Well, that's not normally something you hear of with guilds - usually it's an issue in the group finder though.

With DB, all 3 other people will need to vote to kick you though - so it's not left up to only one person.

I'm fine with vet removal. To be honest I've never had the issue of being kicked from groups though - even when I run on some of my lowbie characters so that may help sway my opinion.

So someone with 501 CP goes back down to 160? Not understanding your whole "CP160 will be the new cap"

emily3989 wrote: »

So someone with 501 CP goes back down to 160? Not understanding your whole "CP160 will be the new cap"

160 will be the cap for mobs and gear, not players.

We really need a new term for what 160cp is besides "gear cap" or whatnot.

emily3989 wrote: »

So someone with 501 CP goes back down to 160? Not understanding your whole "CP160 will be the new cap"

It's the new max rank, not cap. the cap is still 501.

Well, people are going to ask what your CP is, whether you lie to them or not I guess is up to you.

New chat window in Gratwood:


[Zone] Mag NB DPS (501CP) LF Gold Key!!!
[Zone] Sta NB DPS (501CP) LF Gold Key!!!
[Zone] Mag DK Tank (501CP) LF Gold Key!!!
[Zone] Mag Temp HLR (501CP) LF Gold Key!!!
[Zone] Mag NB DPS (501CP) LF Gold Key!!!

Come DB I will be way over the cap I play a few hours a day if that Ganking while theory crafting new builds for my Alts is all I do and I get 2-3 points a night for the little time I'm on.

Now you people that do PvE get more EXP so how are you not at the cap

Elitists will always find some way to judge people and exclude those who don't meet their standards.

Best example of this I know of is Guild Wars 2, a game which is aimed at casual players and so aims to avoid power creep, gear treadmills or anything like that. In 3.5 years they haven't raised the level cap and have only added 1 new set of gear. Which means virtually everyone who isn't brand new has equally powerful characters.

In response many elitists resorted to requiring specific amounts of achievement points to join their dungeon groups. Achievement points have almost nothing to do with dungeons in that game. In fact almost half the available points come from daily achievements which are things like 'harvest 10 nodes in this region' or 'complete 5 events in this map'.

But it gave them a threshold they could demand people met to be allowed in, and one which was more easily obtainable for long-term players than new ones. They know it's meaningless, that achievements have nothing to do with skill or knowledge of dungeons or even what build you're using. But they want a number to point to and say "if you've got this you're ok, if you don't then you're not allowed in" and it gives them that.

At least demanding specific amounts of CP makes some kind of sense. It may not be the best way to judge a players ability, it certainly isn't required for most dungeons but at least it has some effect on how powerful you are.

But ultimately I think the best approach if you're not happy being judged by other peoples arbitrary standards is simply to not do dungeons with them. I understand it's frustrating when you're forming a group and then find yourself kicked by someone who joined, but whenever something like that happens to me I assume they'd have equally strict and arbitrary requirements for everything else ("Stand here", "Use skill X at this exact moment, not before, not after, only when I want you to, but I won't tell you that unless you do it wrong") and the run would have been no fun at all.

wayfarerx wrote: »

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

exact same problem but eve worse.

Here's hoping they turn off the public display of CP and we can be rid of all this gear-score-esque nonsense.

If they did that, I'd give it 2 weeks before there was an add on to show you that info.

Guppet wrote: »

wayfarerx wrote: »

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

exact same problem but eve worse.

Here's hoping they turn off the public display of CP and we can be rid of all this gear-score-esque nonsense.

If they did that, I'd give it 2 weeks before there was an add on to show you that info.

Someone better make a "fake 501 CP display" addon then

/hint hint, /nudge nudge

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

wayfarerx wrote: »

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

exact same problem but eve worse.

Here's hoping they turn off the public display of CP and we can be rid of all this gear-score-esque nonsense.

@wayfarerx
Its much larger than displaying a CP.

in short, CP # doesn't equate to anything measurable among any amount of players whether its 2 or 1,000.
There are too many variables to use such a system as a means of difficulty.

