPs if I can't use all CP perks at the same time

I respect your perspective, but I request to you and any others participating in the discussion that we all please don't conflate the XP/CP issue at hand with other complaints about the new system, as it would then likely result in the closure of the thread under the justification that it's been derailed.

And to restate, I'm open to hearing what other perspectives are on the XP/CP issue, and am hoping that someone can actually change my mind as to why I think the current migration implementation is unfair to veteran players of the game. The only one I've heard that reasonably appeals to me as a justification is that my reward for having skills taken away is the pleasure of regrinding them to enjoy the opportunity of continuing my progression. If it were mostly providing the opportunity to add new abilities or flexibility to my character, I would agree. As I pointed out by sharing my particular context, I have to regrind considerably to get to where I was, which is not fun and adds no value to my gaming experience.

Part of the issue of these discussions is that there are several things going on at once, and those other changes influence our views on the XP/CP curve change. So while we view them in the context of those changes it is also important to consider "would this be a problem if this was the only thing that was changing?". Or is the perceived problem actually an indirect result of another change?

It also depends on what the motivation for having the change is.

For example, one thing that is mentioned a lot is the concept of having a "catch up" system for new players.
However, at its core, the idea of carrying over XP is fundamentally in opposition to having a catch up system.

This is because for any sort of catch up system to work, it must be easier/quicker to achieve the same result/CP/whatever now than it used to be. The only way this can be true is if for whatever benchmark you pick, in this case a current players CP, it now will take less time to get there. If we "carry over" XP it invalidates this, as it effectively gives the existing players retroactive benefit of the catch up system pushing them further ahead again, meaning that it isn't actually any easier for new players to catch up to them.

ie:
Say it takes you 2k hours to achieve your current CP under the old system.
Under the new system, a new player can get there in say ~1k hours.
This is a catch up system - it took the new player less time to get to where you are now

If we carry over xp, this effectively increases your CP to a new value, where it would be if you spent 2k hours now.
So now, that same new player takes 2k hours to get to your (now increased) CP.
No catch up effect is present.

So a counterpoint against having xp carry over would be that this is actually an anti catchup measure.
This is actually fairly clear when you consider: Who benefits most from carrying over xp?
Answer: Players with more xp (up until the point where they would carry over to above the 3600 cap anyway).

Whether you think this is a strong counterpoint depends on how important a player values there own previously invested time vs making the game more accessible to new players and how much time those new players should take to achieve the same. Which everyone is entitled to their own opinion on.

Going back to my first point though about the true source of the issue, personally I think the primary issue here is that players who had previously reached the "end" of their grind for whatever their chosen game mode is suddenly find that this is no longer the case, due to the vertical power cap increasing, them no longer being able to slot all their desired QoL stars, or whatever.

Thus they seek some way of avoiding this and retaining their current level of effectiveness, and the idea of carrying over xp is attractive because depending on a players CP, it will (somewhat) mitigate the issue for them.

But would those same players care if they were still at the same point in the "grind" they were previously (ie: the end) and still had the same relative effectiveness or QoL for their chosen gameplay mode that they used to, even if their time/xp/cp ratio is changed without a carryover system?
Does this point to the idea that maybe it is actually the increased vertical cap, or needing more cp in general to do the same, that is the actual source of the problem? So wouldn't it be better to have a solution that addressed this directly instead?

stefj68

Since we are limited to 4 slotted stars, catch up system is totally not a valid points... 800cp new toons will be as great dps as a 2500cp toons in 2.0

as soon as you can get 4 slottable stars you are set

so they don't actually need to nerf old times players that spent thousands of hours...
lowering the curve will help to get the 4 slottable slots for the new players
now for the veteran, adjusting the cp cap proportionally won't screw the game, since you can only slot 4 anyway (but in my case extra cp, means i can custumize my slottable skills, to fill multiple roles, something i was able to do at 810 cp efficiently - which i won't be able to do anymore at 810cp in the new system, i am short of 1000kcp to do the same...

and i am not talking about all the missing perks, passive one that we have and 1.0 that now we have to slot...

so new cuved for beginner, ... yes
readjust cp according to experience earned... totally yes...

i also end up my subscription on my 3 accounts
i feel cheated

furiouslog

ExistingRug61 wrote: »

Part of the issue of these discussions is that there are several things going on at once, and those other changes influence our views on the XP/CP curve change. So while we view them in the context of those changes it is also important to consider "would this be a problem if this was the only thing that was changing?". Or is the perceived problem actually an indirect result of another change?

It also depends on what the motivation for having the change is.

For example, one thing that is mentioned a lot is the concept of having a "catch up" system for new players.
However, at its core, the idea of carrying over XP is fundamentally in opposition to having a catch up system.

