ExistingRug61 wrote: »

remosito wrote: »

Ranger209 wrote: »

CleymenZero wrote: »

the1andonlyskwex wrote: »

I know the history, and it supports my position, not yours. The only thing new about the current CP cap increase is the magnitude.

The main problem with rebaselining is that it undermines the whole point of the CP curve, which is to allow newer players to catch up to veterans. If everyone gets rebaselined, then the curve no longer helps new players catch up (because the veterans got moved forward on the curve). Rebaselining penalizes new players because it makes it harder for them to catch up to the veterans.

By allowing people to earn beyond the current cap, ESO is already letting veterans get farther ahead of new players than most other games would.

How does it support your point?

A CP 810 goes to 1100 hence making him close to maxing out his role, I go from 1600 to 2400+ which doesn't add any other damage or defensive benefits, simply QoL where I can just hotswap my orbs based on the content I'm doing.

On top of that, at that point, I'll remain in the sharper part of the exp curve, as I am now, and am not gaining CP nearly as fast as everyone else, effectively making it that people are gonna catch up fast enough.

So, QoL for the vet + slow CP gain and quick CP gains with a significantly boosted CP level for the newer players.

I don't agree with the concept that rebaselining isn't fair because it doesn't advantage newer players. The concept of ignoring accrued experience because you want to reduce the gap between vet and new players is hard to reason without arbitrarily deciding that "this is what I want to do and I will do it" is a valid justification.

The gap between newer and vet player is already significantly reduced because of the limitations introduced by the number of orbs you can slot. They've effectively made it that higher CP only have more freedom to swap this and that orb on the fly and if that's the only difference, there is no reason NOT to consider accrued exp of vet players.

So the 810 player that was 800 CP behind you will now be 1300 CP behind you. Catch up mechanic has just been nullified.

which is solely QoL difference and not a performance difference. so not critical at all. Catchup only really matters for vertical progression, not horizontal.

But it can be a performance difference, especially in a PvP context where the vertical cap is higher, arguable 1800-2000+

Take two existing players, player A at 500 CP, and player B at 1000CP, in CP PvP.

If we keep CP the same with no conversion, player A has a performance disadvantage of 500CP.

If convert CP based on XP these two players go to 702CP and 1567CP respectively.
So now player A is instead at a disadvantage of 865CP, so a greater disadvantage. And still all vertical difference.

So carrying over xp has put player A further behind player B in terms of vertical progression, as neither of these players have reached vertical progression yet, so player B's larger benefit goes entirely into vertical gain, not horizontal QoL.

I don't mind the idea of proposed changes that benefit existing veteran players, I just don't think it would be better if the idea also benefitted new or more recent players just as much, instead of placing them at a relative disadvantage.

good thing there are nocp campaigns player A can choose until he feels like the gap to player b is close enough.

ExistingRug61 wrote: »

remosito wrote: »

ExistingRug61 wrote: »

remosito wrote: »

Ranger209 wrote: »

CleymenZero wrote: »

the1andonlyskwex wrote: »

I know the history, and it supports my position, not yours. The only thing new about the current CP cap increase is the magnitude.

The main problem with rebaselining is that it undermines the whole point of the CP curve, which is to allow newer players to catch up to veterans. If everyone gets rebaselined, then the curve no longer helps new players catch up (because the veterans got moved forward on the curve). Rebaselining penalizes new players because it makes it harder for them to catch up to the veterans.

By allowing people to earn beyond the current cap, ESO is already letting veterans get farther ahead of new players than most other games would.

How does it support your point?

A CP 810 goes to 1100 hence making him close to maxing out his role, I go from 1600 to 2400+ which doesn't add any other damage or defensive benefits, simply QoL where I can just hotswap my orbs based on the content I'm doing.

On top of that, at that point, I'll remain in the sharper part of the exp curve, as I am now, and am not gaining CP nearly as fast as everyone else, effectively making it that people are gonna catch up fast enough.

So, QoL for the vet + slow CP gain and quick CP gains with a significantly boosted CP level for the newer players.

I don't agree with the concept that rebaselining isn't fair because it doesn't advantage newer players. The concept of ignoring accrued experience because you want to reduce the gap between vet and new players is hard to reason without arbitrarily deciding that "this is what I want to do and I will do it" is a valid justification.

The gap between newer and vet player is already significantly reduced because of the limitations introduced by the number of orbs you can slot. They've effectively made it that higher CP only have more freedom to swap this and that orb on the fly and if that's the only difference, there is no reason NOT to consider accrued exp of vet players.

So the 810 player that was 800 CP behind you will now be 1300 CP behind you. Catch up mechanic has just been nullified.

which is solely QoL difference and not a performance difference. so not critical at all. Catchup only really matters for vertical progression, not horizontal.

