Official Discussion Thread for "Developer Deep Dive – Let’s Talk About Class Identity in ESO"

ZOS_SarahHecker

This is the official discussion thread for "Developer Deep Dive – Let’s Talk About Class Identity in ESO" blog article.

ZeniMax Online Studio’s Gameplay Lead Rob Garrett shares his team’s philosophies and vision for both class identity and combat in The Elder Scrolls Online.

SipofMaim

Ok. Thank you, I appreciate the insight into where you're heading with all of this.

I need to say this though: while you're re-purposing our class skills for healing and tanking, and giving stamina more in-class options, you're also stuffing magicka DDs into smaller and smaller boxes. We don't have multiple weapon skill lines for damage, we have the destro staff, and it's not enough.

We need another magicka weapon option, or every class needs more skills, or all the skills need more morphs. I would hate the "Everybody should be able to do everything!" philosophy you're pushing a lot less if we got some breathing room. That'd be appreciated.

VaranisArano

I was terribly amused to read the redefinition of "Play the way you like" as "any class can fulfill any role: tank, DPS, support/healer" with the caveat that any class should be viable but not necessarily optimal in the role.

LonePirate

ZOS (literal text from this article): In ESO, we want you to play your way

Me: I want to play my Dragonknight in PVP and deal a competitive level of damage.

ZOS: LOL

Faulgor

Yeah, I guess most people think of "play patterns" when they talk about class identity.

Now, it would have been nice to hear your vision for play patterns for each class, so we can actually give feedback how to achieve that goal.
E.g., the current iteration of Bound Armament feels too much like Nightblade's Grim Focus, when magicka Sorcerer's Crystal Fragments proc behavior would be a more logical option, as it is unique among all classes and would be consistent within the Sorcerer class. However, if you intent is for stamina Sorcerer and Nightblade to have similar play patterns, that feedback is moot.

Numerikuu

Zenimax: We care about class identity!

Also Zenimax: *strips class identity*

Zenimax: We want all classes to be viable to all roles!

Also Zenimax: *strips away class viability and uniqueness to stuff them into roles they were never fully designed around to begin with*

Zenimax: We want classes to look awesome!

Also Zenimax: *removes cool effects from DK and Sorc*

Zenimax: Weapon and Guild skills should be skill bar gap-fillers, and not take up the majority of your hotbar!

Also Zenimax: *provides little stamina morphs, and heavily nerfs class skills thus pushing people into using more weapon and guild skills*

A jack of all trades and master of none doesn't equate to a playstyle of fun.

The_Lex

To be clear, our goal is for every class to be viable, not necessarily optimal,

Okay, so the dev team is fine with progression groups running all stamcros, or any class that is optimal at the moment. The dev team then must also be fine with classes that are not represented in the same content because, well, they're not optimal.

Sounds to me like they're giving up.

Currently a number of class kits don't succeed in this goal, particularly when it comes to Stamina choices and Healer builds, and those cases are prime candidates to receive additional attention and more significant changes in future updates.

Why is it always a future update? This has been the mantra since beta. Rarely, though, does that future update arrive. Perhaps if they would stop the pendulum swinging changes patch after patch, then they might have time to work on these updates. Nevertheless, see below:

We’re not yet ready to share details on those long-term efforts,

Because they don't have any. But just you wait for the future update.

Jaimeh

VaranisArano wrote: »

I was terribly amused to read the redefinition of "Play the way you like" as "any class can fulfill any role: tank, DPS, support/healer" with the caveat that any class should be viable but not necessarily optimal in the role.

They should have said that from the beginning, because their 'play as you like' stubborn assertion, gave way to 'if class A can do X thing, then why can't class B can do X thing?' demands and so on. People might have been less pleased if they had introduced more rigidity from the start, but if they had done that, as well as keep PvP and PvE separate, classes wouldn't have lost their unique flavours, nor balancing would be this vicious cycle of changes/retractions we've been having the past couple of years.

VaranisArano

Jaimeh wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

I was terribly amused to read the redefinition of "Play the way you like" as "any class can fulfill any role: tank, DPS, support/healer" with the caveat that any class should be viable but not necessarily optimal in the role.

