OP you THINK non-CP is better.
That is your OPINION and you are entitled to it.

Since Trueflame is now the pop locked server, apparently the majority of the player base has a different opinion.

Enjoy your non-CP campaign. I am happy it is there for you, but please let those that disagree enjoy what they like.

Thank you

Well said @Inarre!

The new campaigns will help introduce people to ESO PVP without getting smashed by not having any CP on their character. It will help give them time to learn what it's about on their own and not needing a full group to accomplish things. With the non vet campaigns not allowing CP also, people will be able to get into it at lower levels and stay in them if they chose to at vet levels. All of these options make for a better game to allow people to play the way that we want to.

I am really enjoying the fights in there were having in that campaign. Somehow they are more fun knowing that I don't have that endless regen or damage mitigation. The reality that I can't stand there taking minimal damage from players makes you think about using strategies that you may not have previously. We are mere mortals in there and if/when you do make a mistake, a good player should and will take advantage of that.

I look forward to getting more people in there and seeing what the outcome is as I'm enjoying every battle.....

PhatGrimReaper wrote: »

So OP, how are you enjoying that competitive PVP on the Non-CP AZ?

I'm curious how it's working out for you.

No one's there, which is obviously the point of your snarky post. Almost as snarky as my op.

And it's pretty stupid that no one is there, considering people who mainly play this as a PVP game have been asking for a no-CP campaign for a long ass time.

But I reflect your snark like a pre-patch meteor and remind you that the campaign being empty is not a reflection of the points my op made, which are points the pvp community has been making for a long time. It's merely a reflection that people don't want to regear for a campaign where the pvp would be better. And probably that a lot of people value their CP more than a quality pvp campaign.... which I didn't expect. I'd give up my CP in a heartbeat.

Riggsy wrote: »

So people work hard to earn cp and spend it crafting builds but you want to encourage them to set that aside in the name of fairness and equality..., lol I bet you're a Bernie supporter too!

I have an idea. Lets get rid of the non-cp server altogether and make one where every player is given the same 5 abilities, gear, and stats. That's total fairness! And to make it even more equal we will hold everyone's frame rate and lag to the same level as whomever has the slowest/worst game as to not give anyone else an advantage.

this thread has an op which explains why i think the non-cp campaign is better. my suggestion would be to read it before posting.

ty for the bump!

ok buddy, let's do this.

catalyst10e wrote: »

Huggalump wrote: »

If this part here is good discussion, then my op was good discussion too. I just reworded the exact argument from my OP.

I agree that the answer isn't to remove them entirely. I never hinted that I wanted to remove the CP system entirely.

There is a zero percent chance of it getting right back to where it was by respeccing gear. You literally cannot achieve the same numbers. Sure, you could get your regen up to the same value, but the amount of damage you'll have to sacrifice will be ridiculous. As with CP campaign pvp, in the non-CP campaign people will eventually find a balance between regen and damage, and both will be lower than on the CP campaigns.

Your OP literally says

Huggalump wrote: »

Non-CP is how the pvp should be in ESO.

This is implying the removal of CP, or at least it sounds like you're advocating it. So your statement "I never hinted that I wanted to remove the CP system entirely" is inaccurate.

It is not implying the removal of CP. I don't imply. I state.

I'm aware that the super srs try hard pvpers like me are in a minority here. They are in every MMO. But they're also a very important part of the MMO scene. They give the game longevity. They contribute to it's competitive scene, which drives pvp even in the casual scene. They also make fancy pants pvp videos with hardcore trap music and flash edits so that people are more interested in the game.

But the point is that I'm aware srs pvpers are a minority. That's why I'm happy there's a non-cp campaign, and I hope it's popular so they keep it open and possibly add another. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the variety of campaigns ZOS provides. They should keep CP campaigns. They should keep non-vet campaigns. They should keep campaigns with different objectives. I did not imply. You inferred.

catalyst10e wrote: »

That is then followed by the antagonistic lines like "You'd have to straight up admit you can't cut it unless carried by CP." which is where/why you're getting resistance and friction. It was unnecessary.

Yes. It was antagonistic. It was meant to antagonize people, in order to get responses and it worked.

