Maintenance for the week of September 22:
· [COMPLETE] NA megaservers for maintenance – September 22, 4:00AM EDT (8:00 UTC) - 10:00AM EDT (14:00 UTC)
· [COMPLETE] EU megaservers for maintenance – September 22, 8:00 UTC (4:00AM EDT) - 14:00 UTC (10:00AM EDT)
· [COMPLETE] NA megaservers for maintenance – September 22, 4:00AM EDT (8:00 UTC) - 10:00AM EDT (14:00 UTC)
· [COMPLETE] EU megaservers for maintenance – September 22, 8:00 UTC (4:00AM EDT) - 14:00 UTC (10:00AM EDT)
@ZOS must grant extra CPs, either now or when VR levels are removed
onlinegamer1
✭✭✭✭✭
✭
✭
Fact: the Champion System is an Experience/progression system. Once level 50, each "x" amount of experience gains you 1 Champion point to spend on all your characters.
Fact: The current post-50 Experience/progression system is called "Veteran Ranks", where each 1 million XP gains you 1 Veteran Rank.
Fact: The Champion System will replace the Veteran System.
Fact: Those players who have earned more Veteran Ranks across their characters HAVE EARNED more Experience/progression.
Therefore: When 1.7 comes out (the final phase of Champion System), and Veteran Ranks are removed, *CHAMPION POINTS MUST BE GRANTED BASED ON HOW MANY VR LEVELS ARE REMOVED*.
If not, then you are literally taking away earned progression from players. Or, you can grant extra CPs in 1.6 and then not grant any extra in 1.7. But you have to grant extra CPs at SOME POINT.
Edited by onlinegamer1 on January 6, 2015 12:48PM Fact: The current post-50 Experience/progression system is called "Veteran Ranks", where each 1 million XP gains you 1 Veteran Rank.
Fact: The Champion System will replace the Veteran System.
Fact: Those players who have earned more Veteran Ranks across their characters HAVE EARNED more Experience/progression.
Therefore: When 1.7 comes out (the final phase of Champion System), and Veteran Ranks are removed, *CHAMPION POINTS MUST BE GRANTED BASED ON HOW MANY VR LEVELS ARE REMOVED*.
If not, then you are literally taking away earned progression from players. Or, you can grant extra CPs in 1.6 and then not grant any extra in 1.7. But you have to grant extra CPs at SOME POINT.
19
-
Samadhi✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Fact: ZOS has already stated they will not be granting extra Champion Points.
Fact: The Terms of Service allow them to do this, and we agreed to those Terms of Service when we began playing."If you want others to be happy, practice compassion. If you want to be happy, practice compassion." -- the 14th Dalai Lama
Wisdom is doing Now that which benefits you later.
12 -
tinythinker✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
I've heard that there is a secret achievement you can unlock by starting a new thread on this subject.Why..Why another topic...❤Experienced, new, returner?❤ Help keep ESO's community strong ᕙ༼ຈل͜ຈ༽ᕗ -- share what you love about the game, offer constructive feedback, and make friends.ʕ·ᴥ·ʔ
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Who are you in Tamriel (whether it's just your character's attitude & style or a full backstory)? - Share your Character's Story! ◔ ⌣ ◔
(And let us know 🔷What Kind of Roleplayer You Are🔷 - even if that only extends to choosing your race)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Support Mudcrab Mode for ESO (\/)!_!(\/) - part joke, part serious, all glorious! You butter be ready for this9 -
Samadhi✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭onlinegamer1 wrote: »
You claim they "must" credit us with more points simply because we have been playing longer than other players.
The Terms of Service state they are under absolutely no obligation to do so.
Can agree with the logic included in your wishful thinking, but it is still wishful thinking.Edited by Samadhi on January 6, 2015 12:55PM"If you want others to be happy, practice compassion. If you want to be happy, practice compassion." -- the 14th Dalai Lama
Wisdom is doing Now that which benefits you later.
6 -
onlinegamer1✭✭✭✭✭
✭onlinegamer1 wrote: »
You claim they "must" credit is with more points simply because we have been playing longer than other players.
The Terms of Service state they are under absolutely no obligation to do so.
Can agree with the logic included in your wishful thinking, but it is still wishful thinking.
Translation: I still can't refute the logic in the OP.10 -
Samadhi✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭onlinegamer1 wrote: »onlinegamer1 wrote: »
You claim they "must" credit is with more points simply because we have been playing longer than other players.
The Terms of Service state they are under absolutely no obligation to do so.
Can agree with the logic included in your wishful thinking, but it is still wishful thinking.
Translation: I still can't refute the logic in the OP.
Not attempting to refute the logic in the OP, personally agree that rewarding progression where it is due makes logical sense.
