The 1.6 rebalancing/relaunching/releveling will HAPPEN AGAIN SOON.

Grao · February 2015

badmojo wrote: »

olemanwinter wrote: »

badmojo wrote: »

You don't get it.

Of course there will be an in-balance, and of course it'll be wider than now. It'll be wider because it requires more time, like adding more VR ranks would take more time and make the in-balance even wider than it is now.

The hypothetical part is that an inbalance like this will drive the game into the ground, requiring a "relaunch". The 1.6 changes aren't going into effect because there was an inbalance between new players and vets.

No, it's you who doesn't get it.

The game is going B2P because it failed financially to sustain itself with subscriptions.

It failed financially because there was such little end-game content that powerful vets blew through it and new players generally quit upon encountering the grind from VR1-14.

The reason the game was relaunched along side the switch to B2P was to rectify the problems that caused it to financially fail to begin with.

You couldn't be any more oblivious if you tried.

And you couldn't be any more insulting if you tried.

Where's your proof that the game failed financially? Are you an insider at ZOS?

You can't pull things out of nowhere and act like they're facts.

Well, the only reason to change payment system is if the first one was not meeting ends need. ESO was an extremely expensive game to produce and the financial results were like found lacking quite a bit, even if only because the game was released too soon and with too many bugs which in turn cause a portion of the gaming community to turn its back on the game.

This relaunch is an attempt to get those that lost interest in the game due to bugs and balance issues back on top of attracting the FTP crowd. Unfortunatly that first group will find the game in a similar situation to when they dropped the subscription. Four classes in which 2 are absurdly dominant over then other two, bugs and no new playable content.

PvP seems to be a little better on the PTS, less laggy, but we will only know for sure once it comes to Live.

Ethona · February 2015

It's my opinion as follow...

CP ... In 2 or 3 months everyone will regret it was ever put into ESO. Those that think it's a great idea simply don't understand the kind of power struggles it will cause.

You're a tank with 0 to 100 CP, your dps in the party has a mix bag of CP but not much really, and the only healer you were able to get has 1000 or more CP.

Every trash pull...
Every Boss pull...

Your healer puts out such high threat from all those CP that you as a tank or the dps could never keep the mobs/boss off the healer.

The healer struggles to push your party though, to stay alive, and the rest of her party struggles to keep everything off the healer.

In the end this isn't fun and the dungeon or trial group falls apart ... everyone hangs their heads and throws up their fist of hate!

Make a new char and level it up to 10 with 3600 CP spent. You will go into that dungeon or that PVP with 100 times if not more power than anyone else that doesn't have that kind of CP such as new players. How are those new players going to tank for that guy in the dungeon or go against that guy in PVP? Go on and think about it and tell me how... END GAME simple as that folks

You see, this exactly what the CP system will bring to the table! Open your eyes people and see just how horrible it will be as the days and months and year come to a past for this game. CP should have never been put into this game much as VR should have never been put into this game. It's too late now, the team at ZOS is young, and they're trying to make this first online game of theirs works. I feel sorry for them on one hand while on the other I just want to be like, you're killing your game you amateurs.

I really wish ZOS the best of luck with this, and I'll play this game till it just simply can't be played anymore. However, CP will prove ZOS wrong again. a year from now there will be a core grp of folks with max CP, we all k now it to be true, and those players are going to roll everyone else in pvp ect... and the truth of how CP ruin the game will finally be accepted.

Till that time though let's all keep having fun ..

And that's my opinion of course hehe.

Ethona · February 2015

Iluvrien wrote: »

olsborg wrote: »

What do you do then? Sorry just had to ask.

To the OP, yes I agree, im worried that the cp system will bring this game to its end.

No problem, it is a fair question.

We quest, we run dungeons, we play alts, we RP and we help the newer members of the guild (though there haven't been many of those for a long time).

olemanwinter wrote: »

Well, me too. And I said so at the end of the post. So, I think maybe you didn't read it. But that's okay.

I did, but since your statement at the end of the post didn't invalidate the initial question (hint: your post was a bit long and discursive to render the initial question rhetorical) I decided to answer it too. Is this a problem?

