Clarification: how is CP getting translated over?

furiouslog · March 2021

tmbrinks wrote: »

From a mathematical standpoint; If ZoS were to retroactively give you all your previously earned XP and move you along on the new CP scale. It would unequivocally set new players back because they would need the same time investment as you previously had. The entire 'catch-up' mechanic then becomes useless as it no longer performs its function as a 'catch-up' mechanic, as it's meant to allow new players to reach the new, higher-leveled, "parity" in less time than it would have taken on the old system. But if the goal for parity (catching up to other players) has also been moved, that negates the change in XP needed, resulting in the same time to reach "parity"

The value of your time spent in the game was/is your ability to continue to earn CP above and beyond the cap for the entire time that the amount of CP that we could spend was capped. You were able to (at a 50% reduction) continue to bank future levels on the old system whereas upon the introduction of a new system you were able to immediately redeem.

Thus, your time has already been valued and included in the new system. Especially when, to get to the equivalent level (in terms of total damage increase/mitigation/healing, of which you have NEVER been able to get "all" of on the old system), you only need to be a little bit above the cap (~1100 CP). And with them making the curve and "soft-cap" be so far beyond this new level of "parity" will make it much easier to get to for ALL players. Not to mention that CP is at best a tertiary effect on your ability as a player now for what you'll be able to do. Players will be much more survivable with no-CP and the extra health and reduced monster damage than they ever were on the old system with a full 810CP.

(I apologize for the snarky responses as well, didn't sleep well, and the coffee isn't working today)

Thanks for the apology, we're cool. I appreciate that you're coming from a strongly held position, and I have similar issues with coffee and mood.

My initial position in the OP has evolved during this discussion based on your point and other correlate points. I was originally insisting that I get the XP equivalent of what's been attained, but now accept as a given that the intent is to deliberately nerf veterans so that new players spend a lot less relative time to achieve the same things they have already achieved. I don't think that's fair, but I understand that it's a consequence of that priority. What I object to is that under the new system, anyone at 810 up to about 1500 is not receiving the same level of vertical and horizontal capability that they had before, therefore requiring more time spent to achieve the same abilities and level of play that they already achieved. In my case (it will be different for others), this equates to a rough estimate of about 100 hours spent to get where I was (see prior post for math and assumptions, which I admit are very "back of the envelope"). The opportunity cost of that 100 hours is considerable given my leisure time constraints. There will be a variety of ways people place value on this that are subjective, which drives some of the differing opinions in this thread.

But let's talk about why I care in the first place.

File this under opinion: I feel that ZOS takes the veteran player base for granted, making the assumption that if I've been playing this long, that they can do anything they like to show preferential treatment to new players in order to attract them to endgame activities at the acceptable cost of inconveniencing me and others like me. They are confident that they can do that, because anyone who would have left due to prior actions taken to rebalance abilities, change gear stats, or provide new offerings in a controversial way (like the vMA weapons) has already left. Those that remain have a strong tolerance for abuse, for lack of a better word.

The benefit to ZOS in implementing these changes as they stand is my continued interest and engagement, given even more hours spent in game closing the gaps, despite the fact that it's frustrating and upsetting to me. Because I'm probably going to keep playing anyway, they might as well *** me off because the risk that I'll quit the game entirely is low, given my sunk costs and because I have not already left. It's logical. It's also devoid of empathy, and it disrespects the value I have for my own time. Because they rarely, if ever, provide any detailed justification for their decisions, any conclusions I have as to their rationale are speculative and therefore subject to easy criticism, and because they never address threads like this head on, I don't feel heard as a consumer of their product despite having contributed what I perceive to be a considerable financial investment in their offerings relative to other games I play. In short, I feel like they don't give a crap about what I think. That is probably true, but being totally honest, it still hurts my feelings.

The rebellious side of my personality wants to quit the game in response to this sense of being taken advantage of and disrespected. As a practical matter, thanks to COVID, I've made a lot of friends in game and would miss them if I did quit. All of that makes me angry, and basically feeling manipulated because they know I'll keep being loyal due to the real personal costs of leaving, on top of the sunk costs of my time and money. That sense of being taken advantage of infuriates me.

The practical side of my personality asks: "Do you want to stop having fun with your guildies over ZOS and their unfair design? It's just 100 hours. Who are you fooling? You love ESO, you're going to do that anyway. Get over it." In the fullness of time, maybe I will. I've stuck around this long.

I guess that I just wish I felt better about it.

Pink_Pixie · March 2021

tmbrinks wrote: »

[

Nobody is taking anything away from you.

I figured I'd only take a snippet from the post above, due to the fact that this seems to be the running comment of what is happening. I feel it'd be so much simpler to address it in a different fashion.

The night before the patch I'll log off with a hypothetical 250 million experience. The day after I wake up and log on I'll have 150 million experience.

There is no logical argument, counter argument, made up argument that we've not lost anything. The numbers do not lie, if I woke up with 100 million less than I did the night before.......

That means I/we have lost something.

As a side note, if this is to "Help" new players catch up, this is the wrong way to do it. To "help" new players catch up, there needs to be another mechanic. An easier far more effective manner is double enlightenment when below a certain CP and zero enlightenment when above it.

