I did some calculations of my own, and i can agree with ya. the CP advantage is very much true. to be effective in PVP, to flush out your character like you did in champ 1.0. you'd need 1,100-1,200 to get the slottables.. but then another 1,200 just ot max out all those bonus perks under warfare. the fact champ points alternate doesnt help. really u just need 800 total champ points under warfare to get ur 4 slottables and bonus passives. but since champ points still alternate.. yeah.. 2,400 champ level roughly needed to max out for pvp.I have a different opinion. I disagree that the philosophy of -
-Removing/taking something away from someone they had before, in order to make them earn it/return it later to them-
is "good" game design.
And from my viewpoint, this is precisely that. The CP system has instances of such returns. I am no mathematician or theorybuilder, but I have heard mixed reports of everything - That the patch is good for pve, bad for pve. Good for pvp, bad for pvp. Good for low CP, bad for low CP. Good for high CP, bad for high CP.
I do think that everyone would agree that you can't please everyone all the time, and that not everyone is going to agree on what is good, or bad.
For me personally? I fall into the "Bad for low CP" folks. Enough to make me completely shelve my main for the time being. For various reasons, I simply have zero desire to play her in the current state of the game and community. If I can make a stronger character now, and do my own thing, and come back to my old main at a later date when I have more CP under my belt, then fine.
But I do disagree that this patch was "good", because even a cursory discussion ingame or a very brief search here on the forums there are people who disagree, and I am one of them.
I do hope ZoS is watching and paying attention, and might hopefully keep the "system" they made, but make some fine tuning and tweaks to it. Because for me and my circle of friends and guildies, the general overall feeling is its "Bad for most, good for some." I have not heard ZoS comment on anything said however, which I do find worrying. Are they usually silent on events like this? I am not expecting a personalized reply by any means, but even a simple "We see you" might bring some comfort to those unhappy with the current state.
Anything would be better than Silence. Silence only sends the message "You don't matter."
Best wishes.
I'm not jumping for joy or anything, but I can live with the changes. However, the green tree is an unmitigated, micromanagement mess. I do hope they rethink this part at some point.
Pink_Pixie wrote: »I'll go as far to say, it's a good idea but badly implemented. It's step in the right direction, yet two steps back due to adding much much more grinding. The ideal of improvements are to improve, not make it worse which, let's face it, it's not an improvement it's a sidestep.
VaranisArano wrote: »Why should we stop criticizing the parts of the CP 2.0 system we don't like?
This CP 2.0 isn't finished. ZOS explicitly intends to add more slottable stars and expand our options to cover more gameplay activities. Therefore, many of the criticisms about the slottable-swapping micromanagement minigame or the difference between passives/actives is extremely on point and indeed its necessary for us to provide continued feedback!
Sure, ZOS isn't going to roll back the whole system.
But please, telling players wbo dislike aspects of the system to "Stop, our voices are heard" isn't actually helpful when we know they intend to continue to develop the CP 2.0 system in certain ways. Our feedback is arguably more important than ever.
Oh, and brace yourself for another wave of complaints when this hits Consoles. No offense, but telling players to stop complaining about their pain points has never been helpful whether it's dead horse topics like Auction Houses or PVE-only Imperial City. People are going to vent. That's one of the things the forums are here for. If you don't care to read that feedback, you don't have to.
SeaArcanist wrote: »Pink_Pixie wrote: »I'll go as far to say, it's a good idea but badly implemented. It's step in the right direction, yet two steps back due to adding much much more grinding. The ideal of improvements are to improve, not make it worse which, let's face it, it's not an improvement it's a sidestep.
what defines an improvement, ease of use? cutting out steps, trimming fat. etc. to make the game easier, implies to make it less challenging or shorter, which does not imply an improvement by game standards. to make easier is not always a good thing. less grinding too is arguably a bad thing, as as more grinding. but more grinding is the optimal choice. how mad would ya be if the level stayed the same, but was twice as easy to get? some would call that an improvement. others would be pissed.
VaranisArano wrote: »Why should we stop criticizing the parts of the CP 2.0 system we don't like?
This CP 2.0 isn't finished. ZOS explicitly intends to add more slottable stars and expand our options to cover more gameplay activities. Therefore, many of the criticisms about the slottable-swapping micromanagement minigame or the difference between passives/actives is extremely on point and indeed its necessary for us to provide continued feedback!
Sure, ZOS isn't going to roll back the whole system.
But please, telling players wbo dislike aspects of the system to "Stop, our voices are heard" isn't actually helpful when we know they intend to continue to develop the CP 2.0 system in certain ways. Our feedback is arguably more important than ever.
Oh, and brace yourself for another wave of complaints when this hits Consoles. No offense, but telling players to stop complaining about their pain points has never been helpful whether it's dead horse topics like Auction Houses or PVE-only Imperial City. People are going to vent. That's one of the things the forums are here for. If you don't care to read that feedback, you don't have to.
Pink_Pixie wrote: »SeaArcanist wrote: »Pink_Pixie wrote: »I'll go as far to say, it's a good idea but badly implemented. It's step in the right direction, yet two steps back due to adding much much more grinding. The ideal of improvements are to improve, not make it worse which, let's face it, it's not an improvement it's a sidestep.
what defines an improvement, ease of use? cutting out steps, trimming fat. etc. to make the game easier, implies to make it less challenging or shorter, which does not imply an improvement by game standards. to make easier is not always a good thing. less grinding too is arguably a bad thing, as as more grinding. but more grinding is the optimal choice. how mad would ya be if the level stayed the same, but was twice as easy to get? some would call that an improvement. others would be pissed.
More grinding isn't a good thing when your choices of grinding are limited to a few things, zombies, random dungeons and random battle grounds. Many people forget that some players, play one character they can't go back and redo the quests they have already completed.
A true improvement would be to improve the old CP system without being detrimental to a good portion of the player base, in this case veterans.
Agenericname wrote: »VaranisArano wrote: »Why should we stop criticizing the parts of the CP 2.0 system we don't like?
This CP 2.0 isn't finished. ZOS explicitly intends to add more slottable stars and expand our options to cover more gameplay activities. Therefore, many of the criticisms about the slottable-swapping micromanagement minigame or the difference between passives/actives is extremely on point and indeed its necessary for us to provide continued feedback!
Sure, ZOS isn't going to roll back the whole system.
But please, telling players wbo dislike aspects of the system to "Stop, our voices are heard" isn't actually helpful when we know they intend to continue to develop the CP 2.0 system in certain ways. Our feedback is arguably more important than ever.
Oh, and brace yourself for another wave of complaints when this hits Consoles. No offense, but telling players to stop complaining about their pain points has never been helpful whether it's dead horse topics like Auction Houses or PVE-only Imperial City. People are going to vent. That's one of the things the forums are here for. If you don't care to read that feedback, you don't have to.
Hate technically is a form of feedback, though I would argue that isn't always the most effective. Furthermore, it can easily drown out the voices of reason.