Except that the original post was challenging exactly that expectation and explaining why it's not reasonable. I would recommend going back and reading it again and challenging the supporting examples in that initial argument.
KingYogi415 wrote: »Someone with 500CP could have started 3-4 months ago. Where someone with 800-900cop started 2-3 YEARS ago.
Big differernce.
When pugging you think about about your own time constraints. Maybe post a 30k+ dps parse and you wont get kicked from vet dlc content.
I you so much, right now.Sevalaricgirl wrote: »Which is why the CP change was terrible. I would rather they left the vet levels in. It really doesn't matter how many CP you have, it matters where you put them.
Merlin13KAGL wrote: »I you so much, right now.Sevalaricgirl wrote: »Which is why the CP change was terrible. I would rather they left the vet levels in. It really doesn't matter how many CP you have, it matters where you put them.
+1 Awesome for being someone that gets it.
SidewalkChalk5 wrote: »What DOES exist is the reasonable and accurate expectation that *normally* higher CP players tend to be superior teammates. That's a fact-based observation we've made over the many long hours we spent getting ourselves to max CP. Most of us DO want at least cp160 players in veteran content, because players below cp160 are almost universally too weak for most vet dungeons (especially DLCs) and the drops they get are worthless. It's not our job to carry them in vet content when they should be staying in normal where they belong, learning mechanics and gaining xp to reach the gear cap so they can get properly outfitted.
And no, we're not going to go into the very hardest end-game content (veteran trials, especially DLCs) with players who are not max CP, close to it, or at least already proven themselves in some way. You are not entitled to impose burdens on players who worked their way to the top and want to run with others who have earned a spot in end-game groups.
SidewalkChalk5 wrote: »Except that the original post was challenging exactly that expectation and explaining why it's not reasonable. I would recommend going back and reading it again and challenging the supporting examples in that initial argument.
Then you're flat out wrong. It is an objective fact that, on average, higher CP is a strong indicator of superior performance. No, it's not absolute and there are exceptions, obviously. People who disagree with that statement could be accurately described as "CP elitists", but what you're describing is just called "knowing obvious facts about the game". Higher CP is a positive indicator of more time and therefore more experience, stat advantages, and probably better gear. Sorry if you can't accept the truth, but it is what it is.
Fixed it for you.SidewalkChalk5 wrote: »Merlin13KAGL wrote: »I you so much, right now.Sevalaricgirl wrote: »Which is why the CP change was terrible. I would rather they left the vet levels in. It really doesn't matter how many CP you have, it matters where you put them.
+1 Awesome for being someone that gets it.
What's so "awesome" about that? It's should be obvious. Where you put the points matters, clearly, but you have to have the points in order to put them anywhere. Most suboptimal distributions of 720 points will still significantly outperform an optimized distribution of 200-300 points.
Saying more cp = more time is incorrect
SidewalkChalk5 wrote: »Saying more cp = more time is incorrect
Then it's a good thing nobody said that, isn't it? More CP is an INDICATOR of more time (and experience, skill, gear, etc). It's not absolute, as I stated clearly in the same post you're replying to. But it is strongly correlated whether you like it or not. I've known plenty of excellent CP300 players and garbage CP690 players, but those are something that rational people correctly understand to be "exceptions", which do nothing to undermine the general rule. There's both a general rule and exceptions to that rule, and anyone who denies either simply does not understand the game and is in denial.
SidewalkChalk5 wrote: »Saying more cp = more time is incorrect
Then it's a good thing nobody said that, isn't it? More CP is an INDICATOR of more time (and experience, skill, gear, etc). It's not absolute, as I stated clearly in the same post you're replying to. But it is strongly correlated whether you like it or not. I've known plenty of excellent CP300 players and garbage CP690 players, but those are something that rational people correctly understand to be "exceptions", which do nothing to undermine the general rule. There's both a general rule and exceptions to that rule, and anyone who denies either simply does not understand the game and is in denial.
We're arguing the same thing then. No one is saying that CP is an absolute indicator of anything. So using it as an absolute ruler on which to measure players against is poor judgement.
Yep people who rant about cp when the content was do'able with less cp a few patches ago...is just not needed.
SidewalkChalk5 wrote: »Saying more cp = more time is incorrect
Then it's a good thing nobody said that, isn't it? More CP is an INDICATOR of more time (and experience, skill, gear, etc). It's not absolute, as I stated clearly in the same post you're replying to. But it is strongly correlated whether you like it or not. I've known plenty of excellent CP300 players and garbage CP690 players, but those are something that rational people correctly understand to be "exceptions", which do nothing to undermine the general rule. There's both a general rule and exceptions to that rule, and anyone who denies either simply does not understand the game and is in denial.
