We brought it down on ourselves!

Roechacca · February 2015

If it makes you feel better blaming your self , by all means .

Slurg · February 2015

Not another one of these threads, please. I am appalled that this theme keeps cropping up.

ZOS is a business. Their goal is to make money. They are not your abusive mom or spouse who beats you and tells you that you deserve it for not being good enough.

Anyone who honestly thinks that they, as a customer of a business, has somehow brought down some kind of punishment on themselves for not being a good enough customer needs to seek therapy.

Merlin13KAGL · February 2015

"We" must be on skooma. Lots of it.

In game and in forums, there are people that have contibuted useful and constructive things, there are people who have clouded things with useless and non-constructive things, and there are people who have stayed neutral / not contributed at all.

It is due to none of these people that what has happened has happened.

It's about $, first and foremost - quickest Return on Investment (in someone's mind, anyway).

There have been minor influences one way or the other, but "we" are hardly to blame for the success or failure of the entity in its current state.

The short version is, they're gonna do what they're gonna do.

They'd just better hope they've guessed right, as the "this is what our community asked for" BS is exactly that.

There is nothing to back that up, and they wouldn't if they could.

Very little of this game, one way or the other, has anything to do with what the community asked for.

Lied · February 2015

Psychobunni · February 2015

OP- I would average within my primary guild that aside from patch notes, its a 1/25 ratio of players that actually read the forums....and there are even some that outright say they don't even read patch notes.....yet their complaints are much the same in regards to changes ZOS has brought on from day 1.

Its sad, anger inducing, and causes you to question your "loyalty" to a game when the developers keep pulling the rug out from under you (the player)...worse yet when they boldly proclaim its because of "listening to the community"...but no amount of love for the Elder Scrolls history is worth stockholm/battered wife syndrome over the bad decisions they keep making.

PBpsy · February 2015

Yes. definitely our fault.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQl_4u78HFs

Snowstrider · February 2015

Becouse consoles.

eisberg · February 2015

No, the problem is the developers didn't create a game to compete with the other subscription only games in a shrinking market. The competition is tough in the subscription market, and the subscribers are being mostly held by games that have been out for a decade or more. ESO is in competition to these subscription based MMOs, and the it would have to be in a condition that these subscribers to other games would feel warrant leaving their current subscription game for, but it is hard to compete for games that have been developed on for more than a decade.

You can partially say it was the fans fault, cause when the game was first announced to be subscription only, on various gaming forums and other places, people were always talking about waiting till the game goes f2p or B2P to play the game. I was one of these people, I didn't buy this game till I saw the announcement, though I failed to look at the date for that to happen, won't subscribe to make up for the 3 weeks before it changes model. Myself and so many others knew this game would eventually change the model, just way to much evidence to show that the subscription only model is dying, and that competing for a shrinking subscriber only base was not a good idea to begin with.

in 2013, the top 10 MMOs with a subscription revenue held 80% of the industry subscription revenue, only 3 of those games were subscription only games, with WoW holding the lions share of that.

Wolfenbelle · February 2015

Audigy wrote: »

So to summarize, we are guilty for our entitlement and lack of tolerance, just as ZO is responsible for listening way too much to our concerns, especially in regards of systems that were not even on the PTS or live sever.

Not to be insulting, but the whole premise of your OP is so flawed and shows such total lack of understanding of business that I just don't know how to discuss it with you.

Let me just try to get a simple truth across to you. No customer is responsible for the business decisions of any company. The management of the company is responsible. Period. They are 100% responsible under law, under the bylaws and founding documents of the company, and in practice. Nobody puts a gun to the head of anyone and orders them to start a business. They start a business in order to make money. All companies, large and small, have a business plan that lays out a road map for how the company will operate and grow.

Here...try learning about business plans and business basics before spouting off the nonsense you did to start this thread and in subsequent posts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_plan

Roechacca · February 2015

Snowstrider wrote: »

Becouse consoles.

The only truth about this posted .

Elsonso · February 2015

I don't think that B2P was planned at launch. There is no way that they planned this transition. No one would plan to do it this way. It is rushed and disorganized. The Premium B2P was something that came up in late summer or early fall and was decided in the fall around the time of Update 5. Looking back at 2014, it is clear that B2P was not the plan all along and that, in fact, it was the second of two "plans" to modify the business model.