But it can be a performance difference, especially in a PvP context where the vertical cap is higher, arguable 1800-2000+

Take two existing players, player A at 500 CP, and player B at 1000CP, in CP PvP.

If we keep CP the same with no conversion, player A has a performance disadvantage of 500CP.

If convert CP based on XP these two players go to 702CP and 1567CP respectively.
So now player A is instead at a disadvantage of 865CP, so a greater disadvantage. And still all vertical difference.

So carrying over xp has put player A further behind player B in terms of vertical progression, as neither of these players have reached vertical progression yet, so player B's larger benefit goes entirely into vertical gain, not horizontal QoL.

I don't mind the idea of proposed changes that benefit existing veteran players, I just don't think it would be better if the idea also benefitted new or more recent players just as much, instead of placing them at a relative disadvantage.

good thing there are nocp campaigns player A can choose until he feels like the gap to player b is close enough.

Hence my other previous point: what if both of these players are part of guilds that play in cp pvp?

Simply changing to nocp doesn’t simply come without other trade offs.

player A must have been in a nice guild seeing his guildies were willing to carry him up to cp 500 in a cp campaign. don't see why they would stop carrying him after patch tbh. And if they are not willing to carry him for a bit. Maybe he should get a new guild anyway...

so there's player group A and B from your example. Then there's player groups C-Z all at different cp levels and different playstyles pve and pvp and different nicety guilds.

One could argue player A will get disadvantaged if he's not in a nice guild. I give you that. That is one small minority of players that fit that group btw. But most of the player groups B-Z would profit from a cp scaling.

So you seem to be in favor of most of groups B-Z to suffer so group A does not?

this is a tad puzzling tbh

remosito wrote: »

ExistingRug61 wrote: »

remosito wrote: »

ExistingRug61 wrote: »

remosito wrote: »

Ranger209 wrote: »

CleymenZero wrote: »

the1andonlyskwex wrote: »

I know the history, and it supports my position, not yours. The only thing new about the current CP cap increase is the magnitude.

The main problem with rebaselining is that it undermines the whole point of the CP curve, which is to allow newer players to catch up to veterans. If everyone gets rebaselined, then the curve no longer helps new players catch up (because the veterans got moved forward on the curve). Rebaselining penalizes new players because it makes it harder for them to catch up to the veterans.

By allowing people to earn beyond the current cap, ESO is already letting veterans get farther ahead of new players than most other games would.

How does it support your point?

A CP 810 goes to 1100 hence making him close to maxing out his role, I go from 1600 to 2400+ which doesn't add any other damage or defensive benefits, simply QoL where I can just hotswap my orbs based on the content I'm doing.

On top of that, at that point, I'll remain in the sharper part of the exp curve, as I am now, and am not gaining CP nearly as fast as everyone else, effectively making it that people are gonna catch up fast enough.

So, QoL for the vet + slow CP gain and quick CP gains with a significantly boosted CP level for the newer players.

I don't agree with the concept that rebaselining isn't fair because it doesn't advantage newer players. The concept of ignoring accrued experience because you want to reduce the gap between vet and new players is hard to reason without arbitrarily deciding that "this is what I want to do and I will do it" is a valid justification.

The gap between newer and vet player is already significantly reduced because of the limitations introduced by the number of orbs you can slot. They've effectively made it that higher CP only have more freedom to swap this and that orb on the fly and if that's the only difference, there is no reason NOT to consider accrued exp of vet players.

So the 810 player that was 800 CP behind you will now be 1300 CP behind you. Catch up mechanic has just been nullified.

which is solely QoL difference and not a performance difference. so not critical at all. Catchup only really matters for vertical progression, not horizontal.

But it can be a performance difference, especially in a PvP context where the vertical cap is higher, arguable 1800-2000+

Take two existing players, player A at 500 CP, and player B at 1000CP, in CP PvP.

If we keep CP the same with no conversion, player A has a performance disadvantage of 500CP.

If convert CP based on XP these two players go to 702CP and 1567CP respectively.
So now player A is instead at a disadvantage of 865CP, so a greater disadvantage. And still all vertical difference.

So carrying over xp has put player A further behind player B in terms of vertical progression, as neither of these players have reached vertical progression yet, so player B's larger benefit goes entirely into vertical gain, not horizontal QoL.

I don't mind the idea of proposed changes that benefit existing veteran players, I just don't think it would be better if the idea also benefitted new or more recent players just as much, instead of placing them at a relative disadvantage.

good thing there are nocp campaigns player A can choose until he feels like the gap to player b is close enough.