P.S I know my Cp is not changing, the point is, we are losing something, even if it's not apparent to others.

remosito · March 2021

tmbrinks wrote: »

One suggestion was to split it 50/50, give half, and lose half... well, that's essentially what the 50% penalty for above the cp Cap did.

Except it's not.

CP1200 is 515M in CP1.0.
CP1200 is 206M in CP2.0.
Difference is 309M
50/50 split would be 154M on top of the 206M and get a CP1200 player to CP1650.

I'd settle for that.

remosito · March 2021

furiouslog wrote: »

The rebellious side of my personality wants to quit the game in response to this sense of being taken advantage of and disrespected. As a practical matter, thanks to COVID, I've made a lot of friends in game and would miss them if I did quit. All of that makes me angry, and basically feeling manipulated because they know I'll keep being loyal due to the real personal costs of leaving, on top of the sunk costs of my time and money. That sense of being taken advantage of infuriates me.

The practical side of my personality asks: "Do you want to stop having fun with your guildies over ZOS and their unfair design? It's just 100 hours. Who are you fooling? You love ESO, you're going to do that anyway. Get over it." In the fullness of time, maybe I will. I've stuck around this long.

I guess that I just wish I felt better about it.

No need to stop playing. Just stop paying.

No eso+ and no future chapter buys. Or waiting for 50% off sales. while still using their servers...

might just make me feel sufficiently good about it in the long run... and if not... sure I'll find something else to play.

tmbrinks · March 2021

So, there could be a whole spectrum of options that ZoS could have gone with.

1. Everybody over 810 is put at 810. Scale stays the same.
This way nobody "gets" ahead and we have parity immediately among all vet players. All time spent after CP810 is "lost" (this is how it was in the veteran rank days early in ESO's history)
I don't think anybody is advocating for this

2. Everybody over 810 gets their current CP. Scale stays the same.
No XP lost by any players. New players will need thousands of hours to reach "max" CP (not even arguing what that number is)
no catchup for new players

3. Everybody over 810 gets their current CP. Scale is adjusted slightly to accommodate new players (they need slightly less time to reach "max" CP, about 30% less), but not "remove" too much XP/time from vet players
this was PTS patch 6.3.0, with new cap at 1020 (a 30% nerf to XP), allowing new players to catch up

4. Everybody over 810 gets their current CP. Scale is adjusted significantly to accommodate new players (they need significantly less time to reach "max" CP, about 60% less), thus "removing" (although I'd argue it's like buying something when it's more expensive then trying to get the refund when the price goes down at a later time) some more XP/time from vet players
this is current iteration as of 6.3.2, more of a catch up mechanic to quickly get to "parity", whatever that value is.

5a. Everybody over 810 gets their current CP. Scale is adjusted significantly to accommodate new players. Vet players receive 50% of the "missing" XP, reducing the effectiveness of the scaling by 50%. Players receive double enlightenment until they reach CP1200, reducing their leveling time by 25% to get to that stage (making some assumptions here). Vet players lose 50% of the bonus XP earned, and it took them 25% longer to get to that point than it will take a new player (so if 4000 hours, takes a new player 3000 hours, so they've "lost" 1000 hours as well)

5b. Everybody over 810 gets their current CP. Scale is adjusted significantly to accommodate new players. Vet players receive 50% of the "missing" XP, reducing the effectiveness of the scaling by 50% (i.e. if the average vet player gains 300 CP because of the refund of 50%, they have 300 extra CP to go to reach "parity")
suggestion from the thread

6a. Everybody over 810 gets their current CP. Scale is adjusted significantly to accommodate new players. Vet players receive ALL of their "missing" XP, reducing the entire benefit of the scaling (i.e. the average vet player now gains 600 CP because of the refund, new players have to get 600 CP further to reach "parity") New Players get double enlightenment until reaching CP1200 (same as above)

6b. Everybody over 810 gets their current CP. Scale is adjusted significantly to accommodate new players. Vet players receive ALL of their "missing" XP by moving onto the new scale where they would be (despite how impossible the calculation is, because the XP was earned at different times on different scales as they changed the cap previously), reducing the entire benefit of the scaling (i.e. the average vet player now gains 600 CP because of the refund, new players have to get 600 CP further to reach "parity") No time "lost" by vet players, new players must commit the same time as vet players to reach the "end-game". So, if it took you 4000 hours to reach CP1800 in the new system, it will still take them 4000 hours to reach parity with you.
suggestion from other threads/this thread.

I, for one, am glad they're somewhere in the middle of this spectrum. There may be other options, but these are the ones I've heard mentioned before (or what has happened in previous updates from ZoS). This adjustment is the furthest down the scale that they've gone in the game's history. All previous adjustments have either been at steps 1, 2, or 3 (although less than 3, since all previous jumps were only 30 or 39 CP)

(I apologize for what is bound to be terrible formatting)

NoSoup · March 2021

remosito wrote: »

NoSoup wrote: »

You've hit the nail on the head, its pointless continuing to argu about the XP distribution because ZOS is not going to make adjustments this late in the PTS cycle.

Your champion points on the 8th will be your CP in 2.0, period.