However, you took it as a personal attack, which it is not. Here, I'll write up a sample post of what your first reply should have been:

I disagree. If I play on a CP campaign, it won't be because I'm admitting that I can't cut it unless carried by CP.

But let's not get distracted by a single line that was clearly not the central argument to the thead. Here are the reasons to back up my claim. Your point that non-CP pvp is better pvp in regards to resource management is wrong because of _______________ and _______________.

I left the reasons blank because there probably aren't any reasons. Which brings us to the next point.

catalyst10e wrote: »

Yes if you cut a resource like CP granting regen entirely, and your gear needs to try and make up the difference, theres going to be some sacrifice somewhere, like defenses or damage. But if your idea of "better" PVP is just making everyone weaker, that's just dumb...

nuh uhhhh

catalyst10e wrote: »

Which is why I was trying to point out, you may have actually had a point that it's the resource management system that is at fault. THIS is the part that's good discussion, your OP was NOT good discussion as it didn't promote any sort of discussion you just stated your opinion as fact

No I didn't(fact). It's understood that when you're conversing, making qualitative comments like "_____ is better than _____" are opinions(fact). That's how conversation works(fact). It would be ridiculous if we had to go around noting whether each statement is fact or opinion (opinion).

catalyst10e wrote: »

and then instigated arguments with lines like the aforementioned "There's no excuse for not playing in the non-CP campaign. You'd have to straight up admit you can't cut it unless carried by CP." and "Do the healthy thing for the game." You might as well have ended it with saying "fight me".

Sorta already covered this, but if I have an opinion, I'm not going to tiptoe around it. I'm going to say it standing up straight. So yes, if you're serious about pvp, you should do the healthy thing for the game and play in the non-CP campaign.

And of course I was trying to instigate. I wanted to instigate people into telling me what thought, which they did. I also wanted to instigate people into being dedicated to the non-CP campaign, which I didn't.... yet.... but when Azura gets pop-locked I'll totally take 100% of the credit. All me, boys.

That was sarcasm, btw. Don't get triggered.

catalyst10e wrote: »

Assuming the non-CP campaign took off, and more and more people started to use it, serious PVP guilds send their guildmates there and people find the balance in the damage vs regen you mentioned. The non-CP campaign just becomes the CP campaign. Except now with lower visual damage. There'd still be people 1vXing, and 1-shot builds, because the CP system isnt just resource regen it's also defenses. So, the sorcs lose out on 25% damage, 25% magicka regen, and 24% on their shields, but a crystal frag can still proc for 20% extra damage, might of the guild is giving another 20% boost, power surge raises spell damage by 20%, throw in some food/potions, passives and such... AND include the fact no one has any CP to mitigate spell damage or boosting spell resistance... and we're right back where we started. I could argue the problem would be even worse, since the non-CP campaign is designed to attract new players who dont want to face the "elite" players with 501 CP, so the server is filled with inexperienced players as cannon fodder for the elites with excellent gear and armed with the knowledge theres not going to be any resistance to their abilities.

Yes, the burst damage when used in excess is going to leave them dry, but thanks to weapon enchantments that can deal magic damage and regain magicka, coupled with moves like Elemental Drain and Endless Fury with my weaving light attacks, I'll survive.

So I say again... your real issue here is not the CP system, it is the regen system. maybe make a discussion about that... and also try not to include the antagonistic lines....

Rad! We finally got to the point.

Yes, my real issue is with the regen system, which is why I spent the majority of the OP talking about the regen system.

You see, you're right. A lot of the CP benefits are cancelled out when going to the non-CP campaign. 20% damage loss is cancelled by 20% mitigation loss. But one thing you forgot is that what doesn't get cancelled out is regen.

So yes, people will find a new balance, but regen WILL. BE. LOWER. than on CP campaign. That's unarguable.

So why is that better for pvp? Let's take it to an extreme. Let's say we're way down the road and everyone has maxed CP. Not 501, but actual maxed CP. The game already gets pretty spammy at 501 cp... but at max CP? You would break free, which costs almost nothing, and your stamina regenerates completely in the very next tick. Spam heals for days and never run out of magic.