Hence my other previous point: what if both of these players are part of guilds that play in cp pvp?

Simply changing to nocp doesn’t simply come without other trade offs.

player A must have been in a nice guild seeing his guildies were willing to carry him up to cp 500 in a cp campaign. don't see why they would stop carrying him after patch tbh. And if they are not willing to carry him for a bit. Maybe he should get a new guild anyway...

so there's player group A and B from your example. Then there's player groups C-Z all at different cp levels and different playstyles pve and pvp and different nicety guilds.

One could argue player A will get disadvantaged if he's not in a nice guild. I give you that. That is one small minority of players that fit that group btw. But most of the player groups B-Z would profit from a cp scaling.

So you seem to be in favor of most of groups B-Z to suffer so group A does not?

this is a tad puzzling tbh

To the last bit:

The topic of this thread was about the most fair solution.

And in that context, I don’t think that the conversion is that. Sure it may benefit those groups B-Z, but I am highlighting that there are still groups of players that it does not benefit, in my example player A. It’s not that I think that those groups B-Z should suffer just so player A doesn’t, just that we shouldn’t forget about player A in our quest to make things better for groups B-Z.

To me the most fair solution would be one that benefits all those groups equally, not just a subset.
Based on my own and other examples presented, I believe the conversion solution does not benefit all equally, so it is not the “most fair”. Hence I think we can do better.

I am not sure why that would be puzzling.

SirTyrraxius wrote: »

You don't really lose any XP and no one stole it from you because you can't just compare the XP you needed vs XP needed now.

I wish people would stop telling me what I can and cant do. And would instead say what they do....

"I don't really lose any Xp and no one stole it from me because I dont see Xp needed before and after as comparable" goes over so much better.

SirTyrraxius wrote: »

The fact that they thought raising the cap to 3600 and the required CP to 1200/1800 or whatever is now needed to be competitive at the higher levels of PVE and PVP shows that they've never thought about how it's going to affect people who haven't been grinding XP for years to prepare a big advantage when new CP comes. You don't really lose any XP and no one stole it from you because you can't just compare the XP you needed vs XP needed now but after seeing that I would need 70mil XP to get to 1200, and my friend would need 174mil, it's just not going to happen for either of us.

Instead of giving you more CP based on your old XP earned to help you reach the new ridiculous numbers, they should've done a numbers squish like WOW did and FFXIV is doing this year. I get some people feel they deserve to have a big advantage over others because they've been grinding but that's not healthy for the game. Most players will never bother grinding so much just to do the same content they've been doing now (and most new players definitely won't).

The most fair solution would be to either leave the cap at 810 or so, but still introduce new system and then decrease the points needed per each star, and greatly reduce XP needed to get to that point. It should be easily accessible to everyone, although not to the point they need to do 5 dungeons and reach the cap but it shouldn't be a massive chore that might take years for those who want to have fun and not mindlessly grind Skyreach/zombies and random dungeons. They never even should've allowed CP to be earned past 810 in the first place. But free CP based on what you "earned" after cap would only temporarily solve the issue for those few players and it would be an even bigger problem for the game overall in the long run so that's not a solution either.

Then I'll give you a perspective what 70 mil xp means for somebody who is 1500 CP+. 70 mil would give you 60 CP or less. And again, as per design, the CP system's cap is 3600. The current "active CP cap" is ZOS's ad hoc solution to people actively grinding CP when they were introduced (400k xp each, check your daily enlightenment, rings a bell?). Most people place the cap wrongly at 810. 810 is the "amount of levels" ZOS allows you to use because they created a system which is mostly about vertical progression and until now they haven't been bothered with properly fixing it - yes, since January 2015.

I understand that the youth wants to catch up faster and I am perfectly fine with that. I strongly advocate a better XP buff for new players. Double or tripple enlightenment? A constant 50% XP buff until 1200 (or whatever the entry point is) is reached? - you name it.

But goodness me, please, take into account all the hard work the old players have done to reach the point where they are and allow them the QoL perks. There are people like me, who played since beta, who have leveled numerous alts to vet10 (it would take clearing a zone like Glenumbra of every quest and activity to gain one vet rank), then to VR12 and 14 to be finally left with mere 70 CP when the CP system hit live. Since the introduction of the active CP cap I have lived with CP gain penalty. I worked really hard (the initial penalty was 3x regular xp needed for a CP) to get where I am.

Don't really know how other veteran players feel about it, but I, truly, do not have another Skyreach run or another alt in me. I've done the base game pretty much 9 times (including side quests, thank you). I cleared the dungeons thousands of times. Zombies, Skyreach, Randoms and making a new alt (for some deleting an alt and making a new one) is all the veterans have left to gain any decent XP. And they've done it already. Many, many, many times.