They should have said that from the beginning, because their 'play as you like' stubborn assertion, gave way to 'if class A can do X thing, then why can't class B can do X thing?' demands and so on. People might have been less pleased if they had introduced more rigidity from the start, but if they had done that, as well as keep PvP and PvE separate, classes wouldn't have lost their unique flavours, nor balancing would be this vicious cycle of changes/retractions we've been having the past couple of years.

To be entirely fair, this is what "Play the Way You Like" originally meant.
Players just misinterpreted it to mean "Why can't my unique build do amazing in all content?"

Hashtag_

Tyrion87 wrote: »

While I really appreciate (or try to) this communication attempt, I learned literally nothing from the article. It feels like a bunch of meaningless words to me. Such a claptrap.

It’s literally written because veteran players are discussing their displeasure with class uniqueness and multiple bad patches in a row. This is a counter measure for the devs to make Joe The Woodelf Magsorc Healer feel like his class/spec viable for all content. It’s to make the casuals think everything is fine and dandy.

Tommy_The_Gun

"We consider these changes to be stop-gap measures while the team evaluates more holistic improvements for each class in the future."

Oh God...

The_Lex

Hashtag_ wrote: »

Tyrion87 wrote: »

While I really appreciate (or try to) this communication attempt, I learned literally nothing from the article. It feels like a bunch of meaningless words to me. Such a claptrap.

It’s literally written because veteran players are discussing their displeasure with class uniqueness and multiple bad patches in a row. This is a counter measure for the devs to make Joe The Woodelf Magsorc Healer feel like his class/spec viable for all content. It’s to make the casuals think everything is fine and dandy.

Agreed. Interesting that they posted it on the website and not the forums. They won't engage people who will: (1) challenge their views, and (2) know how to play the game better than they do.

SipofMaim

Tommy_The_Gun wrote: »

"We consider these changes to be stop-gap measures while the team evaluates more holistic improvements for each class in the future."

Oh God...

Ikr. Terrifying.

Sanguinor2

What I would appreciate is knowing what Play Patterns Zos sees for what class. Because as is we are left guessing based on class abilities and what Little amount of dev comments we have in patch notes for that Topic.
For example it feels like dks Play pattern is supposed to be Attrition based, one dev comment in U23 also supports this. But the current proposed U24 absolutely trashes that Play pattern without any compensation so would be nice to hear what will be done About that.

The_Lex

VaranisArano wrote: »

Jaimeh wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

I was terribly amused to read the redefinition of "Play the way you like" as "any class can fulfill any role: tank, DPS, support/healer" with the caveat that any class should be viable but not necessarily optimal in the role.

They should have said that from the beginning, because their 'play as you like' stubborn assertion, gave way to 'if class A can do X thing, then why can't class B can do X thing?' demands and so on. People might have been less pleased if they had introduced more rigidity from the start, but if they had done that, as well as keep PvP and PvE separate, classes wouldn't have lost their unique flavours, nor balancing would be this vicious cycle of changes/retractions we've been having the past couple of years.

To be entirely fair, this is what "Play the Way You Like" originally meant.
Players just misinterpreted it to mean "Why can't my unique build do amazing in all content?"
*snip image

Perhaps. But I wonder if people need look at the back of the box to learn what "play as you want" means in an Elder Scrolls game.

VaranisArano

Tyrion87 wrote: »

While I really appreciate (or try to) this communication attempt, I learned literally nothing from the article. It feels like a bunch of meaningless words to me. Such a claptrap.

Its actually kind of useful for giving feedback.

1. It confirms that the Devs are 100% serious on the whole "every class can tank, heal, and DPS" thing, so attempts to go back to the old days when Class = Role is just not going to happen.

2. If you want to talk about your class's flavor, talk about "Power Fantasy". For example, MagDK's as fire-breathing dragon warriors.

3. If you want to talk about how your class plays, talking about "Play Patterns". For example, MagDKs need to root and then pressure their opponents because they lack executes.

That's rather useful for giving feedback.