Dave2836 wrote: »

There is no formula for success, but there is a formula for failure: trying to please everybody all the time. The direction of the game has led an interesting path, from bugs and gold spammers to skill and character overhauls and now to the completely revamped reintroduced game.

There is something to be said about evolution, when comparatively some of the fiercest creatures to ever walk the earth evolved into KFC and Popeye's
franchises. The same dwarwinian thinking can be applied here, so the question is:

Which entity will become the chicken, the playerbase or the game?

They are interested in casual gamers, often older gamers with families, who are willing to partake in the game but are not loaded up with time to do it. They will group, but do not require it, and are primarily PVE but willing to PVP. They want to play games and they want an uncomplicated game with a low learning curve. They are willing to accept a challenging game but don't want that to block the fun, since they don't have a lot of time to play.

Oh, and where does B2P fit in? The demographic that I mention above will pay a subscription, but many in that group are too casual to justify a subscription. They would prefer to just play when they want without the hassle of activating the account each time. This may or may not be the reason for B2P, but they are not hurt by it.

In short, as long as your expectations for ESO align with what they think their target customer wants, you will be happy with the game. They do not blindly ignore all other customers, but I think they will be sensitive to changes that will be unpopular with target customers.

Snowstrider wrote: »

Becouse consoles.

BethSoft loves consoles, especially the Microsoft ones.

joshisanonymous · February 2015

Audigy wrote: »

The first question that I asked myself upon return was quite simple and still required some self critique. What did we do wrong as a community that we deserved such a harsh punishment and the knife in our all backs by ZO?

I couldn't even read past this paragraph. You're taking this way too personally.

fromtesonlineb16_ESO · February 2015

lordrichter wrote: »

BethSoft loves consoles, especially the Microsoft ones.

Where do Bethesda come into it here?

Elsonso · February 2015

fromtesonlineb16_ESO wrote: »

show previous quotes

lordrichter wrote: »

BethSoft loves consoles, especially the Microsoft ones.

Where do Bethesda come into it here?

Bethesda Softworks is the publisher and is the entity charged with sales, distribution, promotion, marketing, etc.

ZOS just makes games.

darthbelanb14_ESO · February 2015

I'm sure B2P (it's B2P, OP, not F2P,) was in the shareholder's mind from the beginning. I'm not sure why they didn't just do it then, unless it was to milk what they could to get ahead of their expenses. I'm sure there was a point in earnings where they would announce the change in model. ZOS (it's ZOS, OP, not ZO,) didn't just come up with this over the summer. Some shareholder told ZOS that the time was right to go ahead and make the announcement.

Dave2836 · February 2015

fromtesonlineb16_ESO wrote: »

show previous quotes

Dave2836 wrote: »

There is no formula for success, but there is a formula for failure: trying to please everybody all the time.

Indeed, which is why ZOS had to abandon VR, it appealed to a small minority while the majority clearly either stopped playing or quit VR grinds and leveled alts .. and if it was the latter ZOS clearly recognised that was only a short-term thing that would see far more leave a couple or so months later.

Say wha?

We have no numbers to deny nor confirm the VR crowd was the majority. If we even had to guess the ratio of numbers and the video evidence on youtube, given the fact that players could grind to Vet content inside of 48 hours, I'd say the VR crowd was the majority. But that's spreading misinformation, and some poor gullible person might believe that.

There is also no data to show VR content or lack thereof was the reason in the gain or loss of subscribership. I know some might reference all the leaving messages here on the forums but what people type and what they do are not always the same.

The only data we have to go on is that a lot of players gave feedback on the VR content and the champion system was created. That in itself is not indicative of abandoning VR content. It's about the evolution of VR content, there are new skill implementations that will impact the playstyle of anyone, they are not just changing the surface of the VR content but the core of it.

So back to the question, do you see the game evolving based on its playerbase or is the playerbase evolving from the game? I think it's the former.

Mortuum · February 2015

So, this is new tactic of Zenimax Defense Force? Now to blame players for all mistakes, lies and other fack-ups? For all broken promises, now we, players, are to be blamed yes? Damn, ZDF must be running out of ideas really...

But it is good to see they still have their Fanboi Legion, in white armors on shiny horses from cash shop.