Pointing out the fact that we agreed when we accepted the Terms of Service that they are under no obligation to do so.
You can prove whatever you feel the need to, and I can agree with you as much as I like, it still does not actually obligate them to any course of action."If you want others to be happy, practice compassion. If you want to be happy, practice compassion." -- the 14th Dalai Lama
Wisdom is doing Now that which benefits you later.
6 -
onlinegamer1✭✭✭✭✭
✭onlinegamer1 wrote: »onlinegamer1 wrote: »
You claim they "must" credit is with more points simply because we have been playing longer than other players.
The Terms of Service state they are under absolutely no obligation to do so.
Can agree with the logic included in your wishful thinking, but it is still wishful thinking.
Translation: I still can't refute the logic in the OP.
Not attempting to refute the logic in the OP, personally agree that rewarding progression where it is due makes logical sense.
They why did you bother to post?8 -
Divinius✭✭✭✭✭
✭
He's not refuting it. He's explaining why your logic doesn't matter.onlinegamer1 wrote: »Translation: I still can't refute the logic in the OP.8 -
onlinegamer1✭✭✭✭✭
✭
He's not refuting it. He's explaining why your logic doesn't matter.onlinegamer1 wrote: »Translation: I still can't refute the logic in the OP.
Don't be ridiculous, of course it matters.8 -
Bloodfang✭✭✭✭✭onlinegamer1 wrote: »onlinegamer1 wrote: »onlinegamer1 wrote: »
You claim they "must" credit is with more points simply because we have been playing longer than other players.
The Terms of Service state they are under absolutely no obligation to do so.
Can agree with the logic included in your wishful thinking, but it is still wishful thinking.
Translation: I still can't refute the logic in the OP.
Not attempting to refute the logic in the OP, personally agree that rewarding progression where it is due makes logical sense.
They why did you bother to post?
Because everything is already set in stone, and there is no hint of them ever reverting it.
Also your topic will most likely get closed, due to "other topics already made on this subject".Edited by Bloodfang on January 6, 2015 1:00PM0 -
Samadhi✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭onlinegamer1 wrote: »onlinegamer1 wrote: »onlinegamer1 wrote: »
You claim they "must" credit is with more points simply because we have been playing longer than other players.
The Terms of Service state they are under absolutely no obligation to do so.
Can agree with the logic included in your wishful thinking, but it is still wishful thinking.
Translation: I still can't refute the logic in the OP.
Not attempting to refute the logic in the OP, personally agree that rewarding progression where it is due makes logical sense.
They why did you bother to post?
For the same reason you did: because it doesn't matter anyway."If you want others to be happy, practice compassion. If you want to be happy, practice compassion." -- the 14th Dalai Lama
Wisdom is doing Now that which benefits you later.
1 -
onlinegamer1✭✭✭✭✭
✭onlinegamer1 wrote: »onlinegamer1 wrote: »onlinegamer1 wrote: »
You claim they "must" credit is with more points simply because we have been playing longer than other players.
The Terms of Service state they are under absolutely no obligation to do so.
Can agree with the logic included in your wishful thinking, but it is still wishful thinking.
Translation: I still can't refute the logic in the OP.
Not attempting to refute the logic in the OP, personally agree that rewarding progression where it is due makes logical sense.
They why did you bother to post?
Because everything is already set in stone, and there is no hint of them ever reverting it.
Also your topic will most likely get closed, due to "other topics already made on this subject".
Both of those are patently false.5 -
nerevarine1138✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Fact: Another thread complaining about this non-issue does not make it any more valid.----
Murray?7 -
onlinegamer1✭✭✭✭✭
✭onlinegamer1 wrote: »onlinegamer1 wrote: »onlinegamer1 wrote: »
You claim they "must" credit is with more points simply because we have been playing longer than other players.
The Terms of Service state they are under absolutely no obligation to do so.
Can agree with the logic included in your wishful thinking, but it is still wishful thinking.
Translation: I still can't refute the logic in the OP.
Not attempting to refute the logic in the OP, personally agree that rewarding progression where it is due makes logical sense.
They why did you bother to post?
For the same reason you did: because it doesn't matter anyway.
That's not why I posted, so no, its not for the same reason. And as mentioned, that's ridiculous - of course it matters.6 -
Bloodfang✭✭✭✭✭onlinegamer1 wrote: »onlinegamer1 wrote: »onlinegamer1 wrote: »onlinegamer1 wrote: »
You claim they "must" credit is with more points simply because we have been playing longer than other players.
The Terms of Service state they are under absolutely no obligation to do so.
Can agree with the logic included in your wishful thinking, but it is still wishful thinking.
Translation: I still can't refute the logic in the OP.
Not attempting to refute the logic in the OP, personally agree that rewarding progression where it is due makes logical sense.
They why did you bother to post?