Has Live Patch exactly been 1:1 identical to the last PTS patch for ever Update in the last years?

In the end CP adjustment would be rather trivial and does not need extensive testing at all.

Errrrrrr, I feel like CP adjustment is beyond "trivial" and would require extensive testing. I mean, lets just look at the drama they had with refunding werewolf skillpoints which has lead to everyone having the skill points reset on every character next patch....

furiouslog · March 2021

If someone is under 810, I'd still adjust their CP using the old XP scale cross referenced to the new XP scale, capped at 810, then applying the nerf rule to the remainder.

Duplomancer · March 2021

NoSoup wrote: »

Errrrrrr, I feel like CP adjustment is beyond "trivial" and would require extensive testing. I mean, lets just look at the drama they had with refunding werewolf skillpoints which has lead to everyone having the skill points reset on every character next patch....

I am with you. Imagine running a recalculation across millions of accounts. What could possibly go wrong? lol

It would not be a trivial thing at all. What does it do to 1-50? What happens if the server gets overloaded and there is an interrupt? What if the interrupt is not noticed. How about when it recalculates an account twice? How about fail over? So many tests, those are just off the top of my head.

remosito · March 2021

Duplomancer wrote: »

NoSoup wrote: »

Errrrrrr, I feel like CP adjustment is beyond "trivial" and would require extensive testing. I mean, lets just look at the drama they had with refunding werewolf skillpoints which has lead to everyone having the skill points reset on every character next patch....

I am with you. Imagine running a recalculation across millions of accounts. What could possibly go wrong? lol

It would not be a trivial thing at all. What does it do to 1-50? What happens if the server gets overloaded and there is an interrupt? What if the interrupt is not noticed. How about when it recalculates an account twice? How about fail over? So many tests, those are just off the top of my head.

Are you a coder?

I code and cp recalculation is trivial in my opinion.

Drygon · March 2021

tmbrinks wrote: »

furiouslog wrote: »

tmbrinks wrote: »

Nobody is taking anything away from you. So your analogy is flawed.

It's more this. You work for a company and make 40k a year. You get a 2k a year raise, and they have a "soft-cap" which kicks in at 60k a year, after which you'll only get a 1k a year raise, which you'll get as soon as they raise the "soft-cap" (the 50% penalty for being over cap). So, after 15 years, you're at 60k. But the second they change the cap, you bump up to the 65k

Now, they change the "soft-cap" to 100k a year. Change the raises to 4k a year, but keep the starting salary at 40k a year.

You don't retroactively get the 4k a year raises (which is what you're asking for by having the XP shift to the new CP scale) and are suddenly making the 100k a year (since you'd be at the new "soft-cap"), you're making the 65k a year and getting 4k raises for the next 10 or so years.

But somebody who is new is making the 40k a year plus the 4k raises. Yes, they will get to the 65k you're now making much quicker than you did, but you will still be ahead of them.

I know it doesn't work this way in the real world. But you aren't losing anything as your analogy would suggest.

I knew that if I attempted to provide an analogy that the discussion would become about the analogy. Rookie mistake.

I don't agree with your analogy, because we just don't see the issue the same way. I invested time for value. The value is being removed. It's that simple. I could use currency devaluation or some other contrivance to communicate the core idea in the name of communicating why I think this is unfair, but the conversation will just continue to get sidetracked as we mutually nitpick the analogy instead of the core issue. So I'll say this: I agree that my analogy is flawed. Your analogy is also flawed and is not at all representative of my perspective of the situation I am in.

At the core of it is that you don't feel that it's unfair that I have to mindlessly regrind to get to the same level of ability that I currently possess. I do think it's unfair. If we can't agree on that, there is little point in trying to convince each other of that, and we just part ways on the issue.

So, to hell with any new players, they should be forced to put the same time investment in the game that you did to reach "parity" with you. Got it!

It's the same as my elderly neighbors complaining about having to pay taxes to the local schools... "well, I don't have any kids going there anymore so why do they get my money?"

Or my parents complaining when anybody brings up making community college free/reducing the cost. "I had to pay for mine, so you should too!!!"

If the softcap is 1100 there what's the problem with giving utility to the older players? anything past that won't increase the gap between players.

Also, I dislike paying for public schools and stuff like that too, not everyone has kids [Snip].

[Edited for inappropriate content]

Drygon · March 2021

I just do not think that it is fair towards older players, especially when it comes to the horizontal progression. I think older players should have CP converted to benefit more from the vertical progression.

remosito · March 2021

Drygon wrote: »

Drygon wrote: »

tmbrinks wrote: »

furiouslog wrote: »

tmbrinks wrote: »

Nobody is taking anything away from you. So your analogy is flawed.

It's more this. You work for a company and make 40k a year. You get a 2k a year raise, and they have a "soft-cap" which kicks in at 60k a year, after which you'll only get a 1k a year raise, which you'll get as soon as they raise the "soft-cap" (the 50% penalty for being over cap). So, after 15 years, you're at 60k. But the second they change the cap, you bump up to the 65k

Now, they change the "soft-cap" to 100k a year. Change the raises to 4k a year, but keep the starting salary at 40k a year.

