[Poll] Inflated Stats - Like or Dislike?

Divinius · March 2015

Like - I support the change to larger stat numbers

Where's the "I couldn't care less" option?

Faugaun · March 2015

AlienDiplomat wrote: »

Poll needs a "makes no difference whether you move the decimal point a couple places" option.

This is my vote, no option in the poll

bloodenragedb14_ESO · March 2015

Like - I support the change to larger stat numbers

well, if you ask me, the damage value's are clearer now, and ive been here since beta

Faugaun · March 2015

Yolokin_Swagonborn wrote: »

The inflated stats hide the fact that your character has about 1.5K (15K in inflated numbers) less resources in 1.6 than you had in 1.5.

These resources that you earned with your precious weekly game time were taken from you and locked behind the champion system. This is the part that people don't seem to grasp about the champion system:
Investing champion points into stam,magicka, and health actually increases your stats in each.

To get back to where you were in 1.5, you need roughly 300 champion points. (100 in each attribute tree).

This has interesting implications further down the line as hardcore players begin to accumulate more champion points than players that play less often.
A player with 300 champion points has a significant statistical advantage in competitive endgame play over a player who does not - and I'm not even talking about champion point passives.

Anyone who played PvP shortly after launch remembers the futility of fighting a VR10 at sub-VR level in cyrodiil. Well that feeling will return.

Also get ready for "Trials group LFM. Must have 150CP"

Was this the replacement for veteran ranks we were promised? Oh wait, veteran ranks are still in the game indefinitely. And now we have an account wide version of veteran ranks with a different name and a longer timetable.

You sound frustrated by the changes, let's try an exercise I will read random player stat values to you from pre and post 1.6 and you describe the feelings that you get.

15,488

4000

35

42

42,000

...

On a more serious note I do not think the purpose of switch to 4 digits was to hide a Nerf...that's just lunatic conspiracy talk. That said there was a Nerf in power from 1.5.8 to 1.6.6. The switch was very clearly in order to make small changes more visible to a player right now putting a point into mage inceeases the damage on a spell of mine by 10 (the Templar jabby spell) ...in the previous number system that might have been 1 damage point....no to me these are identical effects but if it was under 1 (in some cases it would be....I can imagine that players would be upset to see the number not change at all....so the choice is to scale it up or show decimal points ....to me its the same but the whole number may have slight aesthetic appeal.

That's a legitimate explanation let's not tilt windmills padawan.

Soulshine · March 2015

Merlight wrote: »

Soulshine wrote: »

Sage described the reasons for removing the soft caps, overhauling the game and adding in what he called "granularity" (numerous times...) to the system, in order for players to see that things like a .1% added to their stats would have meaning. On the "back end" of the game, a point added into any given stat would be working once you invest the point, but you as a player would not notice the change if the numbers on the front end for the user did not change. You can hear Sage discuss this in the very first 5 minutes of the presentation.

"If you're adding 1%, we have to make that feel meaningful to you."

The failure here is, that for some people, adding 0.1% to 1000 doesn't feel more meaningful than adding 0.1% to 100. Because it actually is equally meaningless. If it doesn't make a difference in combat, I don't care whether it makes a difference in the character sheet. Had they stuck with the original numbers, they could''ve added an option to extend display past the decimal point, for people who really want to see all those minuscule increases.

Please bear in mind I didn't construct that myself nor did I say I agree with any of it. I was merely answering OPs question about whether or not ZoS ever explained why they did this. They did. At length. I did not qualify it either way. Obviously people can draw their own conclusions.

Jennifur_Vultee · March 2015

Dislike - I prefer the non-inflated stats, Pre 1.6

They won't roll it back, I saw why it was implemented first hand the other night and its directly tied to the Champion System. I had just put my 5th point into health regen and it went from 460 to 461...on the old system I'd have seen it go from 46 to 46.1 the .1 of course wasn't visible in 1.5 and they no doubt decided adding a decimal would still make it feel weak. Golly I feel so much more powerful now that my HP regen has gone from 460 to 461. Yes...that was sarcasm in case you missed it.