A guild that quests, runs dungeons, along with the other you mention ... together? I have been through so many guilds in this game that were completely useless ... guilds with nearly 500 players and around 50 to 100 online at all times of the day that doesn't talk to each other, run quest or dungeons together, or anything that is consider to be a guild. Do your kind of guild really exist? Are you NA or EU? I play both!

Either way, keep having fun and being a true guild!

kongkim · February 2015

Haha @OP you talk about how unfriendly and discouraged this game is to new player

LOL.. think someone never played EVE Online :P This game is easy and not in anyway hard to new player and wont be after 1.6

There will be a diffrent between player that have alot of CP and not, and there should be.. But ofc. there need to be some balance. but it will come over time as its something then need to test for a long time.

But you sound like a doom say and that is really out of order.

olemanwinter · February 2015

kongkim wrote: »

This game is easy and not in anyway hard to new player and wont be after 1.6

If by "the game" you mean defeating NPCs in quests, then yeah, it's super-duper easy.

If you mean competing against min/max fotm builds on the "blessed classes" in pvp, or trying to get in a competent end-game trials and DSA guild, then I strongly disagree.

You think it's hard to get a good group of people for Vet DSA now?

Wait until the people with 3000CP won't run it with those with only 1000CP and those won't run it with freshly leveled Vets.

I stand by my statement that LOGICALLY the very changes they are pushing through right now prove there is a problem. And that the changes themselves do not solve the problem but actually make it worse. Therefore, whatever symptoms exist now that they are trying to cure will exist again later.

Unless the plan all along was to go P2P > B2P > F2P > P2W.

In which case, there is no "problem" causing all the changes, but I'm still right because it's all going to happen again.

Either way you look at it logically, we will be back here again soon!

Alphashado · February 2015

There is plenty of speculation to go around, but the details surrounding this particular transition to B2P are unlike any other MMO that made the switch. The giant X factor with this transition is consoles.

So it probably wasn't as cut and dry as them ditching subs because they weren't making money from them. It's more likely a decision based on console players as an entirely different demographic, and what zos percieves as more profitable. There is a diference between not making money and simply wanting MORE money.

There are also many rumors surrounding a potential breakdown in contract negotiations with one or both of the consoles and subscriptions.

So the idea that ESO went B2P because they were losing money may not apply here.

olemanwinter · February 2015

Alphashado wrote: »

There is plenty of speculation to go around, but the details surrounding this particular transition to B2P are unlike any other MMO that made the switch. The giant X factor with this transition is consoles.

So it probably wasn't as cut and dry as them ditching subs because they weren't making money from them. It's more likely a decision based on console players as an entirely different demographic, and what zos percieves as more profitable. There is a diference between not making money and simply wanting MORE money.

There are also many rumors surrounding a potential breakdown in contract negotiations with one or both of the consoles and subscriptions.

So the idea that ESO went B2P because they were losing money may not apply here.

All fair points. But you still can't have it both ways. They always knew they were going to release it on consoles.

So either they went B2P because it didn't meet their financial needs/desires/etc. (I can tell you in the business world making 2 dollars when you could be making 4 is almost the same as loosing $2)...... OR they lied the whole time.

Either way, it logically follows we shall return to this moment in the not too distant future.

Iluvrien · February 2015

Ethona wrote: »

A guild that quests, runs dungeons, along with the other you mention ... together? I have been through so many guilds in this game that were completely useless ... guilds with nearly 500 players and around 50 to 100 online at all times of the day that doesn't talk to each other, run quest or dungeons together, or anything that is consider to be a guild. Do your kind of guild really exist? Are you NA or EU? I play both!

Either way, keep having fun and being a true guild!

We do! Or, I now should say more accurately, we did. We stayed active by staying small and by being specific. I think our membership topped out at 53 in total and we work on the the premise that your main has primarily to be a magicka user (Sorcerer or Templar).That meant that there was very little lurking in the guild and so we could actively approach the activities I mentioned on a one-to-one basis (looking directly at which players wanted to do what and so on).

Our GM went from mostly-absent to utterly-absent and the amount of time it took ESO CS to reassign leadership (and the ability to promote players etc.) took a toll on our numbers, my move to Japan (so I couldn't keep on at CS about the transition) and the B2P announcement didn't help either.