You don't retroactively get the 4k a year raises (which is what you're asking for by having the XP shift to the new CP scale) and are suddenly making the 100k a year (since you'd be at the new "soft-cap"), you're making the 65k a year and getting 4k raises for the next 10 or so years.

But somebody who is new is making the 40k a year plus the 4k raises. Yes, they will get to the 65k you're now making much quicker than you did, but you will still be ahead of them.

I know it doesn't work this way in the real world. But you aren't losing anything as your analogy would suggest.

I knew that if I attempted to provide an analogy that the discussion would become about the analogy. Rookie mistake.

I don't agree with your analogy, because we just don't see the issue the same way. I invested time for value. The value is being removed. It's that simple. I could use currency devaluation or some other contrivance to communicate the core idea in the name of communicating why I think this is unfair, but the conversation will just continue to get sidetracked as we mutually nitpick the analogy instead of the core issue. So I'll say this: I agree that my analogy is flawed. Your analogy is also flawed and is not at all representative of my perspective of the situation I am in.

At the core of it is that you don't feel that it's unfair that I have to mindlessly regrind to get to the same level of ability that I currently possess. I do think it's unfair. If we can't agree on that, there is little point in trying to convince each other of that, and we just part ways on the issue.

So, to hell with any new players, they should be forced to put the same time investment in the game that you did to reach "parity" with you. Got it!

It's the same as my elderly neighbors complaining about having to pay taxes to the local schools... "well, I don't have any kids going there anymore so why do they get my money?"

Or my parents complaining when anybody brings up making community college free/reducing the cost. "I had to pay for mine, so you should too!!!"

If the softcap is 1100 there what's the problem with giving utility to the older players? anything past that won't increase the gap between players.

Also, I hate paying for public schools and *** like that too, not everyone has kids and not everyone gets brainwashed in public schools. The state robs us of a lot of money that does not benefit us in any way (I hate paying for healthcare too or for state pension as private ones are way better) now ZOS is robbing us of our earned exp....Great commie move they made here.

Sorry, got triggered by those statements you made.

I sounded a bit aggressive.

I just do not think that it is fair towards older players, especially when it comes to the vertical progression. I think older players should have CP converted to benefit more from the vertical progression.

you sure you dont mean horizontal progression here?

Drygon · March 2021

remosito wrote: »

Drygon wrote: »

Drygon wrote: »

tmbrinks wrote: »

furiouslog wrote: »

tmbrinks wrote: »

Nobody is taking anything away from you. So your analogy is flawed.

It's more this. You work for a company and make 40k a year. You get a 2k a year raise, and they have a "soft-cap" which kicks in at 60k a year, after which you'll only get a 1k a year raise, which you'll get as soon as they raise the "soft-cap" (the 50% penalty for being over cap). So, after 15 years, you're at 60k. But the second they change the cap, you bump up to the 65k

Now, they change the "soft-cap" to 100k a year. Change the raises to 4k a year, but keep the starting salary at 40k a year.

You don't retroactively get the 4k a year raises (which is what you're asking for by having the XP shift to the new CP scale) and are suddenly making the 100k a year (since you'd be at the new "soft-cap"), you're making the 65k a year and getting 4k raises for the next 10 or so years.

But somebody who is new is making the 40k a year plus the 4k raises. Yes, they will get to the 65k you're now making much quicker than you did, but you will still be ahead of them.

I know it doesn't work this way in the real world. But you aren't losing anything as your analogy would suggest.

I knew that if I attempted to provide an analogy that the discussion would become about the analogy. Rookie mistake.

I don't agree with your analogy, because we just don't see the issue the same way. I invested time for value. The value is being removed. It's that simple. I could use currency devaluation or some other contrivance to communicate the core idea in the name of communicating why I think this is unfair, but the conversation will just continue to get sidetracked as we mutually nitpick the analogy instead of the core issue. So I'll say this: I agree that my analogy is flawed. Your analogy is also flawed and is not at all representative of my perspective of the situation I am in.

At the core of it is that you don't feel that it's unfair that I have to mindlessly regrind to get to the same level of ability that I currently possess. I do think it's unfair. If we can't agree on that, there is little point in trying to convince each other of that, and we just part ways on the issue.

So, to hell with any new players, they should be forced to put the same time investment in the game that you did to reach "parity" with you. Got it!

It's the same as my elderly neighbors complaining about having to pay taxes to the local schools... "well, I don't have any kids going there anymore so why do they get my money?"

Or my parents complaining when anybody brings up making community college free/reducing the cost. "I had to pay for mine, so you should too!!!"

If the softcap is 1100 there what's the problem with giving utility to the older players? anything past that won't increase the gap between players.

Also, I hate paying for public schools and *** like that too, not everyone has kids and not everyone gets brainwashed in public schools. The state robs us of a lot of money that does not benefit us in any way (I hate paying for healthcare too or for state pension as private ones are way better) now ZOS is robbing us of our earned exp....Great commie move they made here.

Sorry, got triggered by those statements you made.

I sounded a bit aggressive.

I just do not think that it is fair towards older players, especially when it comes to the vertical progression. I think older players should have CP converted to benefit more from the vertical progression.

you sure you dont mean horizontal progression here?