As ESO has no cooldowns, the only element of strategy in the game is resource management. Now with our super awesome three gajillion or whatever maxed CP, there's no longer resource management. There's no longer strategy. PVP could still be a fun sideshow, but there's no value investing time in it because there's no room for improvement.

Does that make sense? I hope so. If not, I dunno, these posts are getting too long and I'm just gonna stop this one here.

Huggalump wrote: »

So yes, people will find a new balance, but regen WILL. BE. LOWER. than on CP campaign. That's unarguable.

Actually, the damage will be lower, not regen.

There is a certain optimal level of regen that is desirable for your build. If you have less, you will be resource-starved. If you have more, you are sacrificing damage enchants for extra regen you won't be using.

Once people who are set on playing non-CP campaign finish their re-gearing, they will have the same regen they have on the CP campaign(the optimal one above). They will achieve it by replacing damage-boosting equipment with regen-boosting one. So the only thing that changes is that overall damage levels will go down.

Which is not a bad thing, mind you.

this thread has an op which explains why i think the non-cp campaign is better. my suggestion would be to read it before posting.

I did read it, and came to disagree like the majority of respondents. My original point still stands: you want radical egalitarianism in the name of better game play, players hard work be damned. The fact that you have to beg people to join, coupled with low pop numbers, underscores the non-cp campaign's failure. PVPers have voted and they chose traditional game play.

Anyhow, non-CP pvp is VERY good for the game. Everyone should be playing in it to encourage ZOS to open more non-CP campaigns. Non-CP is how the pvp should be in ESO.

Here you are stating your opinion but dressing it up as fact. If people (the PVP community) were clamoring for a non-cp campaign then why did everyone leave Azura en mass?

Of course, it levels the playing field so new players aren't instantly turned off by pvp.

So now we should cater to new players? Must we bring the majority of dedicated pvp players down to make sure the few newbies, who might not even stay with the game for long, feel comfortable?

There are no cooldowns in this game, so it risks being a spamfest where player skill is irrelevant and the only determining factors are gear and stats.

Wrong. Skill matters and there are viable counters to players who spam. Group tactics and coordination also count and involve more than just running into a fight and spamming one key.

The only thing that can keep pvp from becoming this spam fest is resource management. Champion points make resource management far too easy.

Resource management is huge. It is also what makes the game interesting and diverse. If you want more regen or a larger pool--because you struggle--you can get it with gear/glyphs/abilities, but you'll likely have to give up something else. Still, as a reward for your effort, you earn CP that can help offset these needs if you so chose to spend it on resource management.
And you do realize one whole style of play (stamina builds) involves using the same resource that is required to block/sprint/sneak/break-free, are you also advocating this changes in the name of fairness?

The bottom line: if a new player wants to learn to pvp the best way is to join groups with TS and guilds that teach proper tactics. Most Ive been in are happy to teach. The solution is not stripping everyone of their hard earned CP because a small but vocal segment of the pvp community feels they can't compete.

TLDR: people who work hard for something don't like to give it up

Riggsy wrote: »

I did read it, and came to disagree like the majority of respondents. My original point still stands: you want radical egalitarianism in the name of better game play, players hard work be damned. The fact that you have to beg people to join, coupled with low pop numbers, underscores the non-cp campaign's failure. PVPers have voted and they chose traditional game play.

I made this thread the day TG came out. At the time, from what I understand, Azuras was super populated by people testing it out. But I don't know, I was at work. Point is, I wasn't begging anyone because I didn't know if it had low or high pop numbers. I was making a post about something that I believed would be better for the game.

Also, as our EU buddy pointed out Azuras is apparently pop locked on EU.

And WTF are you getting all political for hahaha

Riggsy wrote: »

Here you are stating your opinion but dressing it up as fact. If people (the PVP community) were clamoring for a non-cp campaign then why did everyone leave Azura en mass?

1) So you think ZOS introduced the CP system, then went backwards and introduced a non-CP campaign even though players weren't asking for it?