Bloodfang · February 2015

Woah stop right there. We as a community did nothing wrong.
B2P Model was ZOS's plan ever since Beta. You'd be a fool to believe ESO wouldn't survive as a P2P. We were finally getting a good publicity and a number of players was rising fast.

About other things like Spellcrafting, Imperial City, new Zones..do you honestly believe they are not finished already? I can tell you that the Imperial City has been done more than 6 months ago, they are just saving it for DLC. The same is with other features and content.

We were paying beta test for Consoles. Signs were damn clear. Shame on them, the guys in the suits..nothing against the developers though they did an impressive job. Expect DLCs rolling out after Console Launch. When they won't need us anymore.

We as a community didn't fail. ZOS was just greedy all along. The game quality won't suffer, it's just about to get much more expensive.

rawne1980b16_ESO · February 2015

Alphashado wrote: »

This is likely what they think: "WTF is wrong with these people? They begged us and demanded a change to the VR system and now they are all going crazy telling us how much they hate the changes".

To be fair, we begged them to get rid of the VR system.

It was hated right from the start and it did cause people to leave.

VR is still there so some folk won't be happy. Returning players I know have already moved on again.

That said, there are some Elder Scrolls fans that don't think this is anything like an Elder Scrolls game, me included. It's missing far too much, specifically 2 guilds central to Elder Scrolls.

We had updates like Craglorn quite a few of us didn't want. People wanted spell crafting, housing, Dark Brotherhood, Thieves Guild etc....

What we got was content that's never been so much as mentioned in any Elder Scrolls game ever.

We know it's an MMO and it's bound to have new content and expanded lore but, as Elder Scrolls fans, we wanted central content first. To be perfectly honest, things like DB should have been in it right from the start. Of course it was going to annoy some Elder Scrolls fans.

And then we have some MMO fans that got annoyed. Phasing screwed with grouping. Once someone had done certain content they were invisible to other people in their group and couldn't help them with it. That alone caused some people to quit.

Some people don't like certain aspect of the game. It's not to say it's a bad game but ZOS have made bad decisions that annoyed a few people.

Some people love what's happening in 1.6 while some people hate it. Whether it's a hit on consoles or not I don't know. All I do know for sure is a few people will quit, some will play for free and not bother subbing and some will carry on as normal.

nimander99 · February 2015

This is pure fantasy... to peddle the idea that a long term business model is the fault of the subscribers of the game. IMHO this will be excellent for the community at large, every MMO I have been a part of that has adjusted their business model to a F2P or B2P model has not only 'saved' the game but made it a financial competitor. Cooler heads must prevail! Take a deep breath, step back and re-examine the path forward with an open mind. As an aside I bet we see DLC's immediately upon live of Unlimited, I've never seen an MMO change business models without having a backlog of content to pump out in the following months... ESO Lives!!!!!!!!!!

SgtPepperUK · February 2015

Sorry OP but that attitude is what made the community what it is.

Some people suggested, and others supported, a more traditional auction house might be better than guild stores - they got set upon and told they just wanted to make the game a WoW clone. Also WoW apparently invented auction houses.

Some (myself included) pointed out it would have been nice to have been given the dog that was given away for the first few days of the Steam release for being loyal subscribers - we were called entitled and that we wanted something for nothing.

Some people complained about the numerous bugs - they were told deal with it, it's normal and to be expected. Oh, and that it was all our fault for not going on the PTS.

Some people struggled with Craglorn due to phasing issues making grouping difficult and a messed up group finder that did nothing to alleviate it - that was their own fault as surely anyone can pull any number of friends from their backside at any given moment (friends who are on the exact same point in the quest too) and if they can't then MMOs are obviously not for them.

Some people posted about the lack of content updates, as in actual playable content - told they're ungrateful and that sizeable patch notes, consisting largely of bug fixes, animation changes and skill rebalances, meant ZOS had added more content in the first year than most MMOs had in five years.

Some wanted some real endgame and not to get to 50 and for endgame being to do it all over again - Like guild stores, VR = better because WoW doesn't have it which means we needed VR so ESO wouldn't be WoW. And CP will be even better as WoW doesn't have that either.

And now this, yep, it's the fault the players that ESO has had to go B2P. Poor ZOS, they didn't want to but because we couldn't just praise them for everything they had no choice.