Yup, I meant horizontal

I edited it, alongside the aggressive parts

)

Got baited lol

preevious · March 2021

hmm .. and how about we see it that way :

"They did not steal xp, or cp, but decreased the xp needed to gain one ! We have in fact all been buffed !"

Because, when you think about it .. it's almost as if they just tweaked the xp curve. In a positive way for everybody, actually.

remosito wrote: »

Duplomancer wrote: »

NoSoup wrote: »

Errrrrrr, I feel like CP adjustment is beyond "trivial" and would require extensive testing. I mean, lets just look at the drama they had with refunding werewolf skillpoints which has lead to everyone having the skill points reset on every character next patch....

I am with you. Imagine running a recalculation across millions of accounts. What could possibly go wrong? lol

It would not be a trivial thing at all. What does it do to 1-50? What happens if the server gets overloaded and there is an interrupt? What if the interrupt is not noticed. How about when it recalculates an account twice? How about fail over? So many tests, those are just off the top of my head.

Are you a coder?

I code and cp recalculation is trivial in my opinion.

But yes .. if that was a decision they'd make, it would be indeed very trivial to implement if the base code is well written.

furiouslog · March 2021

Not that this is my place to say, but I'd like to voice my appreciation to everyone discussing this issue openly without falling into the typical internet one-upsmanship traps that we have all probably been guilty of at one point or another.

Summarizing what I perceive to be the core perspectives on the issue given current design:

The XP ladder and CP design was re-engineered to allow more rapid progression for new players and to force trade-off choices, taking as a given that there is a large performance gap between new players and old players, and the focus is on driving increased inclusion in endgame for new players.
The mechanism of transitioning CP for players currently over the cap was designed intentionally to further close the gap between veteran players over the cap and new players who have not yet reached the cap to rebalance the player population so that its performance distribution is more at parity (a Harrison Bergeron solution).

I understand those motivations, but I think that it is unfair to veteran players who have invested a lot of time, effort, and care into the game. I applaud the principle of inclusion and content accessibility for less seasoned players. But because the solution for doing that means that my own skills and abilities are significantly reduced relative to what they are now, which will force me to invest additional time in the game recapturing the CP required to get where I was, I think that the burden placed on many veteran players is both significant and inequitable.

I'd really like someone at ZOS to address this issue head on, and explain their rationale so that we can understand their perspective. They might not think it's unfair. They might have another motivation in their approach that we have not extrapolated from the situation due to blind spots. Unless ZOS tells us and explains it, we have no way to understand. There are a significant number of players who are unhappy with this approach. Please just take a few moments and share the "why" of all of this. Even if we don't all agree, at least we have an opportunity to understand. And I think that since we've demonstrated that it is possible for us to discuss this rationally and with understanding for opposing views, we should be rewarded with an explanation out of respect for the people who have supported your game, helpfully provided feedback, cheerfully participated in community engagement, and played through numerous testing, changes and performance issues in faith that you are working to continuously improve your game and our time in it.

An excerpt from today's news post says this: "In addition to ensuring players didn’t feel depowered by the change, the team wanted to add more variance and choice to the system." Well, I do feel depowered, for all aforementioned reasons.

@ZOS_GinaBruno - please just say something. Anything, even if it's just something so that we know that you hear this and get where we are coming from. If it's already been definitively addressed, please show us where. Talk to your community, whether it's a final word, or guidance, or an open discussion, or just flat acknowledgement with no expectation of change. I think that we deserve that. It will take 15-20 minutes of your time to articulate why you're making me spend 100 hours of my time to recapture what I have now, multiplied across hundreds if not thousands of players. I think that's a pretty fair ask.

tmbrinks · March 2021

furiouslog wrote: »

Not that this is my place to say, but I'd like to voice my appreciation to everyone discussing this issue openly without falling into the typical internet one-upsmanship traps that we have all probably been guilty of at one point or another.

Summarizing what I perceive to be the core perspectives on the issue given current design:
The XP ladder and CP design was re-engineered to allow more rapid progression for new players and to force trade-off choices, taking as a given that there is a large performance gap between new players and old players, and the focus is on driving increased inclusion in endgame for new players.

The mechanism of transitioning CP for players currently over the cap was designed intentionally to further close the gap between veteran players over the cap and new players who have not yet reached the cap to rebalance the player population so that its performance distribution is more at parity (a Harrison Bergeron solution).

I understand those motivations, but I think that it is unfair to veteran players who have invested a lot of time, effort, and care into the game. I applaud the principle of inclusion and content accessibility for less seasoned players. But because the solution for doing that means that my own skills and abilities are significantly reduced relative to what they are now, which will force me to invest additional time in the game recapturing the CP required to get where I was, I think that the burden placed on many veteran players is both significant and inequitable.

I'd really like someone at ZOS to address this issue head on, and explain their rationale so that we can understand their perspective. They might not think it's unfair. They might have another motivation in their approach that we have not extrapolated from the situation due to blind spots. Unless ZOS tells us and explains it, we have no way to understand. There are a significant number of players who are unhappy with this approach. Please just take a few moments and share the "why" of all of this. Even if we don't all agree, at least we have an opportunity to understand. And I think that since we've demonstrated that it is possible for us to discuss this rationally and with understanding for opposing views, we should be rewarded with an explanation out of respect for the people who have supported your game, helpfully provided feedback, cheerfully participated in community engagement, and played through numerous testing, changes and performance issues in faith that you are working to continuously improve your game and our time in it.