2) http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/248205/do-you-see-yourself-playing-cp-free-campaign-over-non-cp-free

http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/246997/do-you-think-azuras-should-be-the-no-cp-campaign

http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/220554/should-cp-be-allowed-in-non-vet-campaign

http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/219292/no-cp-softcap-campaign

50% or more seem to have wanted a non-CP campaign, thus having Azuras as non-CP and other campaigns as CP.

Riggsy wrote: »

So now we should cater to new players? Must we bring the majority of dedicated pvp players down to make sure the few newbies, who might not even stay with the game for long, feel comfortable?

Yes, unless you want a dead MMO. Are you also against the CP cap and the CP catch up system?

Riggsy wrote: »

Wrong. Skill matters and there are viable counters to players who spam. Group tactics and coordination also count and involve more than just running into a fight and spamming one key.

That's true. But individual skill and group strategy are different things.

Riggsy wrote: »

Resource management is huge. It is also what makes the game interesting and diverse. If you want more regen or a larger pool--because you struggle--you can get it with gear/glyphs/abilities, but you'll likely have to give up something else. Still, as a reward for your effort, you earn CP that can help offset these needs if you so chose to spend it on resource management.

If you choose to spend it in resource managment... as opposed to what? Choosing to spend all of it in healing debuff and snare reduction?

What you explained before with glyphs and what not sounds like an awesome system. You're trading damage for resources. Rad. But with the CP system there is no trade off. It's an ever escalating elevator leading to taking away the thing people have to manage on their character.

Riggsy wrote: »

And you do realize one whole style of play (stamina builds) involves using the same resource that is required to block/sprint/sneak/break-free, are you also advocating this changes in the name of fairness?

Check my sig

No,

CP capped here, but really do not care if I'm playing (what I am) a non-CP campaign or a CP campaign. I agree with OP the most, but what really kills pvp is animation cancelling. Remove it from the game @ZOS_GinaBruno , PLEASE! It is horrible and abused by small tiny brains.

The champion system as a whole has both good and bad points to it. It allows for more builds, but at the same time eliminates trade-offs and weaknesses. (I wrote a whole thread about this month's ago)

There are valid points to why people should or should not play on Azura's Star, all of which has merit. Personally though, I feel that the battle spirit is a tad too high on Azura's. We don't need a 50% cut to damage, healing and wards on a campaign where everyone is doing at least 25% less damage. If the Battle Spirit were to be reduced to round 30% would be a nice happy medium between the CP campaigns and the current pillow fights on Azura.

As it is, the game is currently not balanced around the fact that we have no CPs. Things like the dodge roll nerf, the block nerf; heck, even stuff like the infamous bolt escape nerf (At this point, it should just be renamed to Bolt Evade) are made with CPs in mind. Simply removing CPs isn't going to make the situation magically better. This is the problem with the current no-CP campaign, which still has ZoS's various band-aid "fixes" to issues that were never a problem had the CP system not be conceived in the first place.

For good or evil, the CP system is here to stay, and all balancing will be done based on it. I seriously doubt that any thought will be put into the implications of any future skill balancing in an environment where CP isn't in play. This means that the non-CP campaign will always been inherently imbalanced, due to the game balancing being focused on a CP-enabled environment.

DeanTheCat wrote: »

TThis means that the non-CP campaign will always been inherently imbalanced, due to the game balancing being focused on a CP-enabled environment.

Agreed. Case in point: Shieldbreaker proc does the same damage on both CP and non-CP campaigns, which makes it significantly more powerful on the latter because everyone has less HP.

Uviryth wrote: »

Huggalump wrote: »

And it's pretty stupid that no one is there, considering people who mainly play this as a PVP game have been asking for a no-CP campaign for a long ass time.

Who are those people? I never heard of anyone asking for a campaign like that. to be honest until your thread I didn`t even know something like that was ever requested.

I saw quite a few but...they seemed to mostly be console players that felt the PC transfers had too big an advantage.
Wonder how that campaign will do for them? Guess we'll see soon.

So an additional option is being given to new players to try out a more casual pvp mode.

Then we have some people (OP) complaining about how not everyone is playing this new untested game mode, and even throwing us the card "you are all afraid to play without your CPs" and saying we lack skill. Simply because he does not like the CP system...

What's yours is mine and what's mine is mine too, If you shake my hand better count your fingers...