Please, younger folks, try to understand us. I think (take it as a personal opinion) that many veteran players would want to see you progressing much faster, while having their quality of life similar to what they have achieved.

Merlin13KAGL wrote: »

remosito wrote: »

Merlin13KAGL wrote: »

remosito wrote: »

Sju wrote: »

Universe wrote: »

So there has been no response from ZOS yet ?
I hope they will consider implementing it so no experience will be lost in Champion system 2.0.

You didn't lose any experience, why is this still hard for people to understand?

Of course we did loose exp.. At least the way I and others see it.

How is it difficult to grasp for some people that some might look at a thing one way and others look at it differently?

Because this formula doesn't change, regardless of "how you look at it."

((CP's you have in 1.0) - (CP's you have in 2.0)) x any XP value here still equals Z E R O.

Your CP's are the same. Your XP earned is the same.

The cost to get there is the only thing changing, and that's for the catch up mechanic, intended for people with far less CP than you have to be complaining here.

It doesn't make you less viable, it allows newer players to become viable faster.

This entitlement perspective is quickly becoming the latest dead horse.

As I said. You can look at it any way you want. All good with me. Where I am from it's totally normal for people
to have a right to their own way of seeing things and expressing them even. (Well.. short of hate speech that is)
[Snip]


The way I see it CP number is simply an expression of how much Xp you have earned.

If you look at this table: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1uS2H-elnpVngKOMBqwl3LHytDHSOBwmDfDoQHHOtoh4/edit?usp=sharing

You will see:
- CP1.0 a value of 1200 expresses I have made 515M Xp.
- CP2.0 a value of 1200 expresses I have made 206M Xp.

So by keeping our Cp the same I indeed loose 60% of my Xp. Pretty simple.

As for catch up mechanic. Why is there a secondary catchup mechanic involving degrading vet players Xp necessary. That's what the vertical progression cap is there for. Which is generously low imo.

[Snip]

You absolutely have the right to view anything you like, any way you like. It won't magically make it true.

Using your very own example: 1200 CP's = 1200 CP's.

One of the first things I did on PTS is go in on some of the less forgiving content the game has to offer to see if it was still clearable. It was. It took a little longer, but it was not night and day difference, as most are assuming it will be.

For further record, that was with none of the mitigation passives unlocked.

The catchup mechanic for a newer player does not somehow make you weaker except in your own mind. If the vertical cap is so generously low, I understand what your complaint is even less.

If you bought an item today for $12.00, and tomorrow it goes on sale for $6.00, you haven't somehow lost $6.00, and you still have the exact same item.

The change goes live on Monday. You can view it as you wish, and either play, or not play. Or, you can view it as it is and continue your progression. Choice is yours.

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

Sju wrote: »

If anyone needs to jog their memory of what the VR to CP conversion was really like.
https://www.elderscrollsonline.com/en-us/news/post/25671

OH YEAH.

To all the new players complaining about this CP conversion please realize that before ya'll were even contemplating this game:

XP gained was not shared between your character before CP

The higher leveled players around here aren't complaining because we remember how things were.

• When you needed to run VMA 2000 times because you got a vMA inferno and it dropped in powered (no transmutation)
• Staves counted as one piece of a set (now two pieces)
• Prosperous was an armor train increasing our gold (became invigorating)
• Jewelry could not be improved, dropped in 3 traits, and gold was a unicorn
• Normal dungeons were tough and vet dungeons were like trials
• Outfit stations didn't exist
• Monster helmets weren't a guaranteed drop
• Your chances at the monster shoulder you needed, in the trait you needed was insanely slim
• Max CP was 780/750/720/690 etc
• You had to run through Cyrodiil to get to Imperial City
• etc

The list goes on. Be happy that they're even doing this with the CP system. There will clearly be adjustments in the future but for now take the time to slowly grow just like this game has.

@trackdemon5512
Add to your list:

• Double XP events didn't occur 15 times a year.
• There was no high XP daily that knocked out your enlightenment in one fell swoop. (There also was no enlightenment)
• Double bank space wasn't a thing, so inventory management was an even bigger part of the game than it is now.
• Group creation was even harder because you couldn't group with anyone outside of your Alliance.
• Entering non-Alliance areas required you or a group member to have completed Silver/Gold to even set foot.
• Gear was not always tradable, even among group members. So, that perfect trait piece that the other role got couldn't be passed on to you if they wanted to.
• If you were more than 4 levels above your fellow group members, you received zero XP for kills and no loot.

This is such a minor 'issue' compared with the inconveniences of the past.