We're arguing the same thing then. No one is saying that CP is an absolute indicator of anything. So using it as an absolute ruler on which to measure players against is poor judgement.
That's flawed logic.
If aircraft made by X company tend to crash 90% more than average, you just said that avoiding flying with such aircraft is poor judgement, because you are using it's bad reputation as an absolute ruler on what plane to fly.
Avoiding low-CP players because 90% of them are bad is a very sound judgement, if you care about the quality of your companions (and don't have anything but the CP number to judge them by, which you usually don't).
"CP Elitists" (AKA players who gauge whether or not other players are good enough to run dungeons with them based on their CP) have been appearing more and more often in my PUG groups, often resulting in the Elitist leaving our group to repeat this behavior somewhere else 15 minutes later... So I wanted to put some thoughts to the community to hopefully put this ideal in perspective.
CP Elitists completed the same content with people 129CP less a year and a half ago.
Being an Elitist when the CP cap was 561 meant the "most elite" completed content with 561CP. A year and a half later, the majority of the veteran content out there is exactly the same as it was in One Tamriel, only the players have gained CP. With this in mind, you could say instant vote-kicking someone between 690 and 561CP is basically admitting maxCP a year ago was not good enough to run the content. And of course, we know that to be false, since we all completed content!
CP has been frontloaded for almost a year, meaning the benefits of more CP is less effective
I used the Morrowind CP optimal distribution for a mage with the same CP build as a rough starting point to calculate the average percent difference in damage for each CP level. This is just a very basic comparison, but the difference was laughable.If this is accurate, it suggests that Elitists are always kicking based on less than 20% and often vote-kicking players for less than a 5% character power difference. Which brings me to my next point...
- The average difference between a character with 690CP and a fresh vet at 160CP is is approximately 19.79%
- The average difference between a character with 690CP and 300CP is approximately 13.26%
- The average difference between a character with 690CP and 561CP is approximately 3.93%
Skills and knowledge mean far more than CP ever will
If Combat prayer adds 8% damage, and 129 CP adds 4% damage, which is more important? Of course, the elitist will say "Well, I want a cp690 healer who runs combat prayer", and sure, that is ideal, but... we have ALL run PUG's and they are rarely ideal. In fact, there are many max cp players who have 0 clue what they are doing. Instantly kicking someone based on CP rather than skill says that the CP is more important. Which mathematically makes no sense.
Or in other words, CP doesn’t matter as much as knowledge and teamwork does. And I'm not even going to get into how 690 CPs can be invested to be absolutely worthless. Or the limited effect 690CPs actually has on roles like tanking and healing. Or even, the fact that before we couldn't even see each others CP!
In conclusion I would like to ask the community to re-think the inclination to vote-kick the next time you see a lower CP player in your PUG group, or even the importance of recruiting max-level CP players to your premades. CP really means very little in the grand scheme of veteran dungeons.
SidewalkChalk5 wrote: »Saying more cp = more time is incorrect
Then it's a good thing nobody said that, isn't it? More CP is an INDICATOR of more time (and experience, skill, gear, etc). It's not absolute, as I stated clearly in the same post you're replying to. But it is strongly correlated whether you like it or not. I've known plenty of excellent CP300 players and garbage CP690 players, but those are something that rational people correctly understand to be "exceptions", which do nothing to undermine the general rule. There's both a general rule and exceptions to that rule, and anyone who denies either simply does not understand the game and is in denial.
We're arguing the same thing then. No one is saying that CP is an absolute indicator of anything. So using it as an absolute ruler on which to measure players against is poor judgement.
That's flawed logic.
If aircraft made by X company tend to crash 90% more than average, you just said that avoiding flying with such aircraft is poor judgement, because you are using it's bad reputation as an absolute ruler on what plane to fly.
Avoiding low-CP players because 90% of them are bad is a very sound judgement, if you care about the quality of your companions (and don't have anything but the CP number to judge them by, which you usually don't).
I agree with you. The logic is sound but some people see the logic as unfair and so argue against it. Logic isn't chained by such trivial concepts nor does it refrain from something because it might hurt someone's feelings.
I think that's what these CP topics really devolve into. Some people favoring the measure because it's the best available while others are offended that they have to be measured at all and apply subjective feelings to the idea. I say subjective because not everyone finds it offensive to be measured. It's the normal way of the world in any position you apply to or carry to be valued according to seemingly arbitrary predictors of your performance.
Unfair judgements happen. We live with it and move on knowing that they are outliers rather than the norm. Yet it shocks me to see how people think we can and should eliminate all outliers from being possible. No, I think if something is accurate most of the time, that's good enough for a measure.