This is because for any sort of catch up system to work, it must be easier/quicker to achieve the same result/CP/whatever now than it used to be. The only way this can be true is if for whatever benchmark you pick, in this case a current players CP, it now will take less time to get there. If we "carry over" XP it invalidates this, as it effectively gives the existing players retroactive benefit of the catch up system pushing them further ahead again, meaning that it isn't actually any easier for new players to catch up to them.

ie:
Say it takes you 2k hours to achieve your current CP under the old system.
Under the new system, a new player can get there in say ~1k hours.
This is a catch up system - it took the new player less time to get to where you are now

If we carry over xp, this effectively increases your CP to a new value, where it would be if you spent 2k hours now.
So now, that same new player takes 2k hours to get to your (now increased) CP.
No catch up effect is present.

So a counterpoint against having xp carry over would be that this is actually an anti catchup measure.
This is actually fairly clear when you consider: Who benefits most from carrying over xp?
Answer: Players with more xp (up until the point where they would carry over to above the 3600 cap anyway).

Whether you think this is a strong counterpoint depends on how important a player values there own previously invested time vs making the game more accessible to new players and how much time those new players should take to achieve the same. Which everyone is entitled to their own opinion on.

Going back to my first point though about the true source of the issue, personally I think the primary issue here is that players who had previously reached the "end" of their grind for whatever their chosen game mode is suddenly find that this is no longer the case, due to the vertical power cap increasing, them no longer being able to slot all their desired QoL stars, or whatever.

Thus they seek some way of avoiding this and retaining their current level of effectiveness, and the idea of carrying over xp is attractive because depending on a players CP, it will (somewhat) mitigate the issue for them.

But would those same players care if they were still at the same point in the "grind" they were previously (ie: the end) and still had the same relative effectiveness or QoL for their chosen gameplay mode that they used to, even if their time/xp/cp ratio is changed without a carryover system?
Does this point to the idea that maybe it is actually the increased vertical cap, or needing more cp in general to do the same, that is the actual source of the problem? So wouldn't it be better to have a solution that addressed this directly instead?

It's a good argument if the priority is the "catch up" measure, but the cost of implementing it is to remove skills/passives I already earned through play. The 50/50 solution would achieve both - it would keep my current level of play at par with my future level of play, but it would still close the gap so that I'm not OP compared to newer players. That same principle could be used to justify removing all prior experience from all players to get them on an even level if it were the only consideration.

But honestly, if the core motivation for the approach were to allow newer players to advance more quickly to a point where they are useful in various endgame activities and close the power gap, allowing veterans to retain CP as a function of their earned XP does not change that. Having more CP gives me more flexibility in my character, but less additional peak, so the power gap that exists now would still be mitigated because my choices of active skills are the limiter, so I see the argument as a moot point. The currently proposed solution is hitting us both ways - removing earned experience and also limiting our power creep.

The bottom line is this: can I play my character the same way I want to and at the same level of competence after the change? I can not, and right now, the reason for that is not the new CP design as much as it is that they are wiping out a considerable amount of experience earned and forcing me to regrind it.

Ranger209

Argued ad nauseum.

ExistingRug61

furiouslog wrote: »

ExistingRug61 wrote: »

Part of the issue of these discussions is that there are several things going on at once, and those other changes influence our views on the XP/CP curve change. So while we view them in the context of those changes it is also important to consider "would this be a problem if this was the only thing that was changing?". Or is the perceived problem actually an indirect result of another change?

It also depends on what the motivation for having the change is.

For example, one thing that is mentioned a lot is the concept of having a "catch up" system for new players.
However, at its core, the idea of carrying over XP is fundamentally in opposition to having a catch up system.

This is because for any sort of catch up system to work, it must be easier/quicker to achieve the same result/CP/whatever now than it used to be. The only way this can be true is if for whatever benchmark you pick, in this case a current players CP, it now will take less time to get there. If we "carry over" XP it invalidates this, as it effectively gives the existing players retroactive benefit of the catch up system pushing them further ahead again, meaning that it isn't actually any easier for new players to catch up to them.

ie:
Say it takes you 2k hours to achieve your current CP under the old system.
Under the new system, a new player can get there in say ~1k hours.
This is a catch up system - it took the new player less time to get to where you are now

If we carry over xp, this effectively increases your CP to a new value, where it would be if you spent 2k hours now.
So now, that same new player takes 2k hours to get to your (now increased) CP.
No catch up effect is present.

So a counterpoint against having xp carry over would be that this is actually an anti catchup measure.
This is actually fairly clear when you consider: Who benefits most from carrying over xp?
Answer: Players with more xp (up until the point where they would carry over to above the 3600 cap anyway).

Whether you think this is a strong counterpoint depends on how important a player values there own previously invested time vs making the game more accessible to new players and how much time those new players should take to achieve the same. Which everyone is entitled to their own opinion on.