Is it a "nerf" in some way? Sure. I'll give everyone that. Is it as gamebreaking as most are making it out to be, not remotely.

[Edited for removed content]

If you take the title of the post at face value, i.e. What's the most fair way to go forward, your last paragraph defeats any other argument.

Also, people should really stop making fallacious analogies. It's not completely honest to present an analogy that's not equivalent to support your argument, it makes people that are more opinionated than rational have a wrong idea.

Your item going on sale the next day is completely off.

Most obvious even though it's not completely relevant is that most stores have price adjustment policies. That defeats your argument because in that case there's a corrective measure. Are you saying ZOS should also have a corrective measure?

Second, the correct analogy is more akin to a university not recognizing your university credits from another institution. You've put in the time and money to acquire the experience but it won't be recognized.

Another analogy is the one where you have 12k hours seniority and reached max pay. Pay increased every 600 hours and capped at 25$/h. You've been at max for the last 6k hours.

Change in policy, new salary cap at 35$ and hours needed to go up a notch is now 200 hours so 3x faster.

You ask your boss if you'll be increased to cap given your seniority. He says no, he says catch up mechanic in spite of the fact that the 200 hours to pay increase is already a great catch up mechanic.

It might seem like a complicated analogy but that's more akin to the situation.

Now, do I care anymore about getting adjustment? Meh, not gonna hold my breath. Is it the most fair way forward? I really don't think so but again, nobody cares about fair. What's most practical and easiest and has the least risk of error is I guess the "best" way forward.

Edit: I also don't understand the point you make with the exp events and double bank space? Are you saying that a right in an unrelated subject makes a wrong become right?

Disturbed_One wrote: »

CleymenZero wrote: »

Disturbed_One wrote: »

CleymenZero wrote: »

Merlin13KAGL wrote: »

remosito wrote: »

Merlin13KAGL wrote: »

remosito wrote: »

Sju wrote: »

Universe wrote: »

So there has been no response from ZOS yet ?
I hope they will consider implementing it so no experience will be lost in Champion system 2.0.

You didn't lose any experience, why is this still hard for people to understand?

Of course we did loose exp.. At least the way I and others see it.

How is it difficult to grasp for some people that some might look at a thing one way and others look at it differently?

Because this formula doesn't change, regardless of "how you look at it."

((CP's you have in 1.0) - (CP's you have in 2.0)) x any XP value here still equals Z E R O.

Your CP's are the same. Your XP earned is the same.

The cost to get there is the only thing changing, and that's for the catch up mechanic, intended for people with far less CP than you have to be complaining here.

It doesn't make you less viable, it allows newer players to become viable faster.

This entitlement perspective is quickly becoming the latest dead horse.

As I said. You can look at it any way you want. All good with me. Where I am from it's totally normal for people
to have a right to their own way of seeing things and expressing them even. (Well.. short of hate speech that is)
[Snip]


The way I see it CP number is simply an expression of how much Xp you have earned.

If you look at this table: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1uS2H-elnpVngKOMBqwl3LHytDHSOBwmDfDoQHHOtoh4/edit?usp=sharing

You will see:
- CP1.0 a value of 1200 expresses I have made 515M Xp.
- CP2.0 a value of 1200 expresses I have made 206M Xp.

So by keeping our Cp the same I indeed loose 60% of my Xp. Pretty simple.

As for catch up mechanic. Why is there a secondary catchup mechanic involving degrading vet players Xp necessary. That's what the vertical progression cap is there for. Which is generously low imo.

[Snip]

You absolutely have the right to view anything you like, any way you like. It won't magically make it true.

Using your very own example: 1200 CP's = 1200 CP's.

One of the first things I did on PTS is go in on some of the less forgiving content the game has to offer to see if it was still clearable. It was. It took a little longer, but it was not night and day difference, as most are assuming it will be.

For further record, that was with none of the mitigation passives unlocked.

The catchup mechanic for a newer player does not somehow make you weaker except in your own mind. If the vertical cap is so generously low, I understand what your complaint is even less.

If you bought an item today for $12.00, and tomorrow it goes on sale for $6.00, you haven't somehow lost $6.00, and you still have the exact same item.

The change goes live on Monday. You can view it as you wish, and either play, or not play. Or, you can view it as it is and continue your progression. Choice is yours.

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

Sju wrote: »

If anyone needs to jog their memory of what the VR to CP conversion was really like.
https://www.elderscrollsonline.com/en-us/news/post/25671

OH YEAH.

To all the new players complaining about this CP conversion please realize that before ya'll were even contemplating this game:

XP gained was not shared between your character before CP

The higher leveled players around here aren't complaining because we remember how things were.