I hate the inflated numbers Zenimax and frankly a 1 or .1 increase does little to nothing for me so why do I need to see it?

Faugaun · March 2015

Panda244 wrote: »

kongkim wrote: »

Really don't see a problem here. Haters gonna hate.

Problem is it makes the math a little harder to do in your head, bigger numbers, bigger calculations, that's fact... Anyway. The opinion is that most people think it makes the game look uglier, and it does, again. Just my opinion. I can't stand WoW because of it's horrid out of date graphics and the absurd damage numbers, it also changed the entire game. We can't compare our new 1.6 builds to the old 1.5 builds without extensive math and testing.

"I have 4,561 Stamina Regen!"

What the hell does that even mean in comparison to 1.5?!?!?!

You also need good baseline data from 1.5 which indomt believe we have...elsewise its all "it seems...." And nothing more.

Gargragrond wrote: »

Big numbers are slower to read and process, and they look ugly. This will not change no matter how accustomed you become in the future. Brains will always process smaller number faster. Extra precision is not needed to see the differences provided by CP-system within reasonable precision.

This is purely UI -issue, nothing would change with game mechanics or balance if the last digits are stripped from the UI.

It is pointless to compare the new numbers with 1.5 values (no matter what scaling factors you use) as the core game mechanics has changed drastically. Why is blancing/nerfing issues always brought into conversation about usability as it has nothing to do with it.

Just install an add-on that converts your values to a % then its no big deal...your health bar is always 0 to 100, your magicka bar is always 0-100, stamina bar is always 0-100....would probably need garkin or one of the other add-on devs to add the conversion to apply to items as well to convert heal potions weapon stats etc to a % so that the random "4 million damage" weapon number wouldn't conflict with the 0-100 on your stats ...but then you could have nice small numbers and see big trends and have simple math...

ElliottXO wrote: »

Seraphyel wrote: »

Like.

Inflated numbers needed to be done with 1.6 and the CS.

So now when you get a bonus from the CS of 0,1% you actually think it makes a difference because your armor rose from 23546 to 23549?

0,1% is 0,1%. Anyone with half a brain knows that is barely an increase no matter what the number tells you.

But this sequence of ten CP added to stat (23546, 23549, 23552, 23555, 23558, 23561, 23564, 23567, 23570, 23573) I can see the difference (235, 235, 235, 235, 235, 235, 235, 235, 235, 235)....is a lot more frustrating. Also, (235.46, 235.49) is uglier than (23546, 23549) ....

Spottswoode wrote: »

Thymos wrote: »

You cannot consider your idea of a majority of players disliking the change. Every single player that doesn't vote should be considered as being ok with the change. Unless you can get every player to vote, this poll means little.

You realize, of course, that this logic defeats the purpose of democratic process. Most people just don't care. (Much as in politics.)

AlienDiplomat wrote: »

Poll needs a "makes no difference whether you move the decimal point a couple places" option.

Compounding interest disagrees.

Compounding interest disagrees? I don't follow....doesn't compound interest still follow if 1 compounds to 10,000 over 140 iterations then .0001 would compound to 1 with identical treatment....? Sorry I'm just not following

myrrrorb14_ESO · March 2015

Dislike - I prefer the non-inflated stats, Pre 1.6

It's really just unnecessary.

This is a game thats rated MA. So I'm sure most of us can see that 0.2% is just 0.2% regardless of whether it is applied to 1000 or 10k. I just like things to be only as complex as needed for the task at hand. The KISS principal.

And yes I realize that they did not simply multiply everything by ten, they completely rebalanced the whole numbers used in the game.

Spottswoode · March 2015

Like - I support the change to larger stat numbers

Faugaun wrote: »

Compounding interest disagrees? I don't follow....doesn't compound interest still follow if 1 compounds to 10,000 over 140 iterations then .0001 would compound to 1 with identical treatment....? Sorry I'm just not following

If the numbers were scaled down to .0001 instead of around .1 you'd have a point.

Faugaun · March 2015

myrrrorb14_ESO wrote: »

It's really just unnecessary.

