ZOS_Hadeostry wrote: »Greetings,
After further review we have decided to move this thread to a category we think is more appropriate for this topic.
Thank you for your understanding
Agenericname wrote: »YandereGirlfriend wrote: »I really do not understand what the fascination is with trying to nerf the highest-end groups. Competitive, score-pushing groups are not hurting anyone and the game would be in such a better position if the developers would just left them alone and instead focus exclusively on bringing up the bottom tier of players.
It’s not the high end players fault, but high end players do “hurt” (not really the right word for it) the game as zos needs to give those players content and content costs money.
So let’s pretend that high end players are 5% of the player base (percentage just for example, not suggesting real numbers here) but the percentage of the budget used to make content for them is say 10%. That is bad.
But if they can push the 5% downward to say the top 20%. And they use that 10% of the budget for that group. That would be much better.
If they can make hard content that appeals to more players then just the small percentage of high end players that would be ideal.
EDIT: If the high end player group is too small for the budget allotted to make content that appeals to them, they become a budget liability.(?) Is that a better way of putting it?
That content doesnt exist solely for high end groups. It exists for anyone willing to try. For everyone of those 600 characters that cleared vRG HM, many others are progging or have tried. Its serves as the next level of challenge, or goal if you will, for a much larger number of people.
If the entire game were vSO or vSO HM, then there wouldnt be a reason, or not much of one, to chase gear, new mythics, or stay on the meta treadmill at all, which ZOS counts on.
That is a bit disingenuous. If only 600 odd characters (not accounts from what I understand) complete the content, that content is not “pulling its weight”. And I would suggest few players are “aspiring” to do that content. I would further suggest few people even know what that content is.
So zos is left with a decision:
A) Make easier content and just say “sorry, you don’t get anything” to top end players.
B ) Curb top end players dps and make content that their new dps limits (and others of now similar dps) can enjoy.
I think “B” is the way to go. But either way I don’t care that much about it. I am much more interested in the lives of people who don’t even pull 15k dps.
Ragnarok0130 wrote: »Agenericname wrote: »YandereGirlfriend wrote: »I really do not understand what the fascination is with trying to nerf the highest-end groups. Competitive, score-pushing groups are not hurting anyone and the game would be in such a better position if the developers would just left them alone and instead focus exclusively on bringing up the bottom tier of players.
It’s not the high end players fault, but high end players do “hurt” (not really the right word for it) the game as zos needs to give those players content and content costs money.
So let’s pretend that high end players are 5% of the player base (percentage just for example, not suggesting real numbers here) but the percentage of the budget used to make content for them is say 10%. That is bad.
But if they can push the 5% downward to say the top 20%. And they use that 10% of the budget for that group. That would be much better.
If they can make hard content that appeals to more players then just the small percentage of high end players that would be ideal.
EDIT: If the high end player group is too small for the budget allotted to make content that appeals to them, they become a budget liability.(?) Is that a better way of putting it?
That content doesnt exist solely for high end groups. It exists for anyone willing to try. For everyone of those 600 characters that cleared vRG HM, many others are progging or have tried. Its serves as the next level of challenge, or goal if you will, for a much larger number of people.
If the entire game were vSO or vSO HM, then there wouldnt be a reason, or not much of one, to chase gear, new mythics, or stay on the meta treadmill at all, which ZOS counts on.
That is a bit disingenuous. If only 600 odd characters (not accounts from what I understand) complete the content, that content is not “pulling its weight”. And I would suggest few players are “aspiring” to do that content. I would further suggest few people even know what that content is.
So zos is left with a decision:
A) Make easier content and just say “sorry, you don’t get anything” to top end players.
B ) Curb top end players dps and make content that their new dps limits (and others of now similar dps) can enjoy.
I think “B” is the way to go. But either way I don’t care that much about it. I am much more interested in the lives of people who don’t even pull 15k dps.
"A" would likely be the path to success and guys like Nefas actually recommend that COA. Scorepushers have scorepushing as their reward so they are in fact getting something even if it's a 5-10 minute world record run.
Another scenario would be to implement a damage cap like they did with the crit damage cap and leave everything under the cap unaffected hence they are limiting, not lowering the ceiling and the floor is unaffected unlike in U35 where accessibility was chanted by ZoS and the low end like a mantra while actually lowering the floor.
Rugby_hook wrote: »ZOS_Hadeostry wrote: »Greetings,
After further review we have decided to move this thread to a category we think is more appropriate for this topic.
Thank you for your understanding
@ZOS_Hadeostry Would it be possible in the future to state where threads get moved? It would make it so much easier to try and follow conversations. Thank you in advance for your consideration.
MidniteOwl1913 wrote: »Rugby_hook wrote: »ZOS_Hadeostry wrote: »Greetings,
After further review we have decided to move this thread to a category we think is more appropriate for this topic.
Thank you for your understanding
@ZOS_Hadeostry Would it be possible in the future to state where threads get moved? It would make it so much easier to try and follow conversations. Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Yeah, I'd like a link, but really if you go to the top and look there is a Forums>English>x where X is where the post got moved to. It's not ideal like I said a link would be better.
YandereGirlfriend wrote: »I really do not understand what the fascination is with trying to nerf the highest-end groups. Competitive, score-pushing groups are not hurting anyone and the game would be in such a better position if the developers would just left them alone and instead focus exclusively on bringing up the bottom tier of players.
It’s not the high end players fault, but high end players do “hurt” (not really the right word for it) the game as zos needs to give those players content and content costs money.
So let’s pretend that high end players are 5% of the player base (percentage just for example, not suggesting real numbers here) but the percentage of the budget used to make content for them is say 10%. That is bad.
But if they can push the 5% downward to say the top 20%. And they use that 10% of the budget for that group. That would be much better.
If they can make hard content that appeals to more players then just the small percentage of high end players that would be ideal.
EDIT: If the high end player group is too small for the budget allotted to make content that appeals to them, they become a budget liability.(?) Is that a better way of putting it?
There needs to be some kind of DPS-Cap. Maybe then the new dungeons would be better. Seriously, after 1000s of hours I still havent finished most of the DLC-Veterandungeons (I exclusively play PUG) because of how batcrap crazy the difficulty is compared to the vanilla-veterandungeons.
I believe their point is that, due to the wide range in DPS, content has an extremely wide difficulty range as well, with the newest vets and hardmores being a lot more difficult than older content; similar to how it already is with trials.
Which isn't an entirely wrong assessment to make, tbf, though I don't see how a cap could be realized.