Because everything is already set in stone, and there is no hint of them ever reverting it.
Also your topic will most likely get closed, due to "other topics already made on this subject".
Both of those are patently false.
If they close this topic, will you give me 100k?
3 -
onlinegamer1✭✭✭✭✭
✭onlinegamer1 wrote: »onlinegamer1 wrote: »onlinegamer1 wrote: »onlinegamer1 wrote: »
You claim they "must" credit is with more points simply because we have been playing longer than other players.
The Terms of Service state they are under absolutely no obligation to do so.
Can agree with the logic included in your wishful thinking, but it is still wishful thinking.
Translation: I still can't refute the logic in the OP.
Not attempting to refute the logic in the OP, personally agree that rewarding progression where it is due makes logical sense.
They why did you bother to post?
Because everything is already set in stone, and there is no hint of them ever reverting it.
Also your topic will most likely get closed, due to "other topics already made on this subject".
Both of those are patently false.
If they close this topic, will you give me 100k?
Of course not, because it could get closed due to someone coming in and flaming or lots of other reasons.5 -
nerevarine1138✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭onlinegamer1 wrote: »onlinegamer1 wrote: »onlinegamer1 wrote: »onlinegamer1 wrote: »onlinegamer1 wrote: »
You claim they "must" credit is with more points simply because we have been playing longer than other players.
The Terms of Service state they are under absolutely no obligation to do so.
Can agree with the logic included in your wishful thinking, but it is still wishful thinking.
Translation: I still can't refute the logic in the OP.
Not attempting to refute the logic in the OP, personally agree that rewarding progression where it is due makes logical sense.
They why did you bother to post?
Because everything is already set in stone, and there is no hint of them ever reverting it.
Also your topic will most likely get closed, due to "other topics already made on this subject".
Both of those are patently false.
If they close this topic, will you give me 100k?
Of course not, because it could get closed due to someone coming in and flaming or lots of other reasons.
My vote is for it being a duplicate (triplicate, quadruplicate, quintuplicate, etc.) thread. Was there a reason you felt you couldn't post your thoughts in the existing thread(s)?----
Murray?3 -
onlinegamer1✭✭✭✭✭
✭nerevarine1138 wrote: »onlinegamer1 wrote: »onlinegamer1 wrote: »onlinegamer1 wrote: »onlinegamer1 wrote: »onlinegamer1 wrote: »
You claim they "must" credit is with more points simply because we have been playing longer than other players.
The Terms of Service state they are under absolutely no obligation to do so.
Can agree with the logic included in your wishful thinking, but it is still wishful thinking.
Translation: I still can't refute the logic in the OP.
Not attempting to refute the logic in the OP, personally agree that rewarding progression where it is due makes logical sense.
They why did you bother to post?
Because everything is already set in stone, and there is no hint of them ever reverting it.
Also your topic will most likely get closed, due to "other topics already made on this subject".
Both of those are patently false.
If they close this topic, will you give me 100k?
Of course not, because it could get closed due to someone coming in and flaming or lots of other reasons.
My vote is for it being a duplicate (triplicate, quadruplicate, quintuplicate, etc.) thread. Was there a reason you felt you couldn't post your thoughts in the existing thread(s)?
Yes.3 -
tiamak✭✭✭onlinegamer1 wrote: »Translation: I still can't refute the logic in the OP.
Let me try this: your argument fails because it is a naturalistic fallacy, i.e., you conclude some normative proposition about what ZOS must do from a set of purely descriptive statements.
You can fix this by weakening your conclusion as follows:
Therefore: When 1.7 comes out, and Veteran Ranks are removed, either CPs will be granted based on how many VR levels are removed or earned progression will be taken away from players.
This still looks like a false dilemma, i.e., there might be some third or even fourth option. But, even granted that those two are the only options, in no way can you conclude that ZOS must choose the first option.
There are some implicit premises in your argument. One possibility to fill this gap might look like this:
Fact (?): If ZOS takes earned progression away from players, then the game will be seriously damaged.
General Rule: ZOS must not do anything that does serious damage to the game.
Is this really a fact? I don't know. Is this general rule really obligatory? I don't know either. It certainly can't be found in the terms of service.
P.S.: Please don't be offended. I don't want to make fun of your anger. And I agree that taking progression away is at least risky.Edited by tiamak on January 6, 2015 1:13PM8 -
Cuyler✭✭✭✭✭
✭must? no.
should they? yes.Guild: STACK n BURN (gm) PC - NA
CP 810 18 Maxed Characters:
"How hard can u guar?" - Rafishul[/spoiler]1 -
Merlin13KAGL✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭tinythinker wrote: »
@tinythinker , it's under the Troll Skill Line.
Btw, I gave you an Awesome...only because ****ing Awesome was not an option.