So now, I would classify us as fallen. Those few of us who remain are looking at ways to rebuild our services and our user base. We are on EU, by the way.

kongkim · February 2015

olemanwinter wrote: »

Alphashado wrote: »

There is plenty of speculation to go around, but the details surrounding this particular transition to B2P are unlike any other MMO that made the switch. The giant X factor with this transition is consoles.

So it probably wasn't as cut and dry as them ditching subs because they weren't making money from them. It's more likely a decision based on console players as an entirely different demographic, and what zos percieves as more profitable. There is a diference between not making money and simply wanting MORE money.

There are also many rumors surrounding a potential breakdown in contract negotiations with one or both of the consoles and subscriptions.

So the idea that ESO went B2P because they were losing money may not apply here.

All fair points. But you still can't have it both ways. They always knew they were going to release it on consoles.

So either they went B2P because it didn't meet their financial needs/desires/etc. (I can tell you in the business world making 2 dollars when you could be making 4 is almost the same as loosing $2)...... OR they lied the whole time.

Either way, it logically follows we shall return to this moment in the not too distant future.

BTW. can you show me where they said they never would go F2P or B2P?
And its not a lie but a change in business plan. And really so the *** what. what was there before is still there.

badmojo · February 2015

olemanwinter wrote: »

badmojo wrote: »

And you couldn't be any more insulting if you tried.

No, I probably could. You said I don't "get it". But you are oblivious. Not sure what type of bouquet of flowers and chocolates you expected in reply.

Again, showing you are kind of out of touch with reality.

badmojo wrote: »

Where's your proof that the game failed financially? Are you an insider at ZOS?

You can't pull things out of nowhere and act like they're facts.

Well, again, lets try some logic on for size.

They said they had no plans to end P2P. So EITHER they lied the entire time OR their business model failed.

Either way, the last 12 months happened. Any set of environmental conditions or motivations that led us from last April to today still exist. The changes did nothing to adjust any of that.

So, where are we headed from here? It's pretty obvious.

Now, maybe the plan all along is to go from P2P to B2P to F2P to P2W. Maybe that is the true business model.

So, perhaps instead of saying the P2P model failed I should say the P2P model was """no longer generating sufficient revenue""".

Same thing. A reduction in revenue inspires a change to achieve greater revenue. It's semantics.

No, that's not proof of anything.

You're making conclusions based on your assumptions.

I'm not saying this is the reason they went to B2P, but it's a theory, what if they went b2p because microsoft wouldn't wave the requirement for xbox live?

How can you be so sure they couldn't make money off subscriptions? If one way makes more money than another, they're probably going to go that way, regardless of how much profits they are currently making.

You assume way too much, and then act all arrogant and insulting when I dare to question your many assumptions.

Nyteshade · February 2015

k2blader wrote: »

I am curious how long it'll take the hardcore players to amass enough CPs to dominate in PvP. Although there's enough easy domination now from level difference (VR14 vs lower VR level) it's still "manageable" in the sense that a decently played, smart lower VR level will still be able to survive most typical group encounters.

But with vet level disparities *plus* CP disparities, things will get painful in PvP for those who can't grind several hours per day. PvP won't have a smidgen of skill. It'll be about how fast can a hardcore smoosh a non-hardcore.

This. I'm actually thinking of always keeping a non vet character around for when I feel like pvping. I just don't have the time to grind out VR and CP and keep up with the power creep in this game. I bought this game when I heard that VR was going away.

Gyudan · February 2015

Audigy wrote: »

olemanwinter wrote: »

They underestimated how long it would take players to get to VR14. They underestimated how long it would take players to finish content. They underestimated how quickly players would complete trials. There is a pattern here.

They actually did not underestimate it, as it takes several months to get to Rank 14 legally. What they underestimated was the sheer amount of exploit willing people, players that destroy their own game by using grind spots for massive XP.

Like when @ZOS went live with a dupe bug that ruined the economy and only got "fixed" by removing the auto-stacking of items in guild banks?
It doesn't take several months to reach VR14. Getting there only by questing takes ~200 hours and grinding is always faster. It took @ZOS weeks to react against the most famous OP grind spots in Craglorn (anomalies, Hircine's, repeatable bosses, Rkunndzelft, ...) and at that point it's not right to just blame the players.

