What about a discussion about removing this paragon system so ESO can go back to being an MMO with some form of balance?

Please add a physical resistance CP passive so magicka builds arent hit with 13k+ Wrecking blows and baring in mind in wearing, 5 light, 1 med, 1 heavy part of armor as Templar using reinforced shield and defending sword and still hit with 13k Wrecking blows in pvp.

1) Please give us a Physical resistance CP, there is reduce Magic Damage, Reduce Elemental, but there is nothing like "Reduce physical resistance" now you might argue "well wearing armor makes you resistant to physical attacks bla bla" but baring in mind that 90% of the sets and class passives are all "Spell resistance, Spell resistance"

2) I know it sounds silly but add "Reduce unresistable damage CP" so every sorcorer in game has a chance to survive in pvp as shield breaker hurts too much and cant out heal it when you play in a 1v1.

Seems like we all have to reroll into a stamina build to do anything in PVP apart from heal now, cant even play Sorceror anymore, as if there is 1, 1 guy in anywhere in cyro you are dead to shield breaker, I wish I could spam light attack at a class like NB and kill them for using cloak would be great to spam light attacks and ruin a whole class play style. (i dont agree with shield stacking)

LegendsNeverDie wrote: »

Cinbri wrote: »

Wish @Wrobel created thread "Ultimate generation mechanic"

That would be asking them to actually raise the skill ceiling in this game when they have done the opposite for the past few months.

Anyway last time people couldn't handle that fact that may actually be someone that's generating more ultimate then them. The mountain of Nerf Magic DK thread's at the time were a perfect example of that.

I tried magicka dk the other day, I had fun even though it felt weak until I met a guy with shield breaker, its impossible to out heal the damage when you play solo 1v1, only shield I used by the way, was igneous shield to boost my healing, but died to yet again shield breaker, it needs a cool down timer of about 6 seconds, would still be a useful set, but wouldn't kill you so fast.

Opux wrote: »

Ffastyl wrote: »

What stars would you feel need a fixed value and what value(s) would those be?

Off the top of my head (each option a different star):

Mighty/Thaumaturge/Elemental Expert: Flat weapon/spell damage (also solves the problem of having to pump more than one star).
Hardy/Elemental Defender/Think Skin: Flat physical/spell resist.
Arcanist/Mooncalf/Healthy: Flat stam/magicka/health regen.

I'm sure there are more, but these should have the biggest effect. Also frees up some stars for more interesting bonuses.

Thinking through your original idea, converting the percentages to fixed values will require deciding on a maximum value, starting value (for the first point spent), minimum value (the smallest increase a point can provide i.e. +0.1% in the current CS) and pattern/formula to take us from the starting value to the minimum value as we approach the maximum value.

Thinking in terms of regeneration, a maximum value of 400 comes to mind first, given drinks provide about as much. In my heavy armor regeneration build ingame, I have about 1.5k Stamina regeneration, 1k Magicka regeneration and 2.2k Health regeneration. I am receiving 10% to all regeneration from CS investment, 10% from slotting Radiant Aura, 20% to Health and Stamina for activating Radiant Aura, about +130 to all regeneration from Willow's Path, +15% to all regeneration from the same set, about +450 health regeneration from jewelry enchantments and +513 HR and +470 SR from a Health/Stamina VR15 Drink.

Unslotting Radiant Aura (the same effect as removing CP) drops my regeneration by values between 100 and 200. If the CS values were changed to fixed and I had max investment in them, my regeneration would be 1.8k SR | 2.4k HR | 1.3k MR. 400 may be too impactful on character power, so the maximum values could be dropped to 300 or 200. 100 would be too low to consider for investment. These maximum values could be tested on the PTS since ZOS has stated simple number changes do not require server restarts (however a PTS update will be required for the code change from percentage to fixed). As being heavy armor, my regeneration values for Stamina and Magicka are under what medium or light armor users could have. I have yet to ask around ingame for regeneration values but from idle conversation 2.1k regeneration in Stamina or Magicka is an "average" value for medium and light armor users.

For ZOS's internal testing, have a person or couple of persons from the Q&A team create high regen builds for light, medium and heavy armor to see how high the stats can go when focused on. For heavy armor my build can be used. I use Ravager ingame as my secondary set but it can be replaced with Endurance jewelry and Oblivion's Foe (crafted) for additional regeneration. Once Q&A has the high regen builds created, the effects of changing the CS to fixed values can be tested and a suitable maximum value can be found.

The pattern/formula for reaching the minimum value from the starting value in the current CS is a recursive function that stops when the value reaches its minimum, subtracting a non-variable value from the previous value (i.e. -0.3% for each point invested). For fixed values this formula is a bit trickier to create as aside from the formula for reaching the minimum value, it has to be scalable for characters under the cap (CP can be assigned to non-Veteran Rank characters at present). That extra work could be avoided by removing the ability to assign CP to characters under Level 50. That decision is ultimately up to the CS team at ZOS but is something we players should be aware of as ZOS informs us of their choices.