This is a game thats rated MA. So I'm sure most of us can see that 0.2% is just 0.2% regardless of whether it is applied to 1000 or 10k. I just like things to be only as complex as needed for the task at hand. The KISS principal.

And yes I realize that they did not simply multiply everything by ten, they completely rebalanced the whole numbers used in the game.

I agree with this...it feels slightly insulting to add extra numbers (for those of us who don't care about the numbers) at the same time I would be frustrated if I pumped points into it over and over and didn't see any change...I think the optional decimal points toggle mentioned earlier might have been the easiest solution. I know with the champion system on passives I advocated for either buffing the old bashing focus or adding an extra decimal point so that change was visible (you have places where 4 champion points would not change the number...which was frustrating).

Small numbers are easier to manipulate in your head though....well unless you ballpark and shrink then manipulate and convert back up in your head....but even that is more complicated than native short numbers..

Faugaun · March 2015

Spottswoode wrote: »

Faugaun wrote: »

Compounding interest disagrees? I don't follow....doesn't compound interest still follow if 1 compounds to 10,000 over 140 iterations then .0001 would compound to 1 with identical treatment....? Sorry I'm just not following

If the numbers were scaled down to .0001 instead of around .1 you'd have a point.

I believe the actual numbers are way down there....and we currently only see the rounded versions (this is not just a blind belief this is from deriving the formulas for my calculators http://asolutionaday.com/elder-scrolls-calculators/warrior/lady/elemental-defender-star-calculator/ ...put in some different values and you will see.

Edit: to clarify I don't think any single bonus is in the .0001 realm but I do think there are values beyond what the display shows us that some people may be interested in seeing. I don't think the rest of us should be forced to see xyz extra digits though.

Spottswoode · March 2015

Like - I support the change to larger stat numbers

Faugaun wrote: »

Spottswoode wrote: »

Faugaun wrote: »

Compounding interest disagrees? I don't follow....doesn't compound interest still follow if 1 compounds to 10,000 over 140 iterations then .0001 would compound to 1 with identical treatment....? Sorry I'm just not following

If the numbers were scaled down to .0001 instead of around .1 you'd have a point.

I believe the actual numbers are way down there....and we currently only see the rounded versions (this is not just a blind belief this is from deriving the formulas for my calculators http://asolutionaday.com/elder-scrolls-calculators/warrior/lady/elemental-defender-star-calculator/ ...put in some different values and you will see.

I was referring to the overall stat changes. I'm not sure exactly what this is supposed to prove, unless you are suggesting that the stat increases from the champion system are negligible on a point for point basis. In which case, I'd agree.

Armitas · March 2015

Dislike - I prefer the non-inflated stats, Pre 1.6

We have had tons of polls, and they have all said the same thing. Of those that voted, the majority of them disliked these numbers.

I personally despise them. It's going to be dumb in 8 years when we ask what someones armor is at and they reply "One hundred and forty two thousand three hundred and twenty four."

We are already at the inflation that should have taken years to acquire.

Theosis · March 2015

Like - I support the change to larger stat numbers

I honestly don't care much about what i have lost. The game will fluctuate for its life span. Things will change and that is the nature of such things.

When I look at my char I do "feel" stronger due to the bigger numbers.

At the bottom of it all, it makes very little difference.

Panda244 · March 2015

Dislike - I prefer the non-inflated stats, Pre 1.6

Armitas wrote: »

We have had tons of polls, and they have all said the same thing. Of those that voted, the majority of them disliked these numbers.

I personally despise them. It's going to be dumb in 8 years when we ask what someones armor is at and they reply "One hundred and forty two thousand three hundred and twenty four."

We are already at the inflation that should have taken years to acquire.

@Armitas
Speaker A - "Ah that's nice... What's your spell resistance at? Oh! And your average deeps?"

Speaker B - "Spell Resist is forty-nine-hundred-thousand-twenty-three-squared. DPS is an average of 2.9 to 3.4 million."

Faugaun · March 2015

I guess I'm saying we are not seeing everything that's there and there are values (which you consider negligible, I tend to agree) that some players (specifically min/maxers) might find useful. One more degree of accuracy added from the new system provides some extra info without having to display a decimal point (I do prefer whole numbers) but not the complete picture that all the values might provide.