• When you needed to run VMA 2000 times because you got a vMA inferno and it dropped in powered (no transmutation)
• Staves counted as one piece of a set (now two pieces)
• Prosperous was an armor train increasing our gold (became invigorating)
• Jewelry could not be improved, dropped in 3 traits, and gold was a unicorn
• Normal dungeons were tough and vet dungeons were like trials
• Outfit stations didn't exist
• Monster helmets weren't a guaranteed drop
• Your chances at the monster shoulder you needed, in the trait you needed was insanely slim
• Max CP was 780/750/720/690 etc
• You had to run through Cyrodiil to get to Imperial City
• etc

The list goes on. Be happy that they're even doing this with the CP system. There will clearly be adjustments in the future but for now take the time to slowly grow just like this game has.

@trackdemon5512
Add to your list:

• Double XP events didn't occur 15 times a year.
• There was no high XP daily that knocked out your enlightenment in one fell swoop. (There also was no enlightenment)
• Double bank space wasn't a thing, so inventory management was an even bigger part of the game than it is now.
• Group creation was even harder because you couldn't group with anyone outside of your Alliance.
• Entering non-Alliance areas required you or a group member to have completed Silver/Gold to even set foot.
• Gear was not always tradable, even among group members. So, that perfect trait piece that the other role got couldn't be passed on to you if they wanted to.
• If you were more than 4 levels above your fellow group members, you received zero XP for kills and no loot.

This is such a minor 'issue' compared with the inconveniences of the past.

Is it a "nerf" in some way? Sure. I'll give everyone that. Is it as gamebreaking as most are making it out to be, not remotely.

[Edited for removed content]

If you take the title of the post at face value, i.e. What's the most fair way to go forward, your last paragraph defeats any other argument.

Also, people should really stop making fallacious analogies. It's not completely honest to present an analogy that's not equivalent to support your argument, it makes people that are more opinionated than rational have a wrong idea.

Your item going on sale the next day is completely off.

Most obvious even though it's not completely relevant is that most stores have price adjustment policies. That defeats your argument because in that case there's a corrective measure. Are you saying ZOS should also have a corrective measure?

Second, the correct analogy is more akin to a university not recognizing your university credits from another institution. You've put in the time and money to acquire the experience but it won't be recognized.

Another analogy is the one where you have 12k hours seniority and reached max pay. Pay increased every 600 hours and capped at 25$/h. You've been at max for the last 6k hours.

Change in policy, new salary cap at 35$ and hours needed to go up a notch is now 200 hours so 3x faster.

You ask your boss if you'll be increased to cap given your seniority. He says no, he says catch up mechanic in spite of the fact that the 200 hours to pay increase is already a great catch up mechanic.

It might seem like a complicated analogy but that's more akin to the situation.

Now, do I care anymore about getting adjustment? Meh, not gonna hold my breath. Is it the most fair way forward? I really don't think so but again, nobody cares about fair. What's most practical and easiest and has the least risk of error is I guess the "best" way forward.

Edit: I also don't understand the point you make with the exp events and double bank space? Are you saying that a right in an unrelated subject makes a wrong become right?

Somebody else made that exact analogy, which I agree with, in another thread (how have they not closed all these duplicates?) and got told they were wrong when arguing from the other perspective. So, IMO you've just proven that no scaling is needed.

Ironic you're telling people there analogies are wrong when you were making false statements, not even analogies earlier, like saying you can't even slot your active stars at 810, when it clearly takes only about 600 CP to do so. Anybody who has spent a minute looking at the system would see that.

I'm at like 1150 CP, happy I was able to earn CP above the cap at the cost, happy I'll get to finally use some of them. My next 650 CP are going to be 1/3rd the cost (so I'll get 3 for every 1 I would have earned), so I'll quickly get to a level that I can max out everything, which is like 1200-1500 CP (despite the false claims that it is otherwise... me being able to get 4% extra heals on my off my hots that I don't even run as a DPS aren't going to change a damn thing on my ability to do content, so I'm not going to count them)

I'll stick with the spirit of the change, rather than a literal interpretation to figure out what I need to "make a point" like many others in here seem to do.

Looking forward to even the smallest sense of vertical progression afterwards, it's been pretty stagnant since 810 this last year and a half since i hit it.

Wow... In a loop here. My statement was that you can't max out all the orbs. MAX out.

I've been and have parsed on the pts when the template was 810. Also did go in the first iteration of the PTS so your claim on my false statement is your own misinformation.

I say it again, at 810, you will not be able to max out all the orbs (assuming you know what you're doing and max out the most important yellow orbs). So you're absolutely wrong on that one.

