Best Of
Re: Mono-class or Pure-class
spartaxoxo wrote: »Pure was primarily selected by people who were mad at subclassing. And a lot of people who dislike pureclassing prefer mono.
I don’t dislike one or the other personally. I don’t like beam, though I run it because the damage is just so much better atm and I’m lazy. I have run mono-class build this patch and done fine overall. I actually beat a meta beam build on bow/bow mono-sorc in vAS this patch in a support set (not MK), but I also suspect that person wasn’t as experienced in there as I was.
Talking about that further would get more into the pros and cons of each thing than I would like though the tldr on my opinion is that all skill lines should have approximately the same power budget and we should be able to mix and match as we please.
I do think the generalization you made in your initial statement isn’t fair to everyones reasons for how they voted, though it might be true for some.
eashi
1
Re: Addressing U50 PTS Combat & Ability Concerns
I appreciate the detailed communication here, but my main concern is that several of these issues sound like they are being acknowledged as real problems while still being allowed to go live.
Being conservative with balance is reasonable, especially with PvE/PvP separation being newer territory. But “we will adjust this over time” is worrying when the concern is something that could dominate PvP or make certain classes feel pointless for an entire patch cycle.
The biggest things I would like to see addressed before launch:
Werewolf and Class Mastery interactions should not go live if they are already known to be problematic. If the intended long-term fix is not ready, temporarily disable or restrict the worst interactions rather than letting them define the meta and then removing them months later.
Health-scaling heals and shields in PvP need a serious look. These have repeatedly created abusive defensive builds, and U50 seems like it may be adding more of that problem rather than solving it.
Class Mastery passives need to actually compete with subclassing. If the goal is to make single-class builds feel viable, then some of the current passives are too weak, especially once PvP penalties, crit resistance, and real combat conditions are considered. A passive that looks fine on paper or on a dummy can be nearly meaningless in Cyrodiil.
Please do not rely too heavily on trial dummy results. Sorcerer is a good example: high dummy numbers do not necessarily mean strong real-content performance if the class still lacks cleave, group utility, or practical ultimate interactions.
Necromancer, Nightblade, and Templar concerns still feel under-addressed. Disabling a Necro passive in PvP, giving Nightblade a crit cap most PvP builds cannot realistically use, and leaving Templar sustain/damage concerns mostly for “future iterations” does not make those classes feel like they are being brought up to parity.
I like the direction of separating PvE and PvP balance. That is probably necessary for ESO long-term. But if the first major pass ships with known outliers, weak stopgap passives, and problematic health-scaling interactions, it risks making players lose confidence in the system before it has a chance to mature.
So my ask is not “make everything perfect before launch.” My ask is: do not knowingly launch the most obvious problem interactions, and make Class Mastery strong enough that single-class builds are actually worth testing and playing.
Being conservative with balance is reasonable, especially with PvE/PvP separation being newer territory. But “we will adjust this over time” is worrying when the concern is something that could dominate PvP or make certain classes feel pointless for an entire patch cycle.
The biggest things I would like to see addressed before launch:
Werewolf and Class Mastery interactions should not go live if they are already known to be problematic. If the intended long-term fix is not ready, temporarily disable or restrict the worst interactions rather than letting them define the meta and then removing them months later.
Health-scaling heals and shields in PvP need a serious look. These have repeatedly created abusive defensive builds, and U50 seems like it may be adding more of that problem rather than solving it.
Class Mastery passives need to actually compete with subclassing. If the goal is to make single-class builds feel viable, then some of the current passives are too weak, especially once PvP penalties, crit resistance, and real combat conditions are considered. A passive that looks fine on paper or on a dummy can be nearly meaningless in Cyrodiil.
Please do not rely too heavily on trial dummy results. Sorcerer is a good example: high dummy numbers do not necessarily mean strong real-content performance if the class still lacks cleave, group utility, or practical ultimate interactions.
Necromancer, Nightblade, and Templar concerns still feel under-addressed. Disabling a Necro passive in PvP, giving Nightblade a crit cap most PvP builds cannot realistically use, and leaving Templar sustain/damage concerns mostly for “future iterations” does not make those classes feel like they are being brought up to parity.