@ZOS_GinaBruno - please just say something. Anything, even if it's just something so that we know that you hear this and get where we are coming from. If it's already been definitively addressed, please show us where. Talk to your community, whether it's a final word, or guidance, or an open discussion, or just flat acknowledgement with no expectation of change. I think that we deserve that. It will take 15-20 minutes of your time to articulate why you're making me spend 100 hours of my time to recapture what I have now, multiplied across hundreds if not thousands of players. I think that's a pretty fair ask.

I know we disagree on some of the finer points, but I agree with your sentiment here.

Unfortunately, it seems to be the standard operating procedure for mostly radio silence from ZoS on these things. Outside of the commentary from any ESO Live video and what's on the patch notes themselves, they rarely address most "controversial" things that arise when they make major changes. I'm just hoping there's not a surprise "LIVE" adjustment after the PTS period, as they have done on occasion before.

I would really think that a game that's 7 years old at this point would be in the 'fine-tuning' stage where the changes made are small. But we're still getting sweeping changes at this stage, and that is a frustrating point of concern for me. I appreciate that they are still looking at things, but I feel we should be looking at it with a scalpel, rather than a sledgehammer at this stage.

This game as an MMO fits so many other of the boxes that I am challenged to give it up, even in the light of the changes. It's not super grindy like other MMOs, it's not completely PVP-based at end-game like others. it's modern enough that I don't feel like I'm playing with 90's graphics, the combat is reactive. I just wish they could start to find that sweet spot so that adjustments are completely turning things on their head.

That said, CP needed an overhaul. It was a huge factor in players' ability to even participate in the game. Lots of power creep that was making content irrelevant. And I think the changes they've made will be good for the game, in the long run. CP is no longer the major driver of player "power", it's now, at best, the tertiary effect, behind skill and gear. It's just that after 2 years of stagnation, finding that sweet spot between rewarding veteran and long-term players, but not excluding brand new players is a very, very difficult thing to do.

furiouslog · March 2021

tmbrinks wrote: »

I know we disagree on some of the finer points, but I agree with your sentiment here.

Unfortunately, it seems to be the standard operating procedure for mostly radio silence from ZoS on these things. Outside of the commentary from any ESO Live video and what's on the patch notes themselves, they rarely address most "controversial" things that arise when they make major changes. I'm just hoping there's not a surprise "LIVE" adjustment after the PTS period, as they have done on occasion before.

I would really think that a game that's 7 years old at this point would be in the 'fine-tuning' stage where the changes made are small. But we're still getting sweeping changes at this stage, and that is a frustrating point of concern for me. I appreciate that they are still looking at things, but I feel we should be looking at it with a scalpel, rather than a sledgehammer at this stage.

This game as an MMO fits so many other of the boxes that I am challenged to give it up, even in the light of the changes. It's not super grindy like other MMOs, it's not completely PVP-based at end-game like others. it's modern enough that I don't feel like I'm playing with 90's graphics, the combat is reactive. I just wish they could start to find that sweet spot so that adjustments are completely turning things on their head.

That said, CP needed an overhaul. It was a huge factor in players' ability to even participate in the game. Lots of power creep that was making content irrelevant. And I think the changes they've made will be good for the game, in the long run. CP is no longer the major driver of player "power", it's now, at best, the tertiary effect, behind skill and gear. It's just that after 2 years of stagnation, finding that sweet spot between rewarding veteran and long-term players, but not excluding brand new players is a very, very difficult thing to do.

I totally agree with all of that. I'm not a huge fan of everything in their new CP design, but the tradeoff mechanics and slot bar make the intent clear. Even if I find it personally challenging or disruptive, I accept that it's their intent, and that it's logical, and acknowledge that they are trying to solve some pretty old problems.

You know my issues with the rest of it, though. It's not the system as much as it is what my toons will be able to do within the system after the change, and the additional work required to get where I was.

BTW, I made a mistake earlier. I had been assuming that all CP were could be allocated across trees with a per tree cap, due to the design of the online calculators that I used. My current understanding is that CP are equally distributed across trees for allocation like they are now, which means my assumptions about blue tree investment and the total CP cap are not valid, so my total CP required to be at performance parity (excluding changes related to CP tree design and the skill bar) is higher than 1400. Just wanted to mention that to anyone paying attention to my math.

Ranger209 · March 2021

furiouslog wrote: »

[*] The XP ladder and CP design was re-engineered to allow more rapid progression for NEW players and to force trade-off choices, taking as a given that there is a large performance gap between new players and old players, and the focus is on driving increased inclusion in endgame for new players.

It is more rapid progression for ALL players. Everyone will feel it... a lot.

Duplomancer · March 2021

remosito wrote: »

Duplomancer wrote: »

NoSoup wrote: »

Errrrrrr, I feel like CP adjustment is beyond "trivial" and would require extensive testing. I mean, lets just look at the drama they had with refunding werewolf skillpoints which has lead to everyone having the skill points reset on every character next patch....