Egonieser · February 2015

mika_hr1eb17_ESO wrote: »

GW2, 2nd most successful MMO in the west.

Popular enough?

EvE, you can get competitive quite fast

EvE is a entirely different type of game. Keep that out of this discussion and EVE doesn't have more than 35k active players at any given time. And that's bollocks, EVE is the exact opposite - it is a game where you can become competitive ONLY after a very long time, hence any skill takes a set amount of TIME to advance.
(Unless you compete against another noob)

If someone is literally maxed out and it took them lets say.. 2 years, you will not be competitive until you spend 2 years yourself. You won't dance with the big dogs until you become a big dog yourself and invest just as much time and effort as they did.

GW2? LOL! Alright mate. Shows how much you've been playing it

Or.. your understanding what competitive means.

olemanwinter · February 2015

kongkim wrote: »

And its not a lie but a change in business plan. And really so the *** what. what was there before is still there.

Deleting this post entirely myself since Zos decided to edit it in such a way that it looks like I'm replying directly to this quote.

I cannot understand the post I quoted. Therefore I cannot reply in any way that stays on topic.

kevlarto_ESO · February 2015

Yes

I am here to play a game, it's not perfect but I am here to have fun, I have a little concern about the power gap the cp system will cause but no one will have 3000 cp at launch, people level at different rates, kinda like if I am level ten worrying about level 30's running around big power gap there also.

olemanwinter · February 2015

kevlarto_ESO wrote: »

Yes

I am here to play a game, it's not perfect but I am here to have fun, I have a little concern about the power gap the cp system will cause but no one will have 3000 cp at launch, people level at different rates, kinda like if I am level ten worrying about level 30's running around big power gap there also.

I can appreciate that. However, the power gap I'm describing is so much greater than that between 10 and 30 that it's almost incomparable. I would strongly suggest everyone go on the PTS with a friend and duel with one utilizing 70 CP and another utilizing 1000 CP.

Of course, that disparity will not exist at launch, but it won't take very long. It will be a bigger problem than you think...faster than you think.

kongkim · February 2015

olemanwinter wrote: »

kongkim wrote: »

And its not a lie but a change in business plan. And really so the *** what. what was there before is still there.

Ugh. Your post is barely readable. "What was there before is still there". What does that even mean?

That's actually exactly the point I'm making. What was there before (grind and too much disparity between levels) is still there. You hid the nail on the head. Although quite by accident I think.

I hesitate to respond to someone who's reading level is so obviously lower than junior high school.

I never said they lied. I said EITHER the revenue was low requiring a change in business plan OR they planned to do so all along which means they lied.

EITHER...OR

In either case, nothing in the game itself got fixed. So, EITHER they newly relaunched ESO will fail to deliver expected revenue just as it did the first time OR they already plan to go F2P (and then P2W) after they exhaust whatever market there is for people willing to purchase the game without a sub fee.

EITHER...OR

Now, I'm not going to respond to you again, because frankly if I wanted to debate with someone of your intellect I'd go discuss this with my 7 year old after he gets done reading Curious George.

Buhbye now.

Maybe you need to learn not to attack the person then..
And you still didn't answer where they said it would never go F2P or B2P?

Anvos · February 2015

Honestly I think people are overreacting as high champ points will take a while, plus if ZoS wanted to level the playing field at some point it wouldn't sound that hard for them to say make it so the first time new accounts complete main story, silver, gold, or an adventure area they get a one time champ point bonus.

Also I'm sort of in the minority who want both vet and champ system to stay so one functions for gear, crafting, and such while the other functions as an account legacy system.

Regardless of what end game system you use I have a feeling min/maxers will always find someway to say must be x, with y, and z equipment.

As for the issue of why the switch of model, I'm currently more inclined to believe the argument that they realized forced sub would turn off many console people than the sky is falling game was on verge of lack of funding people.

Mathius_Mordred · February 2015

I expect someone who has spent more time in the game than me to be far more powerful, if he isn't then he's doing something wrong. If he has worked hard to gain his CP, to make a great build by investing shed loads of time then of course he's going to be more powerful than a new level 50 player. I draw the line at being able to buy that power from a store, the minute that happens I'm off.

mika_hr1eb17_ESO · February 2015

Egonieser wrote: »

mika_hr1eb17_ESO wrote: »

GW2, 2nd most successful MMO in the west.