Going back to my first point though about the true source of the issue, personally I think the primary issue here is that players who had previously reached the "end" of their grind for whatever their chosen game mode is suddenly find that this is no longer the case, due to the vertical power cap increasing, them no longer being able to slot all their desired QoL stars, or whatever.

Thus they seek some way of avoiding this and retaining their current level of effectiveness, and the idea of carrying over xp is attractive because depending on a players CP, it will (somewhat) mitigate the issue for them.

But would those same players care if they were still at the same point in the "grind" they were previously (ie: the end) and still had the same relative effectiveness or QoL for their chosen gameplay mode that they used to, even if their time/xp/cp ratio is changed without a carryover system?
Does this point to the idea that maybe it is actually the increased vertical cap, or needing more cp in general to do the same, that is the actual source of the problem? So wouldn't it be better to have a solution that addressed this directly instead?

It's a good argument if the priority is the "catch up" measure, but the cost of implementing it is to remove skills/passives I already earned through play. The 50/50 solution would achieve both - it would keep my current level of play at par with my future level of play, but it would still close the gap so that I'm not OP compared to newer players.

But honestly, if the core motivation for the approach were to allow newer players to advance more quickly to a point where they are useful in various endgame activities and close the power gap, allowing veterans to retain CP as a function of their earned XP does not change that. Having more CP gives me more flexibility in my character, but less additional peak, so the power gap that exists now would still be mitigated because my choices of active skills are the limiter, so I see the argument as a moot point. The currently proposed solution is hitting us both ways - removing earned experience and also limiting our power creep.

While its true that carry over veteran players does not change how long it takes for a new player to get to the new arbitrary "benchmark" CP, whatever it may be, it is still an issue when comparing relative power between a new and existing player (who may not be quite at the current benchmark yet) and the time taken to close that gap as this is relevant for PvP.

Also, I think it is an issue because what this proposal does is mask what is potentially a bigger issue with the changes, being that the vertical cap (for PvP at least) is now significantly higher XP wise than it used to be.
ie:
Under the old system, reaching vertical cap of CP of 810 took ~200mil xp, so you at max PvP capability in 200mil xp
Now, under the new, lets say the cap is around 1800 for PvP (I have seen higher and lower than this discussed), this takes ~435mil xp. So that's a bit over twice as long for a new player to reach their approx max power for CP PvP in the new system.

Now this is similar to the issue we as existing players face. Say I just reached CP810. So which the changes suddenly I am way behind what I would want to be for CP PvP. Others at similar amounts of CP are the same. This is like the issue you identified about losing effectiveness with the changes. So if I am CP810 and there is no carryover, I now would weed a bit over 335mil xp to get from 810 to 1800. So like its worse for the new players, its also worse for me.

Now, lets say we do carry over xp. I would carry over from 810 to 1162. So now I am only ~235mil xp away from 1800. So players in a similar situation feel a bit happier, we aren't as annoyed at the jump in vertical cap as before.
But has anything changed for the player starting at 0CP? No. The carryover has helped them not at all. They still face having to get 435mil xp instead of the previous ~200mil.

End result:
Initial change (increased xp to reach vertical cap) is detrimental for both new and existing players alike.
Proposed modification (xp carryover) mitigates this for existing players. We are now happier.
New players still face entire negative effect of change.

Why not push for a change that helps new and existing players?

For example, what if the "cost" you state wasn't there?
What if you kept your current power level of skills/passives with CP staying the same? Via some other change to the design of CP2.0
ie: through a reduction in vertical cap by doing something like making passives and slottables cheaper than current, or by actually having a diminishing return system from CP->effect (which no longer exists), and rearranging trees to make it easier to get to some QoL stars in Craft in particular.

Then there wouldn't be an issue for you AND it would be even more friendly to new players.
I feel this sort of approach would also address your last point, without requiring any sort of xp carryover:

The bottom line is this: can I play my character the same way I want to and at the same level of competence after the change? I can not, and right now, the reason for that is not the new CP design as much as it is that they are wiping out a considerable amount of experience earned and forcing me to regrind it.

So while I get that a carryover would help this issue for some players (which includes myself), I think that it isn't the best way it the core issue could be addressed.

furiouslog

ExistingRug61 wrote: »

Why not push for a change that helps new and existing players?

For example, what if the "cost" you state wasn't there?
What if you kept your current power level of skills/passives with CP staying the same? Via some other change to the design of CP2.0
ie: through a reduction in vertical cap by doing something like making passives and slottables cheaper than current, or by actually having a diminishing return system from CP->effect (which no longer exists), and rearranging trees to make it easier to get to some QoL stars in Craft in particular.

Then there wouldn't be an issue for you AND it would be even more friendly to new players.
I feel this sort of approach would also address your last point, without requiring any sort of xp carryover:

The bottom line is this: can I play my character the same way I want to and at the same level of competence after the change? I can not, and right now, the reason for that is not the new CP design as much as it is that they are wiping out a considerable amount of experience earned and forcing me to regrind it.