The starting value should be something notable, something worth more than the point being invested and influenced by the maximum value. The minimum value should be something worth the point invested. If the minimum value were 1, +1 is a negligible increase on any stat and therefore players will likely invest that point elsewhere. The minimum value should less than 1% of the maximum value so the pattern/formula can cover 100 points but higher than 1 if possible to avoid it seeming negligible. The starting value should be a multiple of the minimum value so it can be reduced to the minimum value without weird steps occurring (i.e. -5 most of the way but a -3 in one step). If a logarithmic formula is used then the starting value does not need to be a multiple of the minimum value.

For a maximum value of 400, the minimum value could be 3. On a google spreadsheet I have tried several starting values and patterns, ensuring they sum to 400.


Drops by 3 each point until the minimum value of +3 is reached. The sum was 408 so the last 8 points were changed to +2.


Drops by 2 each point until the minimum value of +2 is reached. The sum was 410 so the last 10 points were changed to +1.


Drops by 10 each point until the value reaches +5. +5 continues until point 30 where it drops by 1 every 10 points until the minimum value of +1 is reached. +2 goes for 11 points so the sum is 400 rather than 399.


What became apparent while making these, and I hope has become apparent by showing you these graphs, is that the larger the starting value, the lower the minimum value has to be. I understand concerns for making the CS less linear in its increases but doing so in the span of 100 points forces the minimum value to be very low.


For other stars, such as Elemental Defender, Thaumaturge and the like, the offensive stars can be treated as direct bonuses to the tooltip values for their corresponding damage types. To prevent the absurd damage we are seeing presently these offensive stars should cap out at under +2000 damage. 1800, 1200, 800 or 1500 could be the maximum damage increase from these stars. There is an issue with abilities that have both an upfront and damage over time component, such as Sun Fire (Vampire's Bane / Reflective Light) and Cleave (Carve / Brawler) - how is the additional damage split over the two damage components? It could be split 50 - 50, 40 - 60, 60 - 40, 100 - 0, 0 - 100 or any other division. Given the nature of DoTs in PvP, the split could be 60 - 40, upfront - DoT, so that both components gain an increase in damage but the majority is given to the non-purgeable component.

For defensive stars such as Hardy and Elemental Defender, they can behave similarly to the resistance enchantments for jewelry, providing extra spell/physical resistance against their specific damage types.

These groupings of stars that directly affect specific damage types could be left as percentages since we players cannot directly boost tooltip values (we indirectly affect them by increasing our damage and max stats) and the defensive stars would be more effective as percentages (applied after Armor mitigation, bypassing Penetration and Mitigation Cap). However, both groupings of stars need to be of matching type, fixed or percentage, or they will become incomplete counters to each other, like Piercing and the Armor Focus stars or Blessed/Quick Recovery and Befoul.

Stars that directly increase defensive stats and bypass them (Armor and Penetration) can be arguably percentages or flat values. As a flat value, the stars can and should directly counter each other, sharing maximum values. That maximum value should be equal to or less than the Armor de/buffs, 5280, so the CS is not more influential than gear and abilities.

The first point invested is +640 and reduces by 80 until +160 at point 8. At point 11 it reduces to +80 and at point 15 it reduces to +40. At point 20 the minimum value is reached as +20. This sums to 5280, the same value as the armor de/buffs at Veteran Rank 16.

The detriment to making armor related stars flat values is it disadvantages Light Armor, which has the lowest Armor Rating. With Piercing maxed and Major Fracture applied, the target's Physical Resist is reduced by 10560. Light Armor wearers can have a Physical Resistance of 7500, allowing the player to reduce the target's PR to 0. Conversely, leaving these stars as percentages is a disadvantage to Heavy Armor, which has the highest Armor Rating. With Piercing maxed and a Legendary Sharpened weapon (37% Penetration), at 32500 Armor (the cap), 12025 AR is ignored. Full investment in the counter star (assuming +25% maximum value) can increase the base AR to 40625. Adding a Major Armor buff increase AR to 47225. At which point the player will ignore 17473 AR. An average unbuffed Heavy Armor wearer will have around 18k AR. This can be increased to 23k AR with sets and armor/weapon traits. So the player with maxed Piercing and Legendary Sharpened weapon will ignore 6660 AR at the minimum. For Light Armor users, 2775 AR is ignored (using the 7500 from earlier). The flat value can be adjusted so Light Armor is at less of a disadvantage, but whether flat or percentage, the Armor/Penetration stars need to be matching in value type like the stars for specific damage types.


Stars for values players cannot influence, such as heavy attack resource return or sprint cost, can be left as percentages. Elusive, Befoul, Tenacity, Sprinter and Nourishing fall under this category. However their tooltip values can be changed to flat values so players are aware of how much each star influences their respective stat.

I have left out stars such as Magician, Warlord, Tumbling, Blade Expert, Heavy Weapon Expert, Bow Expert and Staff Expert as they can be argued to remain as percentages versus flat values (players have limited influence over their stats i.e. cost can only be reduced by jewelry enchants and armor type). This is also probably enough food for thought in one post.

the Physical CP one is going to overpower Sorcs most likely...