For instance suppose I am looking at one skill which the increase from point 65 to 66 is .1 and another skill where the change from 99-100 is also .1 ...how do I know which one provides more benefit when the rounded numbers are invisible?

Am example take tenacity star...

http://asolutionaday.com/elder-scrolls-calculators/thief/lover/tenacity-star-calculator/

Putting 99 points into tenacity I get 15.8% bonus 100% I get 15.9% displayed in the game.
But the actual difference is .09563604155564

VS

Light armor Focus Star
http://asolutionaday.com/elder-scrolls-calculators/warrior/lady/light-armor-focus-star-calculator/

54 points is 9.2, 55 points is 9.3 but not really...the actual difference is

0.0945367368

This means those hidden (insignificant) numbers suggest more gain from putting that 100th point into tenacity than putting that 55th point into light armor focus...

Due to the rounding that occurs around .1 the difference could be almost .1% difference between two point increases.

Consider if the value increase of one was +.050001 and the value increase of another was 1.499999 between two choices....then the actual hidden benefit is that one stat is 3x better than the other...but they are displayed to be equal...to a min/maxer being able to use 1 point for .15% benefit is way better than having to spend 3 points for .15% benefit...if every star was maximized (36 stars) the .1% here .8% there etc....could add up to significantly greater power than someone else who just put a point in because he likes this skill better and the numbers read the same value.

Now .1% is miniscule to you (and me) but what about 2 extra champion points? Those to me are meaningful..

Lord_Kreegan · March 2015

Like - I support the change to larger stat numbers

As @Soulshine indicated early in this thread, ZOS stated that they wanted to give more granularity to the numbers so players could see the impact of changes. The downside of that, of course, is that players also see the lack of impact of changes (in terms of magnitude).

There are two other significant factors, although ZOS hasn't commented on either one of them. Previously, they were probably using floating point (real) numbers even though we only saw rounded integer values on our stat-sheets. With the large values, ZOS can use true integers. From a computational persepective, that saves a lot of CPU cycles.

Integer calculations on a computer are much faster than floating point calculations. This game is pseudo-real time, so speed is a priority. Given the issues seen in Cyrodil, this might have been of interest.

Storage of integers is also much more efficient memory-wise than storage of real numbers, so long as the numbers are appropriately bounded. Given that ESO seems to be a memory-pig, that was likely of interest, too.

This is just speculation, of course.

Atreyu · March 2015

I liked the old numers. But I am not disappoint, if I could I would change back to the previous numbers, but even like this it's fine Im getting used and it's not bad.

Faugaun · March 2015

Lord_Kreegan wrote: »

As @Soulshine indicated early in this thread, ZOS stated that they wanted to give more granularity to the numbers so players could see the impact of changes. The downside of that, of course, is that players also see the lack of impact of changes (in terms of magnitude).

There are two other significant factors, although ZOS hasn't commented on either one of them. Previously, they were probably using floating point (real) numbers even though we only saw rounded integer values on our stat-sheets. With the large values, ZOS can use true integers. From a computational persepective, that saves a lot of CPU cycles.

Integer calculations on a computer are much faster than floating point calculations. This game is pseudo-real time, so speed is a priority. Given the issues seen in Cyrodil, this might have been of interest.

Storage of integers is also much more efficient memory-wise than storage of real numbers, so long as the numbers are appropriately bounded. Given that ESO seems to be a memory-pig, that was likely of interest, too.

This is just speculation, of course.

Now that is indeed very interesting, my calculators (see links above) have floating numbers (but I'm also using a backwards derived formula to model the observed values)...there are actually infinite ways to model it (mine happen to be 99.96% or better accuracy)...so it is possible they are using a more complex formula with integer inputs...I guess it would depend slightly on how many decimals they limit the float point too...

Now a more novel approach @ZOS_GinaBruno (and I hope zos is listening in case this can help solve cyrodil lag)...is to precompute the damage values based on stats to the skills...(this only needs to occur when stats change). Then store the value as a whole number under a variable:

playerid_skillid <- x

then a simple

targetid_health <- targetid_health - playerid_skilled

Where all values are whole number integers. (Hopefully you all already do something like this?...if not I am seeking employment, grin).