So while I get that a carryover would help this issue for some players (which includes myself), I think that it isn't the best way it the core issue could be addressed.

I'm taking it as a given that ZOS is not going to completely redesign their system, so I feel like some sort of appropriate XP retention is a more realistic ask in the name of fairness, rather than rebuild from the ground up. You propose a decent solution, I just don't think it would even happen because they already pushed their design around to the point where it is meeting their stated intent.

On the other hand, given my personal experience in asking ZOS for a remedy, or at least a clear justification for their actions when I think something is vastly unfair, it could be argued that my current issue and proposed feedback are equally pointless to articulate because ZOS has always done what they want to do regardless without considering what their consumers think or feel as a result, so the realism of your solution is not really pertinent, since my solution is equally unrealistic as a practical matter, but it is easier to implement.

NoSoup

furiouslog wrote: »

ExistingRug61 wrote: »

Why not push for a change that helps new and existing players?

For example, what if the "cost" you state wasn't there?
What if you kept your current power level of skills/passives with CP staying the same? Via some other change to the design of CP2.0
ie: through a reduction in vertical cap by doing something like making passives and slottables cheaper than current, or by actually having a diminishing return system from CP->effect (which no longer exists), and rearranging trees to make it easier to get to some QoL stars in Craft in particular.

Then there wouldn't be an issue for you AND it would be even more friendly to new players.
I feel this sort of approach would also address your last point, without requiring any sort of xp carryover:

The bottom line is this: can I play my character the same way I want to and at the same level of competence after the change? I can not, and right now, the reason for that is not the new CP design as much as it is that they are wiping out a considerable amount of experience earned and forcing me to regrind it.

So while I get that a carryover would help this issue for some players (which includes myself), I think that it isn't the best way it the core issue could be addressed.

I'm taking it as a given that ZOS is not going to completely redesign their system, so I feel like some sort of appropriate XP retention is a more realistic ask in the name of fairness, rather than rebuild from the ground up. You propose a decent solution, I just don't think it would even happen because they already pushed their design around to the point where it is meeting their stated intent.

On the other hand, given my personal experience in asking ZOS for a remedy, or at least a clear justification for their actions when I think something is vastly unfair, it could be argued that my current issue and proposed feedback are equally pointless to articulate because ZOS has always done what they want to do regardless without considering what their consumers think or feel as a result, so the realism of your solution is not really pertinent, since my solution is equally unrealistic as a practical matter, but it is easier to implement.

You've hit the nail on the head, its pointless continuing to argu about the XP distribution because ZOS is not going to make adjustments this late in the PTS cycle.

Your champion points on the 8th will be your CP in 2.0, period.

ExistingRug61

furiouslog wrote: »

ExistingRug61 wrote: »

Why not push for a change that helps new and existing players?

For example, what if the "cost" you state wasn't there?
What if you kept your current power level of skills/passives with CP staying the same? Via some other change to the design of CP2.0
ie: through a reduction in vertical cap by doing something like making passives and slottables cheaper than current, or by actually having a diminishing return system from CP->effect (which no longer exists), and rearranging trees to make it easier to get to some QoL stars in Craft in particular.

Then there wouldn't be an issue for you AND it would be even more friendly to new players.
I feel this sort of approach would also address your last point, without requiring any sort of xp carryover:

The bottom line is this: can I play my character the same way I want to and at the same level of competence after the change? I can not, and right now, the reason for that is not the new CP design as much as it is that they are wiping out a considerable amount of experience earned and forcing me to regrind it.

So while I get that a carryover would help this issue for some players (which includes myself), I think that it isn't the best way it the core issue could be addressed.

I'm taking it as a given that ZOS is not going to completely redesign their system, so I feel like some sort of appropriate XP retention is a more realistic ask in the name of fairness, rather than rebuild from the ground up. You propose a decent solution, I just don't think it would even happen because they already pushed their design around to the point where it is meeting their stated intent.

On the other hand, given my personal experience in asking ZOS for a remedy, or at least a clear justification for their actions when I think something is vastly unfair, it could be argued that my current issue and proposed feedback are equally pointless to articulate because ZOS has always done what they want to do regardless without considering what their consumers think or feel as a result, so the realism of your solution is not really pertinent, since my solution is equally unrealistic as a practical matter, but it is easier to implement.

Yeah, I agree mine would be a less likely solution given the work required and that the carryover is simpler.
And your probably right about the likelihood of them doing anything at all given how far we are through this pts.
That said, I think it still important to give the feedback as we both and others have done because there is a slim and occasional chance it influences a current or future change. Maybe that's just me deluding myself into hoping its not completely pointless though.