Popular enough?

EvE, you can get competitive quite fast

EvE is a entirely different type of game. Keep that out of this discussion and EVE doesn't have more than 35k active players at any given time. And that's bollocks, EVE is the exact opposite - it is a game where you can become competitive ONLY after a very long time, hence any skill takes a set amount of TIME to advance.
(Unless you compete against another noob)

If someone is literally maxed out and it took them lets say.. 2 years, you will not be competitive until you spend 2 years yourself. You won't dance with the big dogs until you become a big dog yourself and invest just as much time and effort as they did.

GW2? LOL! Alright mate. Shows how much you've been playing it Or.. your understanding what competitive means.

Lol, now i get why youre advocating getting a crutch

And funny, both games are much more successful than ESO so far

But i guess ESO will be the game you go to if you need a crutch

Matuzes · February 2015

I must sadly admit that @olemanwinter has a point.
ESO have great skills, equipment and crafting system, that allows new players to keep up reasonably fast with gear and builds, and they need only learn how game works to be competitive. In few months from now, this gap between new and old players will be big and with every passing day will be bigger. Champion System isn't bad, because we need some king of progression, but right now is far more powerful then it should be.

Anyone remember Age of Conan? Alternate Advancement (exact copy of CP) was in my opinion that last nail.

olemanwinter · February 2015

Mathius_Mordred wrote: »

I expect someone who has spent more time in the game than me to be far more powerful, if he isn't then he's doing something wrong. If he has worked hard to gain his CP, to make a great build by investing shed loads of time then of course he's going to be more powerful than a new level 50 player. I draw the line at being able to buy that power from a store, the minute that happens I'm off.

Nobody is suggesting that existing players shouldn't be "more powerful" than a new player. SHEESH.

Can you people not understand the issue is the DEGREE OF THAT DIFFERENCE.

Everything is always either all or nothing. If someone says "the difference is too great", you get replies like this one.

"Geee, I think you should be more powerful if you've been playing the game longer. Golly."

or my favorite from earlier.

"What do you want us to stop leveling when we leave the prison at Coldharbor? Huh?"

If I've said it once I've said it a hundred times by now. GO PLAY THE PTS with 70 or fewer CP against someone 1000 CP or greater. GO DO THAT, then talk about how you "think existing players should be stronger".

We aren't talking about making players equal. We are talking about LIMITING how great the difference can be.

It's absurd to suggest that there should be NO limit to the difference between a new and fully maxed character. Is that what you are suggesting? If not, then by default we must be having a discussion of to WHAT DEGREE the difference should be.

In that context, I suggest again that you go test out the PTS and experience for yourself if that degree of difference seems reasonable.

Grao · February 2015

Matuzes wrote: »

I must sadly admit that @olemanwinter has a point.
ESO have great skills, equipment and crafting system, that allows new players to keep up reasonably fast with gear and builds, and they need only learn how game works to be competitive. In few months from now, this gap between new and old players will be big and with every passing day will be bigger. Champion System isn't bad, because we need some king of progression, but right now is far more powerful then it should be.

Anyone remember Age of Conan? Alternate Advancement (exact copy of CP) was in my opinion that last nail.

I maintain that the problem is not the champion system, that is a very slow progression. The problem right now is that we have two progressions simultaneously deployed when they were never meant to coexists. Once the Veteran Ranks are eliminated the distance between level 50 players and level 50 players that have champion points will be considerably smaller then it is at the moment, fixing most of the problems mentioned before.

Unfortunately we have no way of knowing when the Veteran System will be finally removed. Zenimax has failed to do so or even explain how they intend to do it, which leads me to believe they have no clue how to do it.

Seraphyel · February 2015

badmojo wrote: »

You don't get it.

Of course there will be an in-balance, and of course it'll be wider than now. It'll be wider because it requires more time, like adding more VR ranks would take more time and make the in-balance even wider than it is now.

