Stop Filtering By CP!

SerLoras

The fact that the Guild Finder and the now the new Group Finder tool both offer a CP requirement filter is really silly. A player's CP level is not a reliable way to tell anything about them. I know CP 700 players with multiple Trial Trifecta titles, and I know CP 2500 players that have never set foot in a trial. CP is a completely useless metric for determining if someone is qualified to join a run or a guild.

To be clear, I am personally not against "elitism" (i.e. having requirements to join certain content or guilds). For high-end vet content, the experience is better for everyone if most of the group is at about the same skill/experience level. The problem here is just that CP really doesn't tell you that much about someone's skill or experience level.

It would be much more useful if there was an achievement filter on the Group Finder. For example, if I am creating a veteran Cloudrest +1 group, I should have the option to require people to have the achievement for veteran Cloudrest +0 or even just normal Cloudrest +3. That would be an infinitely more useful filter than going by CP.

I understand some people may think achievement requirements are "toxic," but having a CP requirement is just as toxic, and it's also useless! People are going to try and require achievements for certain groups no matter what, so we might as well have a filter that streamlines the process. The easier it is to put together a good group on the fly, the more people will run trials, and the more opportunities there will be for newer players to get a foot in the door and start building the experience they'll need to be ready for higher end content.

Silaf

That's your opinion. If i want to filter by cp to ensure my group members have at least a minimum of gameplay time that's my choice.

In my experience if a veteran dreadsail reef pug group has more than 3 members below 1000 cp it will fail.
I understand this will not apply to exceptional individuals but i'm not interested in exceptions when forming a pug group.

I agree on the akivement filter requirement but whith carry runs you can easily circumvent it.

jaws343

A few guilds that I am in used the CP as a numeric filter for people to find the guilds using guild search.

SerLoras

Silaf wrote: »

That's your opinion. If i want to filter by cp to ensure my group members have at least a minimum of gameplay time that's my choice.

In my experience if a veteran dreadsail reef pug group has more than 3 members below 1000 cp it will fail.
I understand this will not apply to exceptional individuals but i'm not interested in exceptions when forming a pug group.

I agree on the akivement filter requirement but whith carry runs you can easily circumvent it.

Yes, but there are tons of high CP players whose "gameplay time" was spent almost exclusively doing writs on 20 toons a day and turning in all the Master Writs.

Also, you can just as easily buy a carry for CP grinding. Dishonest people will try to weasel their way around whatever requirement you use. It is still be better to use requirements that are actually relevant to what you're looking for, instead of a requirement that is just vaguely correlated to what you're looking for.

Bushido2513

SerLoras wrote: »

show previous quotes

Silaf wrote: »

That's your opinion. If i want to filter by cp to ensure my group members have at least a minimum of gameplay time that's my choice.

In my experience if a veteran dreadsail reef pug group has more than 3 members below 1000 cp it will fail.
I understand this will not apply to exceptional individuals but i'm not interested in exceptions when forming a pug group.

I agree on the akivement filter requirement but whith carry runs you can easily circumvent it.

Yes, but there are tons of high CP players whose "gameplay time" was spent almost exclusively doing writs on 20 toons a day and turning in all the Master Writs.

Also, you can just as easily buy a carry for CP grinding. Dishonest people will try to weasel their way around whatever requirement you use. It is still be better to use requirements that are actually relevant to what you're looking for, instead of a requirement that is just vaguely correlated to what you're looking for.

Actually not much of anything is really a good filter to use because anything in this game can be gained by someone else just being at the controller.

It's really a gamble no matter what the stats/ titles say.


That being said there are just as many bad high levels as there are low levels. I'd take a higher level player because at least they have points to play with if it comes down to it. At a lower CP you now have a hard limit. Sometimes CP can crutch for bad gameplay. But if they have bad gameplay and no CP to work with your options are limited.


All of that being said, it's the choice of the person running the group. This isn't like some situations where giving the players choice would create too much divide.