I am with you. Imagine running a recalculation across millions of accounts. What could possibly go wrong? lol

It would not be a trivial thing at all. What does it do to 1-50? What happens if the server gets overloaded and there is an interrupt? What if the interrupt is not noticed. How about when it recalculates an account twice? How about fail over? So many tests, those are just off the top of my head.

Are you a coder?

I code and cp recalculation is trivial in my opinion.

Worse, I have worked in QA for 20 years. I am sure coding it is trivial, testing it is not.

DaveMoeDee · March 2021

furiouslog wrote: »

I searched but could not find a definitive answer to this, so apologies if it's redundant. Under the new system, are we retaining our XP earned, or are we retaining our CP earned and having it directly translated to the new system?

My position is that we should retain XP earned and then have our new CP calculated under the new breaks, because otherwise, players over the cap are are artificially losing the time investment represented by their total XP earned.

I currently am at 1296 CP, with a total XP investment of about 612 million XP. If I move to the new system with 1296 CP, and not a recalculated CP based on my XP, my total XP comes down to 237 million - effectively having 60% of my time investment in the game removed from my account.

Can anyone articulate how this is being handled?

Same as every time they increase CP. You keep the amount of CP. This isn't the first time they have raised the CP and changed the XP curve for CP. They have never recalculated before.

You have zero time removed from your account. You were able to play a game all that time. If you were concerned about this, you should have not played the game until the cap reached 3600 as this was always to be expect if the cap was raised. I personally do not find an argument based on "investment" compelling. You choose how you play the game. If you spent all that time grinding CP, that was your choice. If you gathered the XP while doing the content you enjoy, what is the problem? You were able to play a video game and you gained more CP for that XP.

Some people are upset about this now because they are no longer at the usable cap, unlike in past cap increases. But it is still the same approach.

merpins · March 2021

ApoAlaia wrote: »

If this would happen in the real world with anything requiring 'x' amount of experience to qualify for 'y' (civil aviation, multiple professions where to exercise them one has to be chartered etc.) where the appropriate governing body decides to devalue the experience of existing aspirants to this degree using the flimsiest of arguments (we need to allow for the newer generation to catch up!) there would be riots.

Oh but a comparable thing to that happens every once in a while, at least it has in the US. In California for example, they raised the age you need to be in order to buy cigarettes from 18 to 21 back in 2017, and there were a lot of young adults that were not happy about the change. And just like that change, this one will happen and everyone will stop talking about it after 2 months.

Sarannah · March 2021

CP 2.0 is advertised as not giving any big bonusses after 1200 CP, and only vertical progression from there on. So there is no reason not to translate the old experience total to the new experience total.

Players spend time making that experience, which now is thrown away. If the new CP 2.0 really does what it says it does, it should be fine to calculate CP's based on total experience.

Elvenheart · March 2021

I currently have around 960 cp. A good while back I discovered I could finally solo most base game normal dungeons pretty easily, and realized I really enjoy being able to do that. I even soloed Arx Corinium vet for some purple stuff recently, but it took longer and the final boss was really a pain in vet. I’m currently trying to get a Nobel Duelist lightning staff from the Blessed Crucible once a day. Having the ability to solo it really beats having to wait to find three other players every single day that want to do that dungeon (I can’t wait to see what the companion system has to offer!).

Now, this doesn’t mean that I don’t also enjoy grouping with others for things or don’t enjoy the fact that ESO is an MMO. While I’m playing solo I still enjoy chatting with my guildies and such. My biggest fear is that with the new system I won’t be able to do what I can do right now because I won’t yet have enough cp for what I need. If normal dungeons are just a little harder to solo I’ll just live with it and do all the work to get back to the point that I’m currently at now. I won’t be happy about it, but oh well. I think that’s what a lot of people on the other side of the fence are missing, no one really wants anything other than to be at the level they currently are at with the existing system.

I don’t want ZOS to give me a bunch of CP points so I can instantly be better than I am with the current system. But before cp 2.0 I was hoping to continue to progress to the point where my chars could be even better than they are now. Now with cp 2.0, I’m afraid it’s going to take a lot of time just to get back to the point I am currently at now. That’s what worries me about the new system. If we got cp points to match the experience we have based on the new exp/cp progression table that would be great.

One thing I AM I’m looking forward to is playing around with the new system because it is something new and different.

Dark_Lord_Kuro · March 2021

They simply do the same as they did every sigle time the cp cap was raised in the past

bayushi2005 · March 2021

MovesLikeJaguar wrote: »

ApoAlaia wrote: »

If this would happen in the real world with anything requiring 'x' amount of experience to qualify for 'y' (civil aviation, multiple professions where to exercise them one has to be chartered etc.) where the appropriate governing body decides to devalue the experience of existing aspirants to this degree using the flimsiest of arguments (we need to allow for the newer generation to catch up!) there would be riots.

Oh but a comparable thing to that happens every once in a while, at least it has in the US. In California for example, they raised the age you need to be in order to buy cigarettes from 18 to 21 back in 2017, and there were a lot of young adults that were not happy about the change. And just like that change, this one will happen and everyone will stop talking about it after 2 months.