Now, since you've got my claim wrong to discredit me in the first place, bring me the post with the analogy in question. There's most likely a nuance you didn't get. I'll help out.

It's funny because in my post, I spoke of honesty, which is important in a debate, and you misreporting my own words kind of expose what some people do to prove a point.

Here is your quote from 3/3

Take an 810 CP 1.0 right? That person is currently maxed out in this system. Fast-forward a week, he can't slot or can't complete 4 orbs for his dps role.

How am I supposed to interpret the 4 - orbs you mention. Those are your slottables.

This is unequivocally false. That is what I'm referring to. They cost less than 50 CP each. There are 4 of them. You only need 600 CP to slot and maximize all of them.

Honesty is very key... I would expect it.

First of all, I've said in this post or another in this thread that you won't be able to maximize your role. You won't be able to fill the white orbs unless you cut corners which isn't an honest presentation if that's your angle.

That paragraph was kept short to avoid a whole freaking exeplanation but I guess I'll give it to you.

At CP 810, you have 270 points to put in the blue tree. Let's just consider that you absolutely need mitigation in trials because you are losing a lot, getting base mit which is still half to a third of the mitigation you had in CP 1.0 so you need that 8% from the blue tree.

To access that orb, you need 10 points into increasing healing taken then 40 points to complete that orb. THIS IS BASIC AND WILL LIKELY BE REQUIRED.

After that, you will get your crit chance orb which is 40 points. Then the 1300 (or something) pen which is 40-50 points. You haven't put any points into the slottable orbs and you're down 120-130 points. With no points into the orb that increases status effect application (won't be important to all classes but DKs will want it) and no points into increasing the damage of status effects, it leaves you with 140-150 points. Each of the slottable orbs require 40 points meaning you'll need 160 points.

Now... 160 - 140/150 = - 10/20

You are short a few points unless you take away from other orbs and you still have another 80 points you could use on the status effect passive.

[snip] EDIT: I assumed people arguing the finer details are aware of the system and have been on the PTS to fiddle with it. [snip]

Now this is where you make a video where you fill the 4 orbs, forego putting any point into pen, stat, damage mitigation (which trust me, will be excruciatingly important), crit chance etc etc.

Would you make a build with only slotting those 4 and nothing else? Of course, if you're aiming to not put any cp into the yellow orbs, you'll fully fill them but that's not how it's gonna happen.

So my statement stands.

[Edited to remove Baiting]

furiouslog wrote: »

bayushi2005 wrote: »

Then I'll give you a perspective what 70 mil xp means for somebody who is 1500 CP+. 70 mil would give you 60 CP or less. And again, as per design, the CP system's cap is 3600. The current "active CP cap" is ZOS's ad hoc solution to people actively grinding CP when they were introduced (400k xp each, check your daily enlightenment, rings a bell?). Most people place the cap wrongly at 810. 810 is the "amount of levels" ZOS allows you to use because they created a system which is mostly about vertical progression and until now they haven't been bothered with properly fixing it - yes, since January 2015.

I understand that the youth wants to catch up faster and I am perfectly fine with that. I strongly advocate a better XP buff for new players. Double or tripple enlightenment? A constant 50% XP buff until 1200 (or whatever the entry point is) is reached? - you name it.

But goodness me, please, take into account all the hard work the old players have done to reach the point where they are and allow them the QoL perks. There are people like me, who played since beta, who have leveled numerous alts to vet10 (it would take clearing a zone like Glenumbra of every quest and activity to gain one vet rank), then to VR12 and 14 to be finally left with mere 70 CP when the CP system hit live. Since the introduction of the active CP cap I have lived with CP gain penalty. I worked really hard (the initial penalty was 3x regular xp needed for a CP) to get where I am.

Don't really know how other veteran players feel about it, but I, truly, do not have another Skyreach run or another alt in me. I've done the base game pretty much 9 times (including side quests, thank you). I cleared the dungeons thousands of times. Zombies, Skyreach, Randoms and making a new alt (for some deleting an alt and making a new one) is all the veterans have left to gain any decent XP. And they've done it already. Many, many, many times.

Please, younger folks, try to understand us. I think (take it as a personal opinion) that many veteran players would want to see you progressing much faster, while having their quality of life similar to what they have achieved.

I totally get you here.

This is what I don't understand. ZOS had the ability to achieve their primary redesign objectives without alienating this subgroup of players. Whether or not anyone agrees or disagrees with the premise of this perception, it still needs to be acknowledged that the perception exists and is difficult to argue against, because it is a feeling derived from a set of facts, it's not just facts.