Its also useful for seeing the disconnect between how we might interpret a class and how ZOS sees it.

For example, I might give feedback on my beloved Stam Sorc. Speaking for myself, my Power Fantasy for Stam Sorc is the skill Hurricane. My Stam Sorcs are arcane warriors who summon the power of hurricane force winds to rip their enemies apart alongside their blades. That creates a Play Pattern that is heavily focused on AOE damage, and which relied on dual wield, bow, and Caltrops to make up for the lack of stam skills in my class toolkit.

However, its clear that ZOS thinks one of the Power Fantasies of Sorcerer is "Summoning Pets". So they chose to try to change the Play Pattern of Stam Sorc by giving them a Stamina Clannfear.

From my perspective, a Stam Clannfear doesnt match my Power Fantasy nor my Play Pattern, so it "feels" like a "useless" change to me. (Other players who like pets may obviously feel differently.)

I suspect there's a similar thing going on with StamDKs and Stonefist right now. Many StamDK players think a stamina whip would fit their Power Fantasy and Play Pattern better than Stonefist. ZOS sees Stonefist as drawing from the Earth Power Fantasy of DKs in general and giving a good spammable option for StamDKs. Again, disconnect.

Niaver

If each class is about to get skills that fulfil every role, we need either more skills per lines or three morphs.

Bloodystab

5 Years since release.

DK BIS Tank
Templar BIS Healer

Maybe we are all wrong and Class idenity is not where our class shines! But where our class sucks.

Numerikuu

Niaver wrote: »

If each class is about to get skills that fulfil every role, we need either more skills per lines or three morphs.

^ This. Either that or make hybrid builds truly viable.

albesca

Hashtag_ wrote: »

This is a counter measure for the devs to make Joe The Woodelf Magsorc Healer feel like his class/spec viable for all content. It’s to make the casuals think everything is fine and dandy.

I have a magsorc healer (a dunmer one, though) and she's perfectly viable for all the content I care to do with her: overland, delves and public dungeons when playing solo, normal dungeons in PUGs; she even went to Cyrodiil a couple of times, but I haven't got any pvp-oriented gear for her yet, so those forays went as well as I expected (quite bad, that is).

Agenericname

Tommy_The_Gun wrote: »

"We consider these changes to be stop-gap measures while the team evaluates more holistic improvements for each class in the future."

Oh God...

I thought it was well written and that they did indeed communicate. This however I find unsettling. With all of the recent changes, also read drastic changes, this seems like more of the same coming.

That's disheartening.

@VaranisArano
I feel the same way about the stamsorcs.

Starlock

It's interesting to have it confirmed that my understanding of "class identity" is on par with what the developers were thinking. As a storyteller, I'm pretty unconcerned with "class identity" beyond how it complements the character concept I'm trying to develop, and that ties into what the developers call "power fantasy" and "play patterns."

While you guys and gals work on this backstage, I think @SipofMaim 's comments will be very important to bear in mind. As class skills are repurposed into abilities that focus on healing, tanking, or stamina the pool of abilities available for magicka characters diminishes. How do you plan to address this issue? Will we finally be seeing a magicka-melee weapon line? Will existing weapon lines grow more flexible and have some magicka morphs added to them? Will we get three morphs for class skills? Perhaps a fourth skill line for classes?

The_Lex

VaranisArano wrote: »

Tyrion87 wrote: »

While I really appreciate (or try to) this communication attempt, I learned literally nothing from the article. It feels like a bunch of meaningless words to me. Such a claptrap.

Its actually kind of useful for giving feedback.

1. It confirms that the Devs are 100% serious on the whole "every class can tank, heal, and DPS" thing, so attempts to go back to the old days when Class = Role is just not going to happen.

2. If you want to talk about your class's flavor, talk about "Power Fantasy". For example, MagDK's as fire-breathing dragon warriors.

3. If you want to talk about how your class plays, talking about "Play Patterns". For example, MagDKs need to root and then pressure their opponents because they lack executes.

That's rather useful for giving feedback.


Its also useful for seeing the disconnect between how we might interpret a class and how ZOS sees it.