If a person sits there long enough and the group doesn't fully form they have the choice to relax requirements or just not to have to play with others they didn't want to play with anyway. Taking that choice away punishes more than it helps.

TybaltKaine

The following does not mean I support the idea of CP filtering, but is meant to demonstrate why a group leader would do so.


CP requirements can go beyond "gameplay time". Having a complete build for some content is necessary, and that means a certain CP level to insure passives, slottables and support abilities. A CP 700 can have all sorts of clears per your example, but that likely means they were a competent player in a good group.

Let's say that CP 700 player is a Healer. Here is a sample tree that caps at 700 CP

Craft - irrelevant, but here you go



Warfare -



Fitness -



As you can see, this is pretty bare bones. None of the passives are full, and the actives are the easiest to get to while still performing the role.

Tanking at such a low CP would be much more difficult simply because the skills wouldn't allow for the player to do so optimally. When you are pushing scores and speed, optimization matters.

Again, this isn't my opinion, but I can see why a group leader would want a minimum level depending on the content.

In my personal experience, as a player who had 997 CP on Xbox and migrated to PC (where I am now over 1400) I was unable to clear some content, even with my 2 years of playing time and experience, simply because my CP was too low. When I got back to 600 or so life was easier, and now over 1200 I can easily support a complete build for any role. CP matters, even if you don't want it to.

Bushido2513

Thanks that was a much more illustrated example than my post!

boi_anachronism_

SerLoras wrote: »

show previous quotes

Silaf wrote: »

That's your opinion. If i want to filter by cp to ensure my group members have at least a minimum of gameplay time that's my choice.

In my experience if a veteran dreadsail reef pug group has more than 3 members below 1000 cp it will fail.
I understand this will not apply to exceptional individuals but i'm not interested in exceptions when forming a pug group.

I agree on the akivement filter requirement but whith carry runs you can easily circumvent it.

Yes, but there are tons of high CP players whose "gameplay time" was spent almost exclusively doing writs on 20 toons a day and turning in all the Master Writs.

Also, you can just as easily buy a carry for CP grinding. Dishonest people will try to weasel their way around whatever requirement you use. It is still be better to use requirements that are actually relevant to what you're looking for, instead of a requirement that is just vaguely correlated to what you're looking for.

To be fair though you can also buy carries for achievements so that cant exacly be considered a fool proof metric either. Many of my teaching guilds have a cp requirement and it has nothing to do with toxicity. It has to do with the passives you are able to obtain by the time you are x cp. This is obviously not the only deciding factor- if a player showed exceptional skill though a pov or something they would have no issues being allowed into higher level content...but this isnt a guild. Its a group finder. The majority of people will choose to do this so they can guarantee that the player has the necessary mitigation to survive certain mechanics for example. Do i know some players who had trifectas at 800cp? Sure. But thats a real outlier here. Its not even remotely close to the norm.

SerLoras

TybaltKaine wrote: »

CP requirements can go beyond "gameplay time". Having a complete build for some content is necessary, and that means a certain CP level to insure passives, slottables and support abilities.

I agree with that. A certain base amount of CP is necessary to be successful in vet content. I think 700 is actually a pretty good number. Obviously, more CP will always be beneficial to you, until you have capped out all your passives, but once you get to about 700 CP you have enough that more isn't going to make a huge difference.

At that point, whether someone has 700, 900, 1100, 1300, or 1500 isn't really going to tell you anything about how much they are able to contribute to your group. The filter might be kind of useful to weed out anyone who does have that bare minimum CP, but there are still going to be tons of people that have the minimum CP that are not ready for the content you're running.

You'll never be able to put together a solid group for high-end content without filtering for other requirements besides CP.

TybaltKaine wrote: »

A CP 700 can have all sorts of clears per your example, but that likely means they were a competent player in a good group.

The clears will indicate that they have experience with the content and that they were capable of doing the content before, and are likely to be capable of doing it again.

If I am farming, for example, veteran Rockgrove for gear. I would much rather have a CP 700 player who has a vRG clear than a CP 2000 player that hasn't even cleared it on normal.