The hypothetical part is that an inbalance like this will drive the game into the ground, requiring a "relaunch". The 1.6 changes aren't going into effect because there was an inbalance between new players and vets. You can't point to 1.6 and the game going B2P as examples of how the champion system is going to play out.

Going back to my original point, all you have with this thread is "look guys! the higher rank can kill me! unfair!" and if that's what we're trying to stop here then why bother progressing past the cold harbor prison at all? There's always going to be someone with more time and more power. That's the point of the games design.

No, you don't get it.

It's not really about the one who is playing for a longer time is stronger - that's totally fine. It's about newcomers who can NEVER EVER reach the same level as long term players due to the Champion System.

As a release player, you by now could have had the best equip possible - a newcomer could get there in a decent amount of time, so both are similar.

As a release player, you have the advantage of the spent time for the Champion System. No newcomer could ever reach it, because you can't accelerate or decelerat time. It's always 24 hours per day, but the difference is:

(some made up numbers)

Long term player: 100 days playtime --> 2400h

Newcomer: 1 day playtime --> 24h

The newcomer spends another 99 days so that he's got 2400h like the long term player, BUT the long term player will spend 99 days too, that makes him unreachable for a newcomer.

Both would be on the same level, when the long term player would pause for 99 days, but that's just unlikely. So, you get the point?

olemanwinter · February 2015

Grao wrote: »

I maintain that the problem is not the champion system, that is a very slow progression. The problem right now is that we have two progressions simultaneously deployed when they were never meant to coexists. Once the Veteran Ranks are eliminated the distance between level 50 players and level 50 players that have champion points will be considerably smaller then it is at the moment, fixing most of the problems mentioned before.

Unfortunately we have no way of knowing when the Veteran System will be finally removed. Zenimax has failed to do so or even explain how they intend to do it, which leads me to believe they have no clue how to do it.

I don't really understand how the removal of VR is going to fix the inherent flaws of the CP system.

The gear will remain in the game. That means the only difference is 12 attribute points which they MIGHT remove.

We can EASILY TEST if this would solve the problem.

Go on the PTS and spec only 50 of the 62 available attribute points and 0-70 CP. Then duel against another player with only 50 attribute points and 1000+ CP.

It would be an interesting experiment and should conclusively show if your hypothesis is correct or not.

I_killed_Vivec · February 2015

olemanwinter wrote: »

badmojo wrote: »

Over and over and over again, I've stated that EITHER the financial model of P2P failed OR they planned to take it to B2P after the P2P market was exhausted.

And...over and over I've stated that IT DOESN'T MATTER. Because IF the financial model of P2P failed or IF they planned on taking it B2P, nothing changed. The conditions and variables remained the same, so the same cycle will take place.

Unless a dramatic change in direction takes place this game is going to repeat the last 11 months and transition to F2P in the same way it is going B2P now.

I removed the rhetoric:)

I don't think that it's necessarily that clear cut.

Obviously ZOS wanted a P2P model - we know this because that's how it started out. We do not know it it was always their intention to switch. Indeed we don't even know if P2P did fail.

They also wanted to go console - because of the great success of Skyrim on console they knew there is a market here, possibly a much bigger market than PC.

Now maybe ZOS knew all along that they would have to go B2P as soon as the game was released on console. Maybe they were just using the initial release on PC as a cash cow to get the development funds for the (much delayed) console release.

Maybe they really did want to keep P2P with the console release and it was their negotiations with MicroSoft that let them down.

Or maybe it was an honest mistake and they came to realize that console + game subscription was not going to work.

And maybe there was always a desire to go B2P with its cash shop and paid DLC, or maybe it was just a "happy" side-effect of going B2P...

It's up to you to decide which you believe, but it isn't necessarily EITHER OR.

However, I have a feeling that 1.6 isn't a relaunch - it's the real launch. What we've been playing so far has been the pre-launch, a paid-for beta.

Everything is geared to the release of 1.6 - even the timing of the final part of the advertising vid was only released a month ago. Where's the TV advertising? Skyrim adverts were on TV, why not ESO - particularly with other online games such as Destiny, Evolve, etc being heavily advertised on TV. I expect they will come out in the near future as TU is pushed as the next Elder Scrolls game.