Since it'll make Shields even more effective..Basically you'd have to remove Bastion and replace it with a Physical CP one to make it balanced.

PainfulFAFA wrote: »

Haven't had the leisure to read all 9 pages, but i'm hearing rumors of ZoS adding a physical resistance to CP?
If they just add physical resistance without a counter weight, it'll be the end of stam builds.
zoslogic at it again!

You make it sound as though there's no star to increase physical damage currently....

Mumyo wrote: »

Emma_Eunjung wrote: »

Please stop asking for soft caps, people! Soft caps would break the Champion System, and that would break ESO.

What is the point of playing the game hour after hour if my progression is rendered null and void by a mathematical nerf wall?!

CP broke eso.

Arguable.

I´d say the first 3600 point implementation definetly.
The current cap mechanic not so much.

They have to revisit the whole system sooner or later bc at the third expansion from now on it will start to get boring again as you can spend 100 points into every interesting trait.

Xsorus wrote: »

the Physical CP one is going to overpower Sorcs most likely...

Since it'll make Shields even more effective..Basically you'd have to remove Bastion and replace it with a Physical CP one to make it balanced.

That´s what i´ve said a couple of times. Bastion, blessed and quick recovery need to be removed as they´re directly affecting skills and have no counter in the cp system.

I just heard about the supposed physical damage redux cp addition.

@Wrobel this is a terrible idea. For starters, magicka users have the capacity to completely negate critical attacks with shields - you can't even achieve that with impen, since players can just stack crit damage bonuses well beyond the effects of impen. With a cp phys damage redux, now it will not only be impossible to cut through shields, but hard to cut through health as well.

Also, when you compare armor types, there is already little incentive beyond reducing damage to take heavy armor. Heavy armor would need a serious buff either in terms of damage output and/or sustainability and/or passive resistance in order to be a viable choice. The way I see it you are going to make them defensively equal, they are going to need to be offensively competitive. That doesn't necessarily mean they have to be the same; heavy armor for example might benefit from burst bonuses as a compliment to comparatively better defense while medium focuses more on overall dps and light focuses on spell - but you cant just make them all the same defensively. All that does is kill heavy armor pvp builds.

Well you can, but it seems like a really bad idea to me. Heavy armor in general is already at a deficit when you consider that both light and medium users can match heavy sustainability in terms of healing while having strong defensive mechanisms (shields, dodge roll) and offensive damage bonuses (+ spell/phys resist pierce).

As a separate thought, I think the healthy cp bonus should be combined with the resistant cp bonus since resistant only directly benefits pvp and dedicating points strictly to health recovery is comparatively very costly as a cp investment.

@Derra healing bonus cp do have a counter in the cp tree its called befoul

As for bastion, that I agree - there is no way to redux shield strength.

Cathexis wrote: »

@Derra healing bonus cp do have a counter in the cp tree its called befoul

As for bastion, that I agree - there is no way to redux shield strength.

They have not.

Befoul has no counter CP as that would be one reducing the effectiveness of healing debuffs.

Healing passives have no counter because a cp tree countering them would not require the use of healing debuffs (as they´re not accessible enough - especially on magica builds).

For the healing passives to work equivalent to befoul they would modify the value of minor and major mending - requiring these buffs to be active to work.

Cathexis wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Cathexis wrote: »

@Derra healing bonus cp do have a counter in the cp tree its called befoul

As for bastion, that I agree - there is no way to redux shield strength.

They have not.

Befoul has no counter CP as that would be one reducing the effectiveness of healing debuffs.

Healing passives have no counter because a cp tree countering them would not require the use of healing debuffs (as they´re not accessible enough - especially on magica builds).

For the healing passives to work equivalent to befoul they would modify the value of minor and major mending - requiring these buffs to be active to work.

Yes but you have to use specific abilities to heal just as you have to use specific abilities to reduce healing.

Right but the wrong approach. Every build will most likely heal as heals are widely accessible for every spec. Healing debuffs are not. They are exclusive to three "normal" abilities in the game.
So you can view healing as a core mechanic for every build whereas healing debuffs are a "perk" that is a build choice (like using a specific set).
Imho healing is a core mechanic of the game whereas reducing healing with debuffs is not (because they are so scarce).

To counter a healpassive befoul would have to work in a way that healing without ANY prerequisite is reduced on your enemy (i don´t think this is realisticly implementable).

For healing passives to work in a similar way like befoul they would have to modify the major and minor mending debuff currently in the game.

With the current implementation these are two passives that both do not have a counter, but when strictly looking at what they do - they do NOT counter each other.

One simple addition I would like. Champion Points affect tooltip stats. For example if I put 100 into elemental expert I would like to see 25% higher stats in my tooltip on Force Pulse.

In the end, when people have max or so much cp that it no longer matter how much they have, the cp system becomes irrelevant when talking about fun, immersive ways to customize your character.

Instead, cp cap should be somewhere less then 3600, and you should never, ever be able to get every passive or every star maxed out, and some passives should give really unique additions to your build, and when you choose one, you cant choose another...say a counter to that passive etc...

That way we have choice, we have gains and we have losses and most important of all...diversity.