TybaltKaine wrote: »

Tanking at such a low CP would be much more difficult simply because the skills wouldn't allow for the player to do so optimally. When you are pushing scores and speed, optimization matters.

No one is going to use the Group Finder to organize score pushing groups. Even if they did, CP would not be a major consideration. They will obviously want all their players to have the minimum CP to have a fully optimized build (about 1500), but CP is not even going to be among the top 10 things they are going to consider when choosing who can join the group.

SerLoras

boi_anachronism_ wrote: »

To be fair though you can also buy carries for achievements so that cant exacly be considered a fool proof metric either.

Of course. There is no fool proof metric. There are just better and worse metrics. CP is a terrible metric. Achievements are a pretty good metric.

I fully understand that you need a minimum amount of CP for certain content, but most people trying to get into high-end content already have those minimums. You need some other way to sort through who is ready for the content and who isn't.

I am confident that there are way more >1500 CP players that have no endgame experience than there are people buying carries and then using their carry achievements to try and lie about their qualifications. In my experience, having sold many carry runs, carry buyers tend not to be very interested in running high-end PvE content themselves. They just want the rewards from the achievement so they can go back to the other areas of the game they actually enjoy. I'm sure some people might do that, but I think it is uncommon enough that filtering by achievements would be reliable in most cases.

Bushido2513

SerLoras wrote: »

show previous quotes

boi_anachronism_ wrote: »

To be fair though you can also buy carries for achievements so that cant exacly be considered a fool proof metric either.

Of course. There is no fool proof metric. There are just better and worse metrics. CP is a terrible metric. Achievements are a pretty good metric.

I fully understand that you need a minimum amount of CP for certain content, but most people trying to get into high-end content already have those minimums. You need some other way to sort through who is ready for the content and who isn't.

I am confident that there are way more >1500 CP players that have no endgame experience than there are people buying carries and then using their carry achievements to try and lie about their qualifications. In my experience, having sold many carry runs, carry buyers tend not to be very interested in running high-end PvE content themselves. They just want the rewards from the achievement so they can go back to the other areas of the game they actually enjoy. I'm sure some people might do that, but I think it is uncommon enough that filtering by achievements would be reliable in most cases.

So there's flaws in a lot you just said there. Because either metric can be easily gamed NO metric is better or worse. I say this because yes you can say you've seen xyz in your experience but I can find someone that will say the exact opposite. A lot of what you're saying is that you feel or believe this or that however that doesn't change the fact that you won't know how capable a player is until you've run content with them.

That being said CP is a mathematical truth. Any random player is a gamble but the truth is that if they have the CP you have an advantage and that's just a fact.

Again this is why it's better to have this choice available because then someone that wans to gamble on low CP players can do so and someone that would rather if nothing else, have the CP available to use can do so. Having it defaulted to one or the other just creates possible frustrations for players who then wish they could control this aspect.


Now if you want a better metric it would be a system that allows you to create a parse that's viewable by others including timestamp of when the parse was done. This can still be cheated but now you'd have to basically have someone sitting next to you doing the parse which likely few are going to do just to cheese a group finder repeatedly. This won't tell you if they can survive or do mechanics but at least you'd know what actual damage they are capable of if you keep them alive. The metric sheet would need to include all stats so you could know what food, mundus, etc they were running. Kind of like an armory station display that others could see about your character if you allow.

CrashTest

Why not have filter options for both CP and achievements?

Bushido2513

CrashTest wrote: »

Why not have filter options for both CP and achievements?

Wouldn't really change anything since both have ways of being gained without putting in much work. I'm not against having both but why put in the dev time on an option that doesn't really give you much to go on.

SerLoras

CrashTest wrote: »

Why not have filter options for both CP and achievements?

That's fine by me. My point is really just that an achievement filter would be much more useful.

Soarora

I think most people are aware CP doesn’t equal experience. It’s about having enough CP to have all 4 slottables, like earlier illustrated beautifully. It’s also about having the ability to share gear (cp160). I thought for a moment maybe it shouldn’t be a text box but instead selectable but I think a text box allows more freedom. If a group won’t accept you, find a different one.