Edit: Obviously there are other modifiers etc...in the live algorithm (resistance, armor, penetration, etc...) and its not quite that simplified ...but you get the idea. The additional variables could also be precomputed to simplified values in a similar fashion.

psufan5 · March 2015

Dislike - I prefer the non-inflated stats, Pre 1.6

I don't care what my stats read. I am more angry at the fact that they nerfed everyone 35+% in effectiveness, then put in a new Champion System so we can earn our strength back in 10 years.

Absolutely ridiculous.

kongkim · March 2015

Like - I support the change to larger stat numbers

Panda244 wrote: »

kongkim wrote: »

Really don't see a problem here. Haters gonna hate.

Problem is it makes the math a little harder to do in your head, bigger numbers, bigger calculations, that's fact... Anyway. The opinion is that most people think it makes the game look uglier, and it does, again. Just my opinion. I can't stand WoW because of it's horrid out of date graphics and the absurd damage numbers, it also changed the entire game. We can't compare our new 1.6 builds to the old 1.5 builds without extensive math and testing.

"I have 4,561 Stamina Regen!"

What the hell does that even mean in comparison to 1.5?!?!?!

Its still small numbers if you have played EVE

But really, its not that hard or that large of numbers.
And if you give 100 in damage or 1000.. really makes no different to the game experience.

Armitas · March 2015

Dislike - I prefer the non-inflated stats, Pre 1.6

(joking.

)

Merlight · March 2015

Dislike - I prefer the non-inflated stats, Pre 1.6

Lord_Kreegan wrote: »

There are two other significant factors, although ZOS hasn't commented on either one of them. Previously, they were probably using floating point (real) numbers even though we only saw rounded integer values on our stat-sheets. With the large values, ZOS can use true integers. From a computational persepective, that saves a lot of CPU cycles.

Integer calculations on a computer are much faster than floating point calculations. This game is pseudo-real time, so speed is a priority. Given the issues seen in Cyrodil, this might have been of interest.

Storage of integers is also much more efficient memory-wise than storage of real numbers, so long as the numbers are appropriately bounded. Given that ESO seems to be a memory-pig, that was likely of interest, too.

This is just speculation, of course.

Going a bit off-topic, because it has nothing to do with how values are presented in the client.

The argument that integer calculations are faster than floating point is not that crystal clear. If you compare instruction-to-instruction, then that may be true. But today's CPUs are able to do other things while waiting for results, and given how memory intensive an MMO server must be, it probably has more trouble with caches than math.

Another thing is that you can't just replace floating point numbers with integers and watch the same formulas work. There are mechanics in the game that need to calculate percentages. For example "heal for 35% of your missing health". In floating point you compute the healed amount with one multiplication. How do you do that with integers? You need fixed point arithmetic, and it will become 2 or 3 operations: multiplication, possibly addition for proper rounding, and a shift. It may still be faster, but the cost would be high (precision aside, I mean mainly development cost). I'm pretty sure this is not what happened.

Potenza · March 2015

It makes no difference. I just adjust to the current numbering system and learn which numbers are good or bad.

Faugaun · March 2015

Merlight wrote: »

Lord_Kreegan wrote: »

There are two other significant factors, although ZOS hasn't commented on either one of them. Previously, they were probably using floating point (real) numbers even though we only saw rounded integer values on our stat-sheets. With the large values, ZOS can use true integers. From a computational persepective, that saves a lot of CPU cycles.

Integer calculations on a computer are much faster than floating point calculations. This game is pseudo-real time, so speed is a priority. Given the issues seen in Cyrodil, this might have been of interest.

Storage of integers is also much more efficient memory-wise than storage of real numbers, so long as the numbers are appropriately bounded. Given that ESO seems to be a memory-pig, that was likely of interest, too.

This is just speculation, of course.

Going a bit off-topic, because it has nothing to do with how values are presented in the client.