The system should still be based on numeric levels where the NPC is either level 49 - 56+
This tells us the stat base
this also uses the same calculations that VR did for NPC mobs.
Using CP...to me suggests that base stats matter but the incoming damage, pool of NPC health and spells will be based off the constellation system rather than the stamina, health magic system. Now that's not written anywhere so I have to believe its CP as a reference to the old VR which is worse because it now has no basis, no opportunity for scaling that is clear and progression is not based on my character or the account, its some arbitrary or unknown calculation of many factors with an assumed or required number of CPs in given slots to enable someone to complete encounters.

So...basically you're taking an open ended CP system and making it a vertical progression without any clarification or base stat increases according to PTS at least.

I agree with you, on this and many other points. I'm willing to tolerate the whole gating-gear-by-cp thing, I think it's dumb but I understand how it makes removing VR a lot easier for ZOS. However, scaling mob XP off CP and broadcasting everyone's champion rank is a bad move and I wish they had taken the opportunity to make positive changes in this regard when removing VR.

Yes there will always be elitist jacka**es but ZOS does not need to feed the trolls.

vyndral13preub18_ESO wrote: »

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

exact same problem but eve worse.

Im not sure about that. I think it will get better. At least for me since i already have a v16 character. All my characters level 50 or greater will show that.

Before when i join a vet dungeon with my vr1 usually atleast one person leaves. Now all my vet characters will look to be max level. So for me and people like me it will certainly get better.

Im not sure how it could get worse. You cant get kicked from the same group twice

But more seriously they are adding a vote kick at the same time. You will need two other players to kick someone. And they are adding timers when you leave so those pesky top level group hoppers will be less likely to drop right away. So while there will be people leaving and kicking making it harder will make those people fewer.

What will get worse is the view of a CP causing assumptions like the VR level.

It will move from a CP requirement to what gear are you wearing, what is ur DPS, and ppl will shy away from randoms because the CP indicator tells you nothing that matters.

What actually matters:
-Gear
-enchants
-stat base
-skill point choices
-CP passives that support your often used skills or cover a gap in your build

***A CP indicator doesn't tell anyone this so what happens is more elitism due to an even poorer indicator than VR which also had some of the same gaps but it had more consistency in a scaled environment.

Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »

Max level will be CP 160 when DB falls.

Leaderboard for the new trial and SO will require the instance be set to CP160 for the run to count for leaderboard just as the new trial requires it to be set to v16 now.

In the future that will change and some instances will be scaled to leader CP.

How this will impact the game as a whole in the long run is a big question that Zos doesn't yet understand. It's why the cap will be cp160 come EOM.

But the problem comes from the fact that people will be judged by how many Cp they have to spend/allotted.

Dungeons/Monsters will cap at CP160; this is true.

However; next to each person's name is CP160, CP324, CP458, CP501, etc.

Now, someone who only has 160 CP to spend is going to do quite a bit less damage or heal less damage than someone at the CP cap of 501.

So what we're going to see is a bunch of elitism based off of the CP number next to the person's name. People looking to run Trials, vWGT, vICP, etc., will immediately ditch people who are sub-400 or sub-450 CP, because a CP250 character isn't going to do the damage or have the sustain capabilities of a 400+ CP character.

This is where the removal of Vet Ranks does nothing to cure the elitism running rampant in those end-game activities right now. And unfortunately, that elitism was one of the major reasons that Vet Ranks are being removed.

So ultimately, it solves nothing.

I feel like this "not high enough level" business will carry over into DB and just turn into "not enough CP" business.

End all be all is that there is no dungeon in this game currently that a lower level cannot complete with the help of higher levels. Of course added DPS through CP and the like is definitely helpful, but not required. I've done multiple dungeon runs of all of the dungeons (minus vICP) in groups of just 3 players. So even having a lower level DPS wouldn't be a burden, would be helpful.

Sounds like people in this game just aren't willing to teach or help others anymore. It's sad. Back when the game was P2P (subscription based) the community was much more open and helpful. Not to say people aren't still helpful in some capacity, but you definitely notice much less of that now than back then.

If players judge others based on cp it will back fire on them eventually. As an example I have 520cp, but I don't really pve. The only pve I do is occasional mob grinding in old orsinium and vMA. I'm only undaunted rank 4 and there are still 4 group dungeons I've never set foot in, despite having played and subbed since launch. So if pve'rs were to pick me based on my cp count they might be surprised when they find out I have no idea what I'm doing.