SerLoras

boi_anachronism_ wrote: »

So there's flaws in a lot you just said there. Because either metric can be easily gamed NO metric is better or worse. I say this because yes you can say you've seen xyz in your experience but I can find someone that will say the exact opposite. A lot of what you're saying is that you feel or believe this or that however that doesn't change the fact that you won't know how capable a player is until you've run content with them.

That being said CP is a mathematical truth. Any random player is a gamble but the truth is that if they have the CP you have an advantage and that's just a fact.

Again this is why it's better to have this choice available because then someone that wans to gamble on low CP players can do so and someone that would rather if nothing else, have the CP available to use can do so. Having it defaulted to one or the other just creates possible frustrations for players who then wish they could control this aspect.

Now if you want a better metric it would be a system that allows you to create a parse that's viewable by others including timestamp of when the parse was done. This can still be cheated but now you'd have to basically have someone sitting next to you doing the parse which likely few are going to do just to cheese a group finder repeatedly. This won't tell you if they can survive or do mechanics but at least you'd know what actual damage they are capable of if you keep them alive. The metric sheet would need to include all stats so you could know what food, mundus, etc they were running. Kind of like an armory station display that others could see about your character if you allow.

Ok, first, I wasn't clear with what I said before. My main concern isn't removing the CP filter. If people want to filter by CP, go for it. I don't think it's useful. In my experience CP is an afterthought in high-end content because the vast majority of people at that level already have plenty of CP so it doesn't really come up.

My real issue is that there need to be more useful filtering options. CP is simply not sufficient. It may be just my personal experience, but I do have quite a bit of experience, so take that how you will. I have run with dozens of of end game PvE guilds at this point. I have NEVER once been asked what my CP is. I am ALWAYS asked how much I can parse and what clears I have. I really don't see how anyone can dispute that clears are the preferred metric for high-end PvE content. I would be utterly shocked if you could find someone experienced to "say the exact opposite" of that.

Having the option for parse requirements would be nice too. I just think an achievement filter is a more realistic solution, since it's basically already implemented in the game. There's already content in the game that is achievement locked. So it should be pretty straight forward to lock a group only to people with certain achievements. To filter by parse, ZOS would have to make an entirely new system just for tracking parses.

WrathOfInnos

I'll agree that CP is highly overestimated. I've done Swashbuckler Supreme with 900 CP's and it was completely fine. Even 700-800 was not an issue during the prog, I just had to block or dodge things that would one-shot without defensive CP. Requirements of 1500 or 2000 CP are misguided, all it's measuring is number of years played on that account. 1000 CP is more than enough for literally any content.

That being said, once you start getting below 600 CP, that means players don't even have all their slottables, which does start to affect the build significantly. Down in the 300 range you only have 2/4 slotted in any category, and won't be able to keep up with other players in damage or survivability. I completely understand why players would want to filter by this in difficult content. And I can see why they would not want players under 160 CP in a gear farm run.

There is also the issue of logistics. If the group lead doesn't want someone 500 CP in their run, they will simply remove that individual from group. The filter is just a way to communicate that earlier, and automate the process.

TheImperfect

It's better the filter is there, as a low CP player would you want to be grouped with a higher CP person whining that you don't meet their standards (whether you are a great player who would if they tried you or not)? Yes I know, not everyone who has the requirement is intolerant, but there are some out there.

boi_anachronism_

SerLoras wrote: »

show previous quotes

boi_anachronism_ wrote: »

So there's flaws in a lot you just said there. Because either metric can be easily gamed NO metric is better or worse. I say this because yes you can say you've seen xyz in your experience but I can find someone that will say the exact opposite. A lot of what you're saying is that you feel or believe this or that however that doesn't change the fact that you won't know how capable a player is until you've run content with them.

That being said CP is a mathematical truth. Any random player is a gamble but the truth is that if they have the CP you have an advantage and that's just a fact.