I like the direction of separating PvE and PvP balance. That is probably necessary for ESO long-term. But if the first major pass ships with known outliers, weak stopgap passives, and problematic health-scaling interactions, it risks making players lose confidence in the system before it has a chance to mature.
So my ask is not “make everything perfect before launch.” My ask is: do not knowingly launch the most obvious problem interactions, and make Class Mastery strong enough that single-class builds are actually worth testing and playing.
Re: Mono-class or Pure-class
Cooperharley wrote: »
I do not think anyone needs to be scolded for saying “pure-class,” especially since the community and even ZOS have used it. But if we are choosing the cleanest long-term terminology, I would rather see “single-class” or “mono-class” used in official language, with “pure-class” left as informal shorthand.
I never meant to imply that I was scolding one side or the other. I only wanted to know what people used, why, and to have some discussion on it.
ZOS initially was using mono-class in the patch notes but now have begun using both. Though iirc they have always put them in quotes.
eashi
1
Re: Timbercrow Wanderer: please do something
We need more dye channels for a lot of things, this is just one. I don’t mind the covering (actually, I quite dislike the terminology people use when insulting it), but the back flap should have been wider to cover it and yeah, the pale color does not look good on all skin tones. On Khajiit, it’s giving shaved.
Soarora
2
Re: Mono-class or Pure-class
tomofhyrule wrote: »Some people read way too much into things.
"Pure" as a word just means "free of other elements." That is literally what we mean. I play a Class that is not using lines from other Classes, done. There is no "I'm better than you" in there.
The word "Pure" is also used in many other contexts, like in science. If we have "Pure gold," we know that it is 100% gold with no alloys. If I am making a compound in a lab and I purify it, there are no other compounds in there. That is the word for it.
It is people ascribing the meaning of "better" to the word "Pure" (which is not it's actual meaning!) who are then getting mad that other people are using a word which they've ascribed a different meaning to.
While you may intend the word a certain way, that’s a hard claim to make about everyone using it in every context. There’s also the fact that intent doesn’t control impact. For example, in contexts where multiple classes may be chosen (not just ESO, but certainly here on the forums too), I keep seeing the phrase “stay pure,” which is sometimes even capitalized as “stay Pure.” It’s very hard (I would argue largely impossible) to escape the strong connotations of elevating purity as the desirable choice over the alternative with rhetoric and orthography like this.
Language doesn’t exist in a vacuum, and if you do a search for that phrase you’ll find a lot of real historical and cultural contexts where it has been used to direct people to what is morally desirable. That repeated historical meaning can’t be erased or denied even if it isn’t always intended, and it isn’t at all clear it isn’t intended in most cases, since the majority of the time people aren’t disclaiming the implication of superiority and desirability when they use the term “Pure”. This isn’t a science forum, so it’s hard to think we should understand it scientifically here. Scientific language also doesn’t capitalize the word Pure or Purity alone, which is a kind of literal elevation designed to prioritize the referent over other things. As for the meaning, it’s akin to trying to use “molon labe” in its original sense outside of the context of academia. You can try, but those who have seen what associations it has been given in the modern era are still likely to have those associations evoked for them regardless. You can intend to mean it the original way, but you can’t control how it’s taken when it now has very different implications—associations that will likely be connected with you if you use that phrase too, regardless of intent. You can’t expect or force readers to take “pure/purity/Pure/Purity/stay pure/stay Pure” only the way you meant it when it has amassed lots of meanings and implications you may not want. You don’t control those associations and connotations, but you can better express what you want to mean by understanding and accepting the polysemy at work. As a speaker you’re responsible for understanding how multiple meanings and associations are likely be evoked by your choice of specific language. Denying you meant it that way doesn’t change how people understand it based on their understanding of language. Authorial intent is far from the be-all and end-all of language. Once you put out there, it becomes what your audience understands it to be.
You can say that about nearly every word. Some people will choose to view certain words a certain way, it's up to everybody else to educate them as to their meaning.
Pure's primary definition is not-mixed. Me, for example, calling it "pure-class" has no intent beyond that defintion. I am not responsible for how other's may perceive my intent, especially if within the context of me using that word makes it plainly obvious that I mean it as "not-mixed-class".