Mathius_Mordred · February 2015

Seraphyel wrote: »

badmojo wrote: »

You don't get it.

Of course there will be an in-balance, and of course it'll be wider than now. It'll be wider because it requires more time, like adding more VR ranks would take more time and make the in-balance even wider than it is now.

The hypothetical part is that an inbalance like this will drive the game into the ground, requiring a "relaunch". The 1.6 changes aren't going into effect because there was an inbalance between new players and vets. You can't point to 1.6 and the game going B2P as examples of how the champion system is going to play out.

Going back to my original point, all you have with this thread is "look guys! the higher rank can kill me! unfair!" and if that's what we're trying to stop here then why bother progressing past the cold harbor prison at all? There's always going to be someone with more time and more power. That's the point of the games design.

No, you don't get it.

It's not really about the one who is playing for a longer time is stronger - that's totally fine. It's about newcomers who can NEVER EVER reach the same level as long term players due to the Champion System.

As a release player, you by now could have had the best equip possible - a newcomer could get there in a decent amount of time, so both are similar.

As a release player, you have the advantage of the spent time for the Champion System. No newcomer could ever reach it, because you can't accelerate or decelerat time. It's always 24 hours per day, but the difference is:

(some made up numbers)

Long term player: 100 days playtime --> 2400h

Newcomer: 1 day playtime --> 24h

The newcomer spends another 99 days so that he's got 2400h like the long term player, BUT the long term player will spend 99 days too, that makes him unreachable for a newcomer.

Both would be on the same level, when the long term player would pause for 99 days, but that's just unlikely. So, you get the point?

Is this actually the case? Reason I ask is that as far as I was aware the first chunk of champion points are the ones that give you the most boost with each successive vertical progression slightly less of a boost, meaning in your hypothetical scenario even if the other player is 100 days ahead of the first player his extra 100 days worth of CP will only add slightly whereas the original 100 days worth when the new player had no CP would make a big difference. The longer the player behind levels up the smaller the difference is, it's not a linear progression is it.

nimander99 · February 2015

Quick question.

When did grinding become an exploit? (I'm not talking about grinding mobs that obviously are bugged and giving too much exp) I've heard time and time again that grinding in Crag IS exploiting on the level of botters and hackers...

Rant Following

What is this madness?

If grinding were an exploit then questing is an exploit, under that argument anything that gives exp is an exploit and we should all be level 1 and if you hit level 2, well, you're a dirty exploiter

P.S FYI I started leveling my Templar at the end of July and did no grinding, it took me until Feb 21st to hit VR14. So there it is, it takes 6 months of at least a couple hours a night (usually more) to get a char to VR14 the 'legal' way.

Tankqull · February 2015

astal360b14_ESO wrote: »

everyone complaining about people coming to the game a year from now.....

ever stop to think that some of the CP earning might be changed before then to combat such a problem?

such as something like for the first 500cp you only need 10k xp to get a point?
or maybe get some CP by reaching lvl 50?

ZoS has probably thought of several ways to combat this possible problem already, would be poor planning if they hadn't.

But please, continue your doom n gloom.

if they would have - that would mean they would have observed the flawes of the system - and wouldn´t impolement such a flawed system in the beginning as that would be a horrible decision.

Minack · February 2015

badmojo wrote: »

olemanwinter wrote: »

badmojo wrote: »

You don't get it.

Of course there will be an in-balance, and of course it'll be wider than now. It'll be wider because it requires more time, like adding more VR ranks would take more time and make the in-balance even wider than it is now.

The hypothetical part is that an inbalance like this will drive the game into the ground, requiring a "relaunch". The 1.6 changes aren't going into effect because there was an inbalance between new players and vets.

No, it's you who doesn't get it.

The game is going B2P because it failed financially to sustain itself with subscriptions.

It failed financially because there was such little end-game content that powerful vets blew through it and new players generally quit upon encountering the grind from VR1-14.

The reason the game was relaunched along side the switch to B2P was to rectify the problems that caused it to financially fail to begin with.

You couldn't be any more oblivious if you tried.

And you couldn't be any more insulting if you tried.

Where's your proof that the game failed financially? Are you an insider at ZOS?

You can't pull things out of nowhere and act like they're facts.

hahaha really?