For example, I might give feedback on my beloved Stam Sorc. Speaking for myself, my Power Fantasy for Stam Sorc is the skill Hurricane. My Stam Sorcs are arcane warriors who summon the power of hurricane force winds to rip their enemies apart alongside their blades. That creates a Play Pattern that is heavily focused on AOE damage, and which relied on dual wield, bow, and Caltrops to make up for the lack of stam skills in my class toolkit.

However, its clear that ZOS thinks one of the Power Fantasies of Sorcerer is "Summoning Pets". So they chose to try to change the Play Pattern of Stam Sorc by giving them a Stamina Clannfear.

From my perspective, a Stam Clannfear doesnt match my Power Fantasy nor my Play Pattern, so it "feels" like a "useless" change to me. (Other players who like pets may obviously feel differently.)

I suspect there's a similar thing going on with StamDKs and Stonefist right now. Many StamDK players think a stamina whip would fit their Power Fantasy and Play Pattern better than Stonefist. ZOS sees Stonefist as drawing from the Earth Power Fantasy of DKs in general and giving a good spammable option for StamDKs. Again, disconnect.

Indeed. But this goes under the assumption that they have a consistent power fantasy in mind. Take your example of sDKs. If a brand new player joined the game today and rolled a sDK for a dps role, I bet they would assume that the power fantasy was poison, not rock-chucking.

Imo, the article is all PR speak. Lots of words, little substance.

Maotti

I understood nothing of that article really.

Rungar

this is an insane quest. I will explain tanks and healers and leave dps for last as its a special case.

if you choose a tank as your role you must either choose one handed and shield or destruction staves or both, thus weapon skills provide the BASIS of your role. Your class does not provide the basis of your role but instead the fluff like buffs and look.

Same thing for a healer you must choose destro or resto staves or both and this does the same thing. Weapon skills provide the BASIS and your class fills the gaps.

its exactly opposite of what your trying to do with the classes. The classes should have abilities that only relate to the class theme. Add more weapon lines if you want to improve the BASIS of the roles. Wand and rune and or Alteration staves is what you want to add to increase the ROLE fit. You will never get it right tinkering with the class skills. One will always be too dominant ( Dragonknight tanks and Templar healers).

so if the Dragonknight is the best tank figure out what makes the dk the best and offer similar ideas in new weapon lines like alteration staves or alteration rune and sword . Same thing with the Templar by adding an additional restoration weapon or perhaps alteration can be a combination tanking/healing line which would achieve both in one shot.

for dps your pretty much screwed and i will tell you why as i dont believe anyone else will. All dps in this game sub 50 use their class skills but for endgame content they use whatever skill provides the most dps and is easiest to animation cancel. It doesnt matter what you add to the game those two rules will always apply because the combat system stinks. if you start making class skills more viable the rules will still apply and you will end up with everyone playing whatever class is deemed the best. Then the crying class x is overpowered, and trials filled with one class type, then nerf cycle, then repeat. You cannot win this game by adding anything to the classes as long as those rules are in effect.

the dps role in this game is far too reliant on the animation cancelling mechanism for dps and if your not willing to acknowledge that and do something about it at least get some bang for your buck and focus your changes on healers and tanks who will benefit without the drama.

Tyrion87

VaranisArano wrote: »

Tyrion87 wrote: »

While I really appreciate (or try to) this communication attempt, I learned literally nothing from the article. It feels like a bunch of meaningless words to me. Such a claptrap.

Its actually kind of useful for giving feedback.

1. It confirms that the Devs are 100% serious on the whole "every class can tank, heal, and DPS" thing, so attempts to go back to the old days when Class = Role is just not going to happen.

2. If you want to talk about your class's flavor, talk about "Power Fantasy". For example, MagDK's as fire-breathing dragon warriors.

3. If you want to talk about how your class plays, talking about "Play Patterns". For example, MagDKs need to root and then pressure their opponents because they lack executes.

That's rather useful for giving feedback.


Its also useful for seeing the disconnect between how we might interpret a class and how ZOS sees it.