Just because you don't like the way something is doesn't necessarily make it wrong...
Earn it.
IRL'ing for a while for assorted reasons, in forum, and in game.I am neither warm, nor fuzzy...
Probably has checkbox on Customer Service profile that say High Aggro, 99% immunity to BS0 -
tiamak✭✭✭While I agree that it is most plausible to assume that avoiding damage to the game has a very high priority at ZOS, I'd say that we must simply wait and see if taking away earned progression from players does damage the game. Will the majority of players leave? Or will it lead to a more balanced situation, e.g. in Cyrodiil, such that many players keep playing? Will the justice system and the possibilities of the champion system offer such a big incentive to keep playing that even those players that are mad about lost progression still keep playing? Or is there even some other option between granting CPs and taking away progression that we can't imagine now but that compensates for the loss of progression?1
-
jrgray93✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Players losing progression is unfortunate. Sadly, there is nothing that can be done about it. The champion system needs to be introduced with a level playing field. We don't know if it is properly balanced, and knowing ZOS' track record, it isn't, so it could be catastrophic if people with 5+ VR14s got a ton of points. Then again, it could be so small, it won't matter.
I guess what I'm saying is that this thread is childish, and you only hurt your case when you reply to everyone saying, "Translation: I'm eleven years old and just learned the word 'logic.'"
If you don't like it, tough. ZOS can do what they want. You only have the power to vote with your wallet. Don't like it, don't play it. That's where I'll be going if the champion system doesn't bring interesting enough game elements.Edited by jrgray93 on January 6, 2015 1:31PMEP: Slania Isara : Harambe Was an Inside Job2 -
onlinegamer1✭✭✭✭✭
✭While I agree that it is most plausible to assume that avoiding damage to the game has a very high priority at ZOS, I'd say that we must simply wait and see if taking away earned progression from players does damage the game. Will the majority of players leave? Or will it lead to a more balanced situation, e.g. in Cyrodiil, such that many players keep playing? Will the justice system and the possibilities of the champion system offer such a big incentive to keep playing that even those players that are mad about lost progression still keep playing? Or is there even some other option between granting CPs and taking away progression that we can't imagine now but that compensates for the loss of progression?
You really don't get it. Lets do a short timeline example:
1. Update 1.6 goes live, some players have 0 CPs, others 30 CPs. Also VR levels.
2. A few weeks goes by. CPs are now no longer even. Some people have many, some still have 0. New players still purchase the game and start level 1 characters.
3. Update 1.7 goes live. VR levels are removed. CPs are no where near level, and vary greatly. There are still new players buying the game making level 1 characters with 0 CPs.
4. 3 months go by. Players with lots and lots of CPs are far more powerful than players with none.
So, where is this "leveling" of the playing field? The only thing ZOS would accomplish by NOT reimbursing players for VR levels when 1.7 goes live is damaging the game, and losing revenue. There is no upside.6 -
jrgray93✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭onlinegamer1 wrote: »*snip*
You quoted the wrong person. GG.
Between the release of CPs and those future updates, larger player sample sizes will develop better impressions of the status of the system, allowing necessary balance to be made. This is assuming that is an issue at all. I'm just saying that's one way to look at it.
EP: Slania Isara : Harambe Was an Inside Job0 -
Bloodfang✭✭✭✭✭onlinegamer1 wrote: »While I agree that it is most plausible to assume that avoiding damage to the game has a very high priority at ZOS, I'd say that we must simply wait and see if taking away earned progression from players does damage the game. Will the majority of players leave? Or will it lead to a more balanced situation, e.g. in Cyrodiil, such that many players keep playing? Will the justice system and the possibilities of the champion system offer such a big incentive to keep playing that even those players that are mad about lost progression still keep playing? Or is there even some other option between granting CPs and taking away progression that we can't imagine now but that compensates for the loss of progression?
You really don't get it. Lets do a short timeline example:
1. Update 1.6 goes live, some players have 0 CPs, others 30 CPs. Also VR levels.
2. A few weeks goes by. CPs are now no longer even. Some people have many, some still have 0. New players still purchase the game and start level 1 characters.
3. Update 1.7 goes live. VR levels are removed. CPs are no where near level, and vary greatly. There are still new players buying the game making level 1 characters with 0 CPs.
4. 3 months go by. Players with lots and lots of CPs are far more powerful than players with none.
So, where is this "leveling" of the playing field? The only thing ZOS would accomplish by NOT reimbursing players for VR levels when 1.7 goes live is damaging the game, and losing revenue. There is no upside.
The way I see it players who have multiple VR14 characters won't be stopped to "grind" their way to the top. So why make it easier for them?
I've played since launch and my main is at VR12, so it's not like they are punishing their "most loyal players".3
This discussion has been closed.