Here's my mindset: I was excited about the new tree. I wasn't 100 percent on board with all decisions, but I was okay with the design given the intent. Being where I am at and using the CP calculators to look at my March 8th stats, I determined that I'd need to grind about 100-120 hours of 50% buffed random normals on different toons to re-achieve my current abilities and QOL. That is discouraging. I have 12 toons, most of which were made in response to dps respecs and trials meta. I stopped making new toons because it seemed ridiculous that if I couldn't find one of them to play on that was fun, the game was essentially over for me. Like you said: I don't have another one in me. I don't want to do it again. I want to move forward - the CP tree is an opportunity to do that, but at the cost of yet more grind to recapture my current abilities.

Grind for cosmetics and stuff like that, sure. Grind to get gear, sure, especially with the sticker book (again, thank you for that ZOS, that was a big win). Making me take a number of steps backwards before I get to continue traveling forward? It's exhausting and unfair, and it was easily avoidable in the front end design of this transition. It makes me feel bad and frustrated.

I also have a lot of Bretons. Now, the consensus is that Bretons are going to be bad for DPS. I don't really want to change their races, even if I had the tokens for free, but I would as a practical matter if it meant increasing my trial viability. Anyway, I guess I just like Bretons. But that also makes me feel frustrated, that to re-optimize my play, I'll have to pay for tokens or deal with being nerfed.

The issues of elitism and barriers to inclusion are not going to be completely solved by all of this, unless the design is intended to deliberately force the game's sunset for people who are likely elitist. Then I'd get it, but I seriously don't think that's the intent.

I want to be able to continue to support and play the game without feeling like I'm being treated unfairly or that the cost of my personal leisure time is a negligible factor in ZOS's decision processes. Is that an unreasonable expectation?

I am curious if you would iterate the QOL you are completely losing.

Using Alcast's Calculator.

To get the 10% Plentiful Harvest + 50% reduction in Harvest time (which you can get on Live), required me to spend 185 CP in the green tree (555 CP total, well below the 810 we're talking about) (yeah, we could go all the way up to war mount, but I don't think that passive is much used regardless... considering you can pretty much ride from one end of cyrodiil to another on an upgraded mount already)

Almost all the other passives/actives in the crafting tree are new after that. So, you don't have those now, so I don't feel it's fair to do any comparison with those.

At 220 CP in the blue tree (660 total) you can get to the place to slot all 4 passives with the minimum points you need in other trees. (and at this stage you get the full bonuses. On live, you would never get the "full" bonuses, as you could only ever put 100 points into 2 stars on live, since you only had 270 per tree.) yes, the bonuses have changed. Add in some of the other stats (penetration isn't really needed in a good group, so can keep that at 10 points). Mitigation, yes you lose some of that (intended by the new design, hence the extra health and base stats you are getting plus the 10% reduction in monster damage that is just in the base game). I truly believe that even without any of the "new" mitigation, your survivability in the game is going to go up drastically, from the extra health/reduced monster damage. The "new" mitigation is extra above and beyond that!

I feel like a lot of this argument is confusing the difference between "maxed" out stats in the old system (of which you could never get all of them (since you were limited to 270 CP in each tree) to people thinking they should be "maxed" in the new system (saying they should get all the things). But that counteracts the core argument of those that say we should get to that point... since the primary argument has been about time spent. This would mean that you are effectively saying the extra time that those players who are really high CP needs to be wasted as well. (I understand that this is a small segment, and I'm sure somebody will once again point out to me that I'm only saying this because I am so high level of CP... I just did it for you... you're welcome )

Based on what I have seen from the content creators... and from what ZoS has said.. and from my own testing.
1. ZoS wants a 10-15% nerf of damage.
2. That 10-15% is achieved when comparing 810 on Live to 1170 on PTS.
3. The average CP of players above 810 (long-term players) is 1200-1300 (stated on ESO Live), so the average long-term player has already achieved the new "parity"
4. The average of all players is about 400
4b. The curve is adjusted, so the XP needed to get to 1170 on PTS is almost identical to 810 on Live
4c. This means that the average player (~400) will not see a significant increase in XP needed to achieve "parity" (CP 1170 on PTS)
5. Players above 1170 will see a massive decrease in XP needed to attain extra CP (they'll earn them about 3x faster until 1800) allowing them to quickly get the additional QoL things that have been added in CP 2.0
6. Players above 1800 (those hardcore, long-term players) will be able to maximize those QoL things, and get the ability to earn horizontal progression from there on (at a 50% reduced cost), so more slowly than all other players.

Yes, there will always be some fringe cases when you make a switch from one system to another. And some players are going to feel differently about it.

That said, I feel like they've done a decent job of "shooting the middle" on this case. Especially when we consider that we've been able to earn CP above the cap all this time, as there was never any obligation that they needed to do so.