WraithAzraiel · February 2015

Audigy wrote: »

Over the past few weeks, a lot has changed in the ESO universe. Lots of people canceled their subs over the F2P announcement, others might have returned and again others like me just did nothing and gave it some thought while sun bathing.

The first question that I asked myself upon return was quite simple and still required some self critique. What did we do wrong as a community that we deserved such a harsh punishment and the knife in our all backs by ZO?

First I tried to blame us for the lack of support, but then again this forum always had some decent discussions going and a lot of people kept playing even though the client still lacks the multi core threading, while lots of features like Justice, Spellcrafting, new solo zones are still not even close to implementation.

Then again I was looking back at the reasons why so much content didn't come and I found someone responsible for it, us! How often did ZO announce something new and parts of the community had nothing better to do than trashing it.

A good example is the justice system. Right after its announcement several people created threads like "oh no, now I can die - oh no, now the merchant can die...". This caused a huge delay in the justice system, such a big delay that we still wont have the pvp part in 1.6. Its fully understandable to me that players were offended by these forum threads where others denied them their content, so they left.

Another example is the CS. It was supposed to be a fresh start, but a lot of people didn't understand this and demanded a special snowflake touch. Therefore the CS had to be rebalanced and re-tuned so that it was delayed even further while putting new players in such a big disadvantage that they would never pay a sub for outdated content.

There are many more examples to this, but the truth is we as a community have failed as much as ZO did as a company. Our constant fighting over content updates, the constant "no I don't want this guy to have this...., no I don't want pvp since I don't pvp, no I don't want group content as I don't group..., I am subbed since day one so I am special ..." made it impossible for ZO to really develop the game that they once had planned. Besides that we were very hostile towards new gamers or those who might not share the same ideology about MMOs.

If you compare this to for instance the old days at Ultima, then such hostility just didn't exist and because of this that game is still alive and kicking while ESO is just like SWTOR on its way down.

While this may sound harsh to some people at this forum, it is what it is. The inexperience of ZO in regards of MMO design and our own entitlement to have more than everyone else, to be more important than the other gamer ruined ESO so that we all, the gamers, but also the Devs have to touch our own noses here.

We brought this down on ourselves guys, learn from it and be more kind to others in your next MMO. Accept that not all content might be for you, accept that there are group and solo gamers, just like there are pve and pvp players.

Don't be so selfish and only think about your own good, think about the others too because this is what a healthy community does.

Cheers!

The 27 LoL's is clearly indicative of just how toxic today's gaming community is compared to the days when online gaming was just coming onto the scene.

So inundated with the "roflcopter pwnzors noobdestructicators hur hur Ima t-bag EVERTHING EVER CUZ I RULE" generation alongside the assumed anonymity of "teh internetz" that everybody is completely okay with being selfish little d-bags.

These are the same types of people that will whip out their cell phones and record a crime in progress instead of calling 911.

This is just another side effect of generations getting progressively more awful.

I blame hippies and the communists. Oh and Dr Spock and his "guides" for parenting.

Gix · February 2015

This is a really odd angle of thinking about it.

We're customers. We're gamers. As gamers, we're passionate about the things we love and hate. As customers, we expect a certain amount of quality and quantity for our purchases and constant support.

This game didn't go F2P because "we failed". A bad game isn't bad because of the players (I'm looking at you, FF13); it's bad because the developers didn't do a good job.

I'm pretty sure F2P didn't happen for ESO because they couldn't make a sub-only system work. They just wanted to appeal to a broader audience (consoles, freebies, etc)... and this was planned months in advance; most likely even before the game went gold.

It's practically an art form so that's open to interpretation but, at the end of the day, they're still trying to run a business. If they want to make money in the long term, no amount of support from the players will make it happen; they need to bring that themselves.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO · February 2015

In what world can it be our fault that ZOS is inexperienced/incompetent/dishonest ?

This is honestly the most supportive community I've ever seen in 16 years of MMO gaming. We paid a subscription when the game was in its growing pain phase, we fought the bad reviews by providing facts, we took in new players and kindly answered all their questions.
We did more than should be expected from a community.

Some things that got trashed got trashed for a reason. Just look at the aoe target capped that has ruined PvP for months now. Experienced players warned the devs it was bad and they finaly realised it and are doing an half hearted change to attempt and fix it in 1.6.

And for that matter, we're not trashing hard enough.
Eve Online tried to add a cosmetic cash shop and that community trashed the devs hard enough to make them back away from their plans.