Policing language to account for what others may perceive that to mean is harcore censorship, espcecially when the full context is given. For example, I read your post, I picked one of the larger words you used at random. I chose "understands". Did you know that has several negative connotations as a word? It can be taken to mean intellectual superiority of the writer/speaker over the reader/listener. Should you stop using the word? Or do we know its meaning from the context, and that your intentions are pure? (See what I did there?!)
Edit: Typos
Re: Mono-class or Pure-class
I think both sides are making this more hostile than it needs to be.
I understand why “pure-class” caught on. It is short, it is already familiar, and in the most basic sense it means “not mixed with another class.” I do not think most people using it are trying to imply superiority or insult subclassed builds.
That said, I also understand why some people dislike it. “Pure” does carry extra connotations that “mono,” “single,” or “primary” do not. Even if the intent is neutral, the wording can still sound like the non-subclassed version is the cleaner or more correct version, while subclassing is somehow the impure version.
Personally, I think “single-class” is probably the clearest option. It says exactly what is happening without sounding clinical like “mono-class” or loaded like “pure-class.” A single-class Warden is using only Warden lines. A subclassed Warden is using lines from other classes. Simple enough.
I do not think anyone needs to be scolded for saying “pure-class,” especially since the community and even ZOS have used it. But if we are choosing the cleanest long-term terminology, I would rather see “single-class” or “mono-class” used in official language, with “pure-class” left as informal shorthand.
I understand why “pure-class” caught on. It is short, it is already familiar, and in the most basic sense it means “not mixed with another class.” I do not think most people using it are trying to imply superiority or insult subclassed builds.
That said, I also understand why some people dislike it. “Pure” does carry extra connotations that “mono,” “single,” or “primary” do not. Even if the intent is neutral, the wording can still sound like the non-subclassed version is the cleaner or more correct version, while subclassing is somehow the impure version.
Personally, I think “single-class” is probably the clearest option. It says exactly what is happening without sounding clinical like “mono-class” or loaded like “pure-class.” A single-class Warden is using only Warden lines. A subclassed Warden is using lines from other classes. Simple enough.
I do not think anyone needs to be scolded for saying “pure-class,” especially since the community and even ZOS have used it. But if we are choosing the cleanest long-term terminology, I would rather see “single-class” or “mono-class” used in official language, with “pure-class” left as informal shorthand.
Re: Timbercrow Wanderer: please do something
alternatelder wrote: »Yeah, this costume doesn't make sense especially since the Almalexia costume released. Not to mention ones before it. We also have a lot of chest showing in a new costume. They said before they wouldn't change costumes because someone might like the design, but I doubt anyone would complain about this removal/reduction of underwear. But even so, just release a version without the diaper.
I'd be happy if they made underwear paintable. That way I could make them almost disappear.
Re: Mono-class or Pure-class
@Gabriel_H yes, because in the context it is being used, it is entirely wrong.
Most players do not exclusively use Class Skills, so by nature they are mixed, that said, it doesn’t make them any less of a Dragonknight because they have a sword and shield skill slotted.
Pure just doesn’t work here, it’s that simple.
Most players do not exclusively use Class Skills, so by nature they are mixed, that said, it doesn’t make them any less of a Dragonknight because they have a sword and shield skill slotted.
Pure just doesn’t work here, it’s that simple.
Re: Official Night Market Feedback Thread
My feedback as a beta tester is that after 11 years of this game having a certain style of content and level of difficulty, you got NM wrong. You simply got it wrong. I can't say it any other way. For most of the players I've talked to about NM, self included, NM is NOT FUN. IT IS FRUSTRATING. It feels like something they HAVE to do, not something they WANT to do. I understand the game needs some harder content, and for the most part, I think the outer parts of NM are fine in that respect. But the Opulent trial just plain sucks. It's not like anything else people are used to in the game. It has a big learning curve, you have to farm layers of bosses and dungeons just to get keys to enter, and the whole preamble of timed maze running while constantly fighting is too easy to get wrong and takes way too long, just to get to where you HOPE you might be able to fight a boss somewhat normally, assuming you don't wipe immediately when the bosses and mechanics spawn. And just to rub a ghost pepper on the wound, you put the monster helms exclusively in that ridiculous trial. Seriously, you need to nerf the Opulent trial, or better yet, just remove it and put the monster helms in the dungeons. That is all.
Jimbru
2