For example, I might give feedback on my beloved Stam Sorc. Speaking for myself, my Power Fantasy for Stam Sorc is the skill Hurricane. My Stam Sorcs are arcane warriors who summon the power of hurricane force winds to rip their enemies apart alongside their blades. That creates a Play Pattern that is heavily focused on AOE damage, and which relied on dual wield, bow, and Caltrops to make up for the lack of stam skills in my class toolkit.

However, its clear that ZOS thinks one of the Power Fantasies of Sorcerer is "Summoning Pets". So they chose to try to change the Play Pattern of Stam Sorc by giving them a Stamina Clannfear.

From my perspective, a Stam Clannfear doesnt match my Power Fantasy nor my Play Pattern, so it "feels" like a "useless" change to me. (Other players who like pets may obviously feel differently.)

I suspect there's a similar thing going on with StamDKs and Stonefist right now. Many StamDK players think a stamina whip would fit their Power Fantasy and Play Pattern better than Stonefist. ZOS sees Stonefist as drawing from the Earth Power Fantasy of DKs in general and giving a good spammable option for StamDKs. Again, disconnect.

But we all know that already. It's nothing new. This article feels like it was written by an employee of marketing department for some promotional campaign purposes in order to familiarize new players with the basics of the game. And who has concerns about the class identity (or lack thereof)? Mostly "veteran" players who can hardly find the info provided in the article "insightful".

colossalvoids

Power fantasy refers to the fictional justification of your character's power and how it’s expressed through the look and feel of abilities. (*) Every class should have a clearly defined source of power, and class abilities should reinforce that fantasy through their descriptions, animations, visual effects, and audio. When you see a player using class abilities, you should have little doubt which class they are playing, and it should look awesome!

So what's up with stamdk new "spammable" that is just a meme right now, the one demanding 17k resources for a stun and group utility that goes away the moment stun hits. Maybe it have a cool feeling when casted, some exciting animation going on? A mudball, nice. Will it be iconic ability now? Just a little example of how well it's going on right now.

While we're on it... What about taking "iconic" things off, like merciless / death stroke we've got now on a nightblade for example? Travel times, delayed application, wierd conditional heals and completely changed abilities from offensive to strange mix of offense with defense, while not really great at both? Add there choise between a great heal and defensive ability on morph for the full immersion. What it adds to the "awesome feel" we're getting out of it? Only animations matter now?
All the classes have either dead skills or morphs, there is plenty of work to do but taking away already good coded and meaningful skills for an "ok" one for the sake of change isn't what people are waiting. Partially players solve any identity issues themselves but when we're running out of options already it is not looking good in any way.

One of our mantras for ESO is "play the way you want," and in this case, it means any class can fulfill any role. (*)Currently a number of class kits don't succeed in this goal, particularly when it comes to Stamina choices and Healer builds, and those cases are prime candidates to receive additional attention and more significant changes in future updates

And again, there are loads of unused skills that can be made great. Jungle some from one skill tree to the another if it makes sense passive/theme-wise but to butcher already well used ones is not "exciting" for older players that can't redo their build from the ground up every couple of months and feel nothing towards their previously beloved char/gameplay. Your "play the way you want!" should not just plain kill off everything what made the classes great in a first place, use unused space in non popular skills, add synergies and group utility, maybe add some missing component to the new undaunted ulti we would like to see finally, there are lots of ways without just flipping the table over old players.

I understand that it was just "In ESO, we want you to play your way" promotion but people have expectations, it's not a beta state game for five years already. Some are still waiting while others can't be bothered anymore and those writ-masters who's on wait mode may join secong ones soon enough.

gepe87

Learn from ESO release: look back to what classes were in the past.

How can you can talk about uniqueness and homogenization?

Minor ajustments

VaranisArano

The_Lex wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Tyrion87 wrote: »

While I really appreciate (or try to) this communication attempt, I learned literally nothing from the article. It feels like a bunch of meaningless words to me. Such a claptrap.

Its actually kind of useful for giving feedback.

1. It confirms that the Devs are 100% serious on the whole "every class can tank, heal, and DPS" thing, so attempts to go back to