The argument that integer calculations are faster than floating point is not that crystal clear. If you compare instruction-to-instruction, then that may be true. But today's CPUs are able to do other things while waiting for results, and given how memory intensive an MMO server must be, it probably has more trouble with caches than math.

Another thing is that you can't just replace floating point numbers with integers and watch the same formulas work. There are mechanics in the game that need to calculate percentages. For example "heal for 35% of your missing health". In floating point you compute the healed amount with one multiplication. How do you do that with integers? You need fixed point arithmetic, and it will become 2 or 3 operations: multiplication, possibly addition for proper rounding, and a shift. It may still be faster, but the cost would be high (precision aside, I mean mainly development cost). I'm pretty sure this is not what happened.

You can precalculate heavy much of it and the round to integers at the step before the last which should simplify the live math systems considerably (if they are not already).

Consider if I can precalculate that based of my spell resist then incoming spell damage will be reduced by 35% then I can easily do all the math required to arrive at the reduction percent (35%) and then store the actual reduction value that is applied to all incoming spell damage against me. Then reducing the final calculation to the simplest possible calculation...the stores values only need to be modified when changes occur....now something I don't know is if you increase the stored values by 15 per character times (let's say 20 million characters, after console release). Then is is quicker to prestore and retrieve the store values (memory retrieval speed) or calculate the values and which is cheaper?

ElliottXO · March 2015

Dislike - I prefer the non-inflated stats, Pre 1.6

Seraphyel wrote: »

ElliottXO wrote: »

Seraphyel wrote: »

Like.

Inflated numbers needed to be done with 1.6 and the CS.

So now when you get a bonus from the CS of 0,1% you actually think it makes a difference because your armor rose from 23546 to 23549?

0,1% is 0,1%. Anyone with half a brain knows that is barely an increase no matter what the number tells you.

0,1% may always be 0,1% but if your initial number is higher the resulting number is higher as well.

100,1 couldn't be displayed properly, 1001 can. That's the only difference.

I am fully aware of that. My point is that this is unnecessary information. I am fine with my 100 knowing it was increased by 0,1%.

Ever wondered why people say you now need 25k HP to tank vet dungeons? Because nobody cares if it's 25355 or 25270. It won't make a noticeable difference.

Numbers in the thousands were a good compromise between being catchy for the eye and detailed enough values.

eventide03b14a_ESO · March 2015

Dislike - I prefer the non-inflated stats, Pre 1.6

Soulshine wrote: »

Wolfaen wrote: »

With the new inflated stats introduced in 1.6. I'd like to hear the opinions of the community on who likes the change and supports it, vs who dislikes it and wishes it was changed back to pre 1.6 numbers.

Personally I dislike the change and see no reason for why it was done. To me it just over-complicates everything and was unnecessary. I hope they consider changing it back.

Does anyone know if ZOS explained themselves on this subject?

What do you guys think?

TO ZOS: If this poll results show a large majority of players dislike the change, I hope you guys will consider reverting back to the more simple stats that most of us came to love..

ZoS did explain very thoroughly the reasons behind the change, in a lot of detail, but unfortunately much of that explanation was given at the Guild Summit presentation last year rather than fully spelled out in more official communication for all players.

Sage described the reasons for removing the soft caps, overhauling the game and adding in what he called "granularity" (numerous times...) to the system, in order for players to see that things like a .1% added to their stats would have meaning. On the "back end" of the game, a point added into any given stat would be working once you invest the point, but you as a player would not notice the change if the numbers on the front end for the user did not change. You can hear Sage discuss this in the very first 5 minutes of the presentation.

They did it so that we would be like "wow +600!", but if it's added to a pool of 6,000,000 then it's really insignificant anyway. It's almost like they feel we are stupid and need to see big numbers in order to appreciate the value. The truth is the inflated numbers only complicate things. Look at some of the most successful systems like D&D and MTG. They don't need to use huge numbers to get the point across.

dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO wrote: »

anyone who thinks they just added zeros really has no clue at all.

Especially true since there aren't anymore caps.

Panda244 wrote: »

kongkim wrote: »

Really don't see a problem here. Haters gonna hate.