Again this is why it's better to have this choice available because then someone that wans to gamble on low CP players can do so and someone that would rather if nothing else, have the CP available to use can do so. Having it defaulted to one or the other just creates possible frustrations for players who then wish they could control this aspect.

Now if you want a better metric it would be a system that allows you to create a parse that's viewable by others including timestamp of when the parse was done. This can still be cheated but now you'd have to basically have someone sitting next to you doing the parse which likely few are going to do just to cheese a group finder repeatedly. This won't tell you if they can survive or do mechanics but at least you'd know what actual damage they are capable of if you keep them alive. The metric sheet would need to include all stats so you could know what food, mundus, etc they were running. Kind of like an armory station display that others could see about your character if you allow.

Ok, first, I wasn't clear with what I said before. My main concern isn't removing the CP filter. If people want to filter by CP, go for it. I don't think it's useful. In my experience CP is an afterthought in high-end content because the vast majority of people at that level already have plenty of CP so it doesn't really come up.

My real issue is that there need to be more useful filtering options. CP is simply not sufficient. It may be just my personal experience, but I do have quite a bit of experience, so take that how you will. I have run with dozens of of end game PvE guilds at this point. I have NEVER once been asked what my CP is. I am ALWAYS asked how much I can parse and what clears I have. I really don't see how anyone can dispute that clears are the preferred metric for high-end PvE content. I would be utterly shocked if you could find someone experienced to "say the exact opposite" of that.

Having the option for parse requirements would be nice too. I just think an achievement filter is a more realistic solution, since it's basically already implemented in the game. There's already content in the game that is achievement locked. So it should be pretty straight forward to lock a group only to people with certain achievements. To filter by parse, ZOS would have to make an entirely new system just for tracking parses.

So let me pose a hypothetical since there are quite a few of those scenarios here.

Lets say a group was putting together a vss run and they filter it by people with the vss achievement. There are plenty of perfectly capable players who may not have it but would automatically be excluded. One of the single most important things you can have as a player in pve is raid awareness. That isnt something that is altered by content you play and while you may not be able to do portals for example, you might still be able to significantly enhance the team. I know lots of folks whose first vet trial clears were pugs. Wouldnt this kind of filter make it more difficult for those type of players? Especially those that may not have trial guilds? Just a question since we are talking about things that could arbitrarily exclude people. Ive had plenty of folks get first clears on pug runs who performed very admirably.

Again these are all hypothetical

fred4

I completely agree with the OP once it comes to a certain level of content. When forming Craglorn PUGs, 90% of vet BRP and many vet DLC trial runs fail, unless group leaders ask for and verify relevant achievements. In that case chances significantly improve. Accepting players below a minimum verifiable standard is to no ones benefit, because random groups are fickle and fall apart at the first sign of trouble. You only delay the inevitable by not checking.

Random groups are not learning groups. In my experience guilds are invaluable for training people on the commonly used strategies in the more difficult vet trials. I ended up participating in the vet Craglorn (DLC) trial (farming) scene only after getting my first clears with a guild. The consequent achievement isn't so much about your personal competence, it's about having seen and being able to play the common strategies with a group of strangers.

I agree that CP is not a reliable indicator of anything, but a minimum competence check couldn't hurt nonetheless, at least for vet DLC trials, along the lines of:

• Character has at least CP160 and is wearing CP160 gear. Do we still have a stat cap at CP300? Then possibly that should be the minimum level.
• Character has all their relevant class, weapon, armor and guild passives allocated, as well as the Medicinal Use passive, has eaten some food, is wearing at least one full 5-piece set, and has a mundus stone. You'd be surprised at some people not being ready at this basic level.
• When it comes to vCR, the character is not wearing Oakensoul.

INM

CP level correlates with overall experience of players, of course there are bad high CP players and good low CP players, but speaking from my experience, the latter category is rare as unicorns.

fred4

INM wrote: »

CP level correlates with overall experience of players, of course there are bad high CP players and good low CP players, but speaking from my experience, the latter category is rare as unicorns.