This b2p change is simply unacceptable:

1. It's not for the community, those playing were content paying a sub and it was a selling point at launch. It's bait and switch and false advertising.
2. It will bring in less revenue and will shift the devs focus from making a great game to releasing stuff on the cash store often enough to not lose their job.
3. And it is NOT for the consoles as those guys have already proven their ability to pay subscriptions and those that would want to play an MMO already pay xbox live/psn for their other games.

This is either a misguided attempt at handling an MMO like a single player game or it is a shortsighted attempt at making a cash grab that won't be worth it.
Either ways, it's a mistake and dishonest. We should take up the pitchforks and torches.

eisberg · February 2015

nah, it is ZOS's fault. What they did wrong is release a game that was in no shape to compete with a shrinking customer base of subscribers. This made it so that they had to rely on taking players away from their other subscription games that have been out for more than a decade, games that had a decade or more of polish, more content added, and loyalty by the subscriber for being subscribed for so long. ZOS was foolish to actually believe they had something special to compete and take customers away. Where as they should have done B2P or F2P from the start, which is a Market that is growing faster than the shrinking of the subscription market. Subscription only is for the old dogs, the new puppies have to be extremely special and nearly perfect to actually compete with the old dogs.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO · February 2015

You really need to stop believing this.
If we had a drought and someone were to hand you statistic about how much people drink per day, you'd say people are just less thirsty.

A market is not something with fixed boundaries. People pay when they have something to pay. Less sub mmos are being released and some that were subed went f2p or closed down, hence, the overall revenue is shrinking.
That's all there is to it.

Digiman · February 2015

Audigy wrote: »

Over the past few weeks, a lot has changed in the ESO universe. Lots of people canceled their subs over the F2P announcement, others might have returned and again others like me just did nothing and gave it some thought while sun bathing.

The first question that I asked myself upon return was quite simple and still required some self critique. What did we do wrong as a community that we deserved such a harsh punishment and the knife in our all backs by ZO?

First I tried to blame us for the lack of support, but then again this forum always had some decent discussions going and a lot of people kept playing even though the client still lacks the multi core threading, while lots of features like Justice, Spellcrafting, new solo zones are still not even close to implementation.

Then again I was looking back at the reasons why so much content didn't come and I found someone responsible for it, us! How often did ZO announce something new and parts of the community had nothing better to do than trashing it.

A good example is the justice system. Right after its announcement several people created threads like "oh no, now I can die - oh no, now the merchant can die...". This caused a huge delay in the justice system, such a big delay that we still wont have the pvp part in 1.6. Its fully understandable to me that players were offended by these forum threads where others denied them their content, so they left.

Another example is the CS. It was supposed to be a fresh start, but a lot of people didn't understand this and demanded a special snowflake touch. Therefore the CS had to be rebalanced and re-tuned so that it was delayed even further while putting new players in such a big disadvantage that they would never pay a sub for outdated content.

There are many more examples to this, but the truth is we as a community have failed as much as ZO did as a company. Our constant fighting over content updates, the constant "no I don't want this guy to have this...., no I don't want pvp since I don't pvp, no I don't want group content as I don't group..., I am subbed since day one so I am special ..." made it impossible for ZO to really develop the game that they once had planned. Besides that we were very hostile towards new gamers or those who might not share the same ideology about MMOs.

If you compare this to for instance the old days at Ultima, then such hostility just didn't exist and because of this that game is still alive and kicking while ESO is just like SWTOR on its way down.

While this may sound harsh to some people at this forum, it is what it is. The inexperience of ZO in regards of MMO design and our own entitlement to have more than everyone else, to be more important than the other gamer ruined ESO so that we all, the gamers, but also the Devs have to touch our own noses here.

We brought this down on ourselves guys, learn from it and be more kind to others in your next MMO. Accept that not all content might be for you, accept that there are group and solo gamers, just like there are pve and pvp players.

Don't be so selfish and only think about your own good, think about the others too because this is what a healthy community does.

Cheers!

It's ironic how you speak of entilement.

First off the B2P scheme is no where near on the same level as SWTOR F2P where they just ignored all there preffered customers especially those that had subcribed since launch and placed heavy restriction on other stuff to force you to sub.

There is no restrictions, its if you bought the game you own it. If you support us with a subscription you will get some nice fun benefits.