Are you really comparing government rules for selling highly addictive and harmful stimulants to a change introduced by a private company to their paid service, which hits their most loyal customers? My 1 555 535 047 xp points feel insulted.

remosito · March 2021

preevious wrote: »

hmm .. and how about we see it that way :

"They did not steal xp, or cp, but decreased the xp needed to gain one ! We have in fact all been buffed !"

Because, when you think about it .. it's almost as if they just tweaked the xp curve. In a positive way for everybody, actually.

remosito wrote: »

[

Are you a coder?

I code and cp recalculation is trivial in my opinion.

But yes .. if that was a decision they'd make, it would be indeed very trivial to implement if the base code is well written.

I'd just do it as an offline run during paover the player db.

Duplomancer wrote: »

remosito wrote: »

Duplomancer wrote: »

NoSoup wrote: »

Errrrrrr, I feel like CP adjustment is beyond "trivial" and would require extensive testing. I mean, lets just look at the drama they had with refunding werewolf skillpoints which has lead to everyone having the skill points reset on every character next patch....

I am with you. Imagine running a recalculation across millions of accounts. What could possibly go wrong? lol

It would not be a trivial thing at all. What does it do to 1-50? What happens if the server gets overloaded and there is an interrupt? What if the interrupt is not noticed. How about when it recalculates an account twice? How about fail over? So many tests, those are just off the top of my head.

Are you a coder?

I code and cp recalculation is trivial in my opinion.

Worse, I have worked in QA for 20 years. I am sure coding it is trivial, testing it is not.

jesus.. it's just replacing a couple numerical values in a database with some others based on a rather trivial formula....in an isolated offline db run during downtime.

not some crazy ass complex new code touching a multitude of different variables in the deepest bowels of the code interfacing with many other parts..

even testing is trivial

Universe · March 2021

There have been several discussions about it already.

The suggestion in this discussion seems to be the best so far:
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/561526/most-fair-solution-of-scaling-from-cp-1-0-to-cp-2-0/p1

*All experience earned will be carried over to the new champion system.
*This suggestion seems to be the best case scenario.

*The suggestion I made in another discussion is kind of the middle ground if ZOS don't wish to translate all the experience earned to champion points.
Some kind of collective compensations per advancement of each 100 champion points past cap.
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/560918/suggestion-champion-points-compensation-for-veteran-players-when-update-29-launch/p1

tmbrinks · March 2021

remosito wrote: »

preevious wrote: »

hmm .. and how about we see it that way :

"They did not steal xp, or cp, but decreased the xp needed to gain one ! We have in fact all been buffed !"

Because, when you think about it .. it's almost as if they just tweaked the xp curve. In a positive way for everybody, actually.

remosito wrote: »

[

Are you a coder?

I code and cp recalculation is trivial in my opinion.

But yes .. if that was a decision they'd make, it would be indeed very trivial to implement if the base code is well written.

I'd just do it as an offline run during paover the player db.

Duplomancer wrote: »

remosito wrote: »

Duplomancer wrote: »

NoSoup wrote: »

Errrrrrr, I feel like CP adjustment is beyond "trivial" and would require extensive testing. I mean, lets just look at the drama they had with refunding werewolf skillpoints which has lead to everyone having the skill points reset on every character next patch....

I am with you. Imagine running a recalculation across millions of accounts. What could possibly go wrong? lol

It would not be a trivial thing at all. What does it do to 1-50? What happens if the server gets overloaded and there is an interrupt? What if the interrupt is not noticed. How about when it recalculates an account twice? How about fail over? So many tests, those are just off the top of my head.

Are you a coder?

I code and cp recalculation is trivial in my opinion.

Worse, I have worked in QA for 20 years. I am sure coding it is trivial, testing it is not.

jesus.. it's just replacing a couple numerical values in a database with some others based on a rather trivial formula....in an isolated offline db run during downtime.

not some crazy ass complex new code touching a multitude of different variables in the deepest bowels of the code interfacing with many other parts..

even testing is trivial

They have changed the XP scaling system for CP in the game at least a dozen times. So the exact time that you earned each XP would matter if you're doing a "true" calculation of XP earned.

Also, the code for this game is complete spaghetti. They've made adjustments to block animations and it causes bugs in various trials.

furiouslog · March 2021

I just saw a bunch of the other threads on this topic show up on the front page. They just suddenly appeared. Man, that's weird. I searched, I swear!

ZOS has not responded in their own thread either, I guess.

remosito · March 2021

tmbrinks wrote: »

They have changed the XP scaling system for CP in the game at least a dozen times. So the exact time that you earned each XP would matter if you're doing a "true" calculation of XP earned.

Also, the code for this game is complete spaghetti. They've made adjustments to block animations and it causes bugs in various trials.

might not be as good as perfect. But still better than bad.

As for spaghetti code.

I take it you don't code or at least not db facing. Or you would have understood the "isolated offline db run during downtime" part.

It basically means your changes dont touch any of the spaghetti code at all because you have your own separate little program that goes through the db and adjusts the relevant entries. While nobody is actively using the player data database because it's patch day and nobody can log in.