I've run into plenty of server transfers and players from other MMOs, also ones who tank vet trials at CP450 or were otherwise running the show, so I disagree.

colossalvoids

Honestly there's no point in CP filter if it's not just basic sub 50lvl, cp300 and cp700+ for some content, I'd rather have one based on achievements or amount of points as an actual exp. measurement of sorts.

Oznog666

Not sure why there are some ppl complaining. The normal group finder for daily random and for specific dungeons is still there. The new one is IMHO a replacement for all kind of LFG - of course dungeons as well as trials, world bosses, group arenas, quests, whatever you want.

And that means you can still queue for i.e. Unhallowed Grave OR you can start a search with the new tool and can add things like "would like to do the quest", "would like to do the secret bosses", "need ppl to explain the mechanics" or whatsoever.

Quethrosar

needing a prior clear would be nice filter.

SerLoras

boi_anachronism_ wrote: »

So let me pose a hypothetical since there are quite a few of those scenarios here.

Lets say a group was putting together a vss run and they filter it by people with the vss achievement. There are plenty of perfectly capable players who may not have it but would automatically be excluded. One of the single most important things you can have as a player in pve is raid awareness. That isnt something that is altered by content you play and while you may not be able to do portals for example, you might still be able to significantly enhance the team. I know lots of folks whose first vet trial clears were pugs. Wouldnt this kind of filter make it more difficult for those type of players? Especially those that may not have trial guilds? Just a question since we are talking about things that could arbitrarily exclude people. Ive had plenty of folks get first clears on pug runs who performed very admirably.

Again these are all hypothetical

I share your concerns about people being too exclusionary. This is actually part of why I think the CP filter is bad. It excludes people based on something I think is basically meaningless.

However, I think part of the reason you see so few impromptu runs for high-end content is that it is very difficult to put together a solid high level group. Most players that have the skills and experience to run high-end content do not want to have to deal with a low quality group, so many of the players will only participate in runs when they are hosted by guilds that they trust to properly vet the groups. I believe that any filter tools that make it easier to put together a properly qualified group will ultimately result in more people running content and therefore create more opportunities for new players to get the mid-tier experience they need to be ready for high-end content.

Ultimately any filter can be abused to be too exclusionary. Undoubtedly, some people would probably try to only accept Godslayer players for their vSS farm run, just like some people are definitely going to try and require 2000 CP for their vSS farm run. Most of the time these people probably aren't going to find enough players to fill their groups so they'll have to make their requirements more reasonable. I think most people would be fair in the requirements they look for if they had such filters.

And again, if anyone is going to use the Group Finder for high-end content, they are going to filter by achievements one way or another. I can guarantee you, you are going to start seeing tons of group listings that say something like "link X achievement to join the group." I think streamlining this process would actually improve access because it will be easier to make good groups and therefore more people will want to run.

boi_anachronism_

SerLoras wrote: »

show previous quotes

boi_anachronism_ wrote: »

So let me pose a hypothetical since there are quite a few of those scenarios here.

Lets say a group was putting together a vss run and they filter it by people with the vss achievement. There are plenty of perfectly capable players who may not have it but would automatically be excluded. One of the single most important things you can have as a player in pve is raid awareness. That isnt something that is altered by content you play and while you may not be able to do portals for example, you might still be able to significantly enhance the team. I know lots of folks whose first vet trial clears were pugs. Wouldnt this kind of filter make it more difficult for those type of players? Especially those that may not have trial guilds? Just a question since we are talking about things that could arbitrarily exclude people. Ive had plenty of folks get first clears on pug runs who performed very admirably.

Again these are all hypothetical

I share your concerns about people being too exclusionary. This is actually part of why I think the CP filter is bad. It excludes people based on something I think is basically meaningless.

However, I think part of the reason you see so few impromptu runs for high-end content is that it is very difficult to put together a solid high level group. Most players that have the skills and experience to run high-end content do not want to have to deal with a low quality group, so many of the players will only participate in runs when they are hosted by guilds that they trust to properly vet the groups. I believe that any filter tools that make it easier to put together a properly qualified group will ultimately result in more people running content and therefore create more opportunities for new players to get the mid-tier experience they need to be ready for high-end content.