Nothing. The community didn't fail them, ZoS was new and undertook a more heavier task then needed. Since then they have been busy reworking designs that were brought up since beta in order to make the game more appealing.

Currently the number one reason why people left wasn't because the game was going to B2P, it was because they were practically paying $60 on top of subscription for a bug filled unbalanced beta test.

You saw what happened when ZoS announced the console launch? The community saved them from making a huge financial mistake that would be been the death blow of this game series.

Stop saying the community failed, when in fact it has helped ZoS improve so much. The game is getting better and for every 1 person who leaves the game now 10 more will buy and fill the gap.

Then when the game becomes moderately popular those people who left thinking B2P was mess will come back and realize it wasn't without the need of having to pump $15 first to find out.

eisberg · February 2015

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

You really need to stop believing this.
If we had a drought and someone were to hand you statistic about how much people drink per day, you'd say people are just less thirsty.

A market is not something with fixed boundaries. People pay when they have something to pay. Less sub mmos are being released and some that were subed went f2p or closed down, hence, the overall revenue is shrinking.
That's all there is to it.

Yup those MMOs moved away from subscription only because the market has changed. More and more consumers prefer free to play or buy to play then subscription. there is less and less subscribers because people prefer not to subscribe in the first place. sorry but you thing you say is not backed up by actual history of of what is happening to MMOs and the consumers changing and what they actually want

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO · February 2015

eisberg wrote: »

show previous quotes

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

You really need to stop believing this.
If we had a drought and someone were to hand you statistic about how much people drink per day, you'd say people are just less thirsty.

A market is not something with fixed boundaries. People pay when they have something to pay. Less sub mmos are being released and some that were subed went f2p or closed down, hence, the overall revenue is shrinking.
That's all there is to it.

Yup those MMOs moved away from subscription only because the market has changed. More and more consumers prefer free to play or buy to play then subscription. there is less and less subscribers because people prefer not to subscribe in the first place. sorry but you thing you say is not backed up by actual history of of what is happening to MMOs and the consumers changing and what they actually want

You really don't see the full picture.
Every single mmorpg that did a switch is doing worse revenue wise after the switch than before. All it gets is a second surge in popularity that lasts a few months, then it's over. Even swtor is not making it and losing revenue despite using all the tricks in the book.

There will always be more people that want stuff for free, but they don't matter since those people don't pay. It's always been like that and the market has not changed.

What has changed, however, is that investors backing up publishers/studios have understood they could have a faster ROI by using that second locust surge that occur at the switch. They can then moving on to other projects and leave the games to interns charged to fill the cash shop.
The fact there still are many people subscribing at the launch of every single game is a proof that people are still willing to pay a subscription, just that games don't let them. Either by not being worth it, or by switching ot another model.

Games are not competing over a limited pool of "subscribers". Each game suposedly have a combination of unique selling proposition that puts it in its own niche.
As an illustration, for ESO, it is the ES lore, the solo friendliness, it's active combat, AvA, not having a cash shop and soon being alone on xbox one.

It doesn't have to compete with WoW for subscribers because people interested in WoW aren't interested in ESO and vice versa. The same for Eve Online. All three games are targeted at very different audiences.
All games can grow at the same time and they won't harm each other.

Faugaun · February 2015

Kaliki wrote: »

@Audigy
I think you are taking the forums way too seriously.

You honestly believe that masses of people quit the game because of what is going on here? People who want to interact in a friendly environment do so in-game, within their guild and not here.

Plus, the rebalance of the CS happened before they announced the 30 CP thing. So no correlation there. And do you really think it is too much to ask for gratification for progress that will be deleted (70 CP with no deletion of VR is not what anybody asked for)? Do you think it is right that ZOS constantly announces sth as a new great thing while completely silent about the fact that it is a major screwover?

If ZOS staff care at all about the forum, they have brought the vile atmosphere on themselves. Their latest PR posts have been insulting with their vagueness, saying nothing at all while trying to sell something to us with no valid arguments for it.

But I guess I am asking the wrong person. You would probably take a reset to zero if it was for the good of the game, right?

I would take a reset to zero for the good of the game...but it would need to be a very compelling explanation why that was needed. Loss of power but still the ability to do content that you were previously doing (just not as easily) is hardly a reset to 0.