Juju_beans wrote: »SidewalkChalk5 wrote: »Saying more cp = more time is incorrect
Then it's a good thing nobody said that, isn't it? More CP is an INDICATOR of more time (and experience, skill, gear, etc). It's not absolute, as I stated clearly in the same post you're replying to. But it is strongly correlated whether you like it or not. I've known plenty of excellent CP300 players and garbage CP690 players, but those are something that rational people correctly understand to be "exceptions", which do nothing to undermine the general rule. There's both a general rule and exceptions to that rule, and anyone who denies either simply does not understand the game and is in denial.
We're arguing the same thing then. No one is saying that CP is an absolute indicator of anything. So using it as an absolute ruler on which to measure players against is poor judgement.
That's flawed logic.
If aircraft made by X company tend to crash 90% more than average, you just said that avoiding flying with such aircraft is poor judgement, because you are using it's bad reputation as an absolute ruler on what plane to fly.
Avoiding low-CP players because 90% of them are bad is a very sound judgement, if you care about the quality of your companions (and don't have anything but the CP number to judge them by, which you usually don't).
I agree with you. The logic is sound but some people see the logic as unfair and so argue against it. Logic isn't chained by such trivial concepts nor does it refrain from something because it might hurt someone's feelings.
I think that's what these CP topics really devolve into. Some people favoring the measure because it's the best available while others are offended that they have to be measured at all and apply subjective feelings to the idea. I say subjective because not everyone finds it offensive to be measured. It's the normal way of the world in any position you apply to or carry to be valued according to seemingly arbitrary predictors of your performance.
Unfair judgements happen. We live with it and move on knowing that they are outliers rather than the norm. Yet it shocks me to see how people think we can and should eliminate all outliers from being possible. No, I think if something is accurate most of the time, that's good enough for a measure.
That's all well and good but when you sign up for a random and with a pug those low levels have just as much a right to be there as you.
Juju_beans wrote: »If you want to be so selective then you should not be doing random dungeon pug groups. Put your group together with the high cp you require.
SidewalkChalk5 wrote: »i more cp = more time is incorrect
Then it's a good thing nobody said that, isn't it? More CP is an INDICATOR of more time (and experience, skill, gear, etc). It's not absolute, as I stated clearly in the same post you're replying to. But it is strongly correlated whether you like it or not. I've known plenty of excellent CP300 players and garbage CP690 players, but those are something that rational people correctly understand to be "exceptions", which do nothing to undermine the general rule. There's both a general rule and exceptions to that rule, and anyone who denies either simply does not understand the game and is in denial.
We're arguing the same thing then. No one is saying that CP is an absolute indicator of anything. So using it as an absolute ruler on which to measure players against is poor judgement.
That's flawed logic.
If aircraft made by X company tend to crash 90% more than average, you just said that avoiding flying with such aircraft is poor judgement, because you are using it's bad reputation as an absolute ruler on what plane to fly.
Avoiding low-CP players because 90% of them are bad is a very sound judgement, if you care about the quality of your companions (and don't have anything but the CP number to judge them by, which you usually don't).
KochDerDamonen wrote: »Simply put, the only things you can see that could objectively demonstrate a player's power are CP and an achievement if applicable to the situation. CP can be arbitrarily grinded, and achievements can be carried for. Unfortunately, saying "skilled player" wanted either means people will come to you with their CP/achievements, or that you just have to take their word for it and drag them into a dungeon.
For a lot of people, when they run three (or thirty-six, or w/e ridiculous number of dailies) dungeons a day, there isn't time for cross-your-fingers-and-go with randoms. So they hold a standard for people they'll party with, and ask for proof of it up front. Does it still fail sometimes? Of course it does, not as much as not bothering to sort at all.
When I was still playing regularly, and regularly doing dungeons, I was the guy who would insist on teaching instead of kicking. These parties were never for me either, so I would form my own or try the dungeonfinder instead. If there's people who don't wish to party up with you, then pass them over?
CP is just a measure of time played. Nothing else. Granted you'd expect someone with such high cp to understand their character, roll, skills etc but this isn't always the case. A cp 300 can easily put more time and effort in to their characters skills and rotation and pull more dps than a lazy 690.
CP is just a measure of time played. Nothing else. Granted you'd expect someone with such high cp to understand their character, roll, skills etc but this isn't always the case. A cp 300 can easily put more time and effort in to their characters skills and rotation and pull more dps than a lazy 690.
There's also the fact that some of us with alts intentionally don't spend all of our CP in order to make the game more challenging when playing that character. A cp elitist wouldn't boot one of those characters but they'd also never know that none of the cp was being used or that only part of it was.
I understand that people have limited time to spend on a game but really if you're so time strapped that you're booting people over CP without evaluating their play then you need to be playing with trusted guildies and/or friends.