Ultimately any filter can be abused to be too exclusionary. Undoubtedly, some people would probably try to only accept Godslayer players for their vSS farm run, just like some people are definitely going to try and require 2000 CP for their vSS farm run. Most of the time these people probably aren't going to find enough players to fill their groups so they'll have to make their requirements more reasonable. I think most people would be fair in the requirements they look for if they had such filters.

And again, if anyone is going to use the Group Finder for high-end content, they are going to filter by achievements one way or another. I can guarantee you, you are going to start seeing tons of group listings that say something like "link X achievement to join the group." I think streamlining this process would actually improve access because it will be easier to make good groups and therefore more people will want to run.

I mean i have never seen someone request godslayer or even an hm complete for a vet crag pug or crag farm of any vet dlc trial. Reg vet is not high end content in any capacity, its basically mid level raiders. Typically in the 800cp to 1000cp range do just fine. When you get into 500cp-600 range i generally see them floored for a lot of it. Reason being you just need more skill at that level to survive. There are hits you just cant take so they have to just not get hit. Tanks get iffy. I know a lot less tanks at 800cp who can tank well frankly, atleast in vet dlc trials. You really have to put in a lot of time to learn it and most players kind of default to dps, at least for a long time unless they come from another game where they did tank. I certainly did. Im near 1900cp and i just built my tank. Im competent but i still wipe in certain harder dlc dungeons on occasion though i usually complete if the dps is decent and im not tanking 9-10 adds + a boss for 10 mins. That said i have done all this content a million times as a dps so i have a better understanding of it. You run dungeons that much you typically level pretty quickly.

Again this is just my experience. Im sure others have different ones.

Ezhh

TybaltKaine wrote: »

When you are pushing scores and speed, optimization matters.

While I 100% agree with what you say overall and understand why people might want to filter by CP, if someone is using this tool in the hope of score pushing, I think they may face bigger issues than whether someone has all passives in a CP tree unlocked.

That said, I started playing on PC NA when I was well over 2k CP on PC EU, and while my experience was enough to get me into groups (got a GS at, I think, around 600CP), there was definitely a difference in what I could do. I had to be much more mindful of my stam use in general (no reduction to roll/block cost hurts a bit on a mag character) and my dps was simply not going to be quite as high no matter how well I played.

Low CP players are often squishy as well, because they don't realise how important Preparation is. I went for that star first, but that moves back when you can raise your dps with CP even further.

Then you have situations where the raid lead wants people to change CP between fights (Bracing Anchor on Vrol HM as an example) so they can use certain strats. A low CP player might not have the flexibility for this.

And for supports CP can matter even more.

I personally don't think I'd use this tool for anything meaningful or that I was hoping would be well organised, but maybe it's best to just let those who will use it choose if they want to set CP requirements. I only see it being a problem if there is a default set to 1k CP or something, since people will then not bother to change it (I have no idea if it's like this).

tsaescishoeshiner

Why not just cap the CP filter? Can't require CP higher than like 1200 or something

Bushido2513

tsaescishoeshiner wrote: »

Why not just cap the CP filter? Can't require CP higher than like 1200 or something

Does the game need less player choice?

flizomica

I think it's a great thing to have. I don't at all automatically assume people with ~1k+ CP are good at the game, but people with low CP mathematically cannot have many hours in the game (which means they will be inexperienced unless they're a transfer from a different server), in addition to not having the most important CP passives. Like my EU character has ~400 CP and I think that's with only 40 or so hours played on that server?

I see myself setting requirements of ~700 CP for hard-ish content, like the harder vet DLC dungeons, and I don't think I'd want to join a generally puggable vet trial without a similar requirement (or at least no more than a few low CP people). In general, when I have gotten group finder pugs for harder vet DLC dungeons and half the group or just the tank have only recently cleared the 300 CP requirement, the runs tend to go veerryyy badly right from the start.