Problem is it makes the math a little harder to do in your head, bigger numbers, bigger calculations, that's fact... Anyway. The opinion is that most people think it makes the game look uglier, and it does, again. Just my opinion. I can't stand WoW because of it's horrid out of date graphics and the absurd damage numbers, it also changed the entire game. We can't compare our new 1.6 builds to the old 1.5 builds without extensive math and testing.

"I have 4,561 Stamina Regen!"

What the hell does that even mean in comparison to 1.5?!?!?!

Maybe that was the point all along...

sagitter wrote: »

You really can t understand that the inflated stats are needed for better and clear values of champion system right?

Why?

Seraphyel wrote: »

Like.

Inflated numbers needed to be done with 1.6 and the CS.

Again...Why?

Soulshine · March 2015

eventide03b14a_ESO wrote: »

Soulshine wrote: »

Wolfaen wrote: »

With the new inflated stats introduced in 1.6. I'd like to hear the opinions of the community on who likes the change and supports it, vs who dislikes it and wishes it was changed back to pre 1.6 numbers.

Personally I dislike the change and see no reason for why it was done. To me it just over-complicates everything and was unnecessary. I hope they consider changing it back.

Does anyone know if ZOS explained themselves on this subject?

What do you guys think?

TO ZOS: If this poll results show a large majority of players dislike the change, I hope you guys will consider reverting back to the more simple stats that most of us came to love..

ZoS did explain very thoroughly the reasons behind the change, in a lot of detail, but unfortunately much of that explanation was given at the Guild Summit presentation last year rather than fully spelled out in more official communication for all players.

Sage described the reasons for removing the soft caps, overhauling the game and adding in what he called "granularity" (numerous times...) to the system, in order for players to see that things like a .1% added to their stats would have meaning. On the "back end" of the game, a point added into any given stat would be working once you invest the point, but you as a player would not notice the change if the numbers on the front end for the user did not change. You can hear Sage discuss this in the very first 5 minutes of the presentation.

They did it so that we would be like "wow +600!", but if it's added to a pool of 6,000,000 then it's really insignificant anyway. It's almost like they feel we are stupid and need to see big numbers in order to appreciate the value. The truth is the inflated numbers only complicate things. Look at some of the most successful systems like D&D and MTG. They don't need to use huge numbers to get the point across.

dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO wrote: »

anyone who thinks they just added zeros really has no clue at all.

Especially true since there aren't anymore caps.

Panda244 wrote: »

kongkim wrote: »

Really don't see a problem here. Haters gonna hate.

Problem is it makes the math a little harder to do in your head, bigger numbers, bigger calculations, that's fact... Anyway. The opinion is that most people think it makes the game look uglier, and it does, again. Just my opinion. I can't stand WoW because of it's horrid out of date graphics and the absurd damage numbers, it also changed the entire game. We can't compare our new 1.6 builds to the old 1.5 builds without extensive math and testing.

"I have 4,561 Stamina Regen!"

What the hell does that even mean in comparison to 1.5?!?!?!

Maybe that was the point all along...

sagitter wrote: »

You really can t understand that the inflated stats are needed for better and clear values of champion system right?

Why?

Seraphyel wrote: »

Like.

Inflated numbers needed to be done with 1.6 and the CS.

Again...Why?

Yeah - again, make of it what you will. I wasn't posting it as MY view or explanation or qualifying it in any way. Just answering OPs question with link to what Sage said.

Thymos · March 2015

Like - I support the change to larger stat numbers

piotreb17_ESO4 wrote: »

Thymos wrote: »

You cannot consider your idea of a majority of players disliking the change. Every single player that doesn't vote should be considered as being ok with the change. Unless you can get every player to vote, this poll means little.

Like every poll this is just a representation of view of players. However like in every poll, every single player that doesn't vote should be considered as having no special opinion (missing in-between choice) on that subject.

No opinion would be considered against change, though. In order to make a change, you should have the support of the majority, not the ambivalence of the majority.

Salmonleap · March 2015

Like - I support the change to larger stat numbers

Don't care. It doesn't really matter where you put the decimal point. Math is still math. However, I'll vote "like" since you didn't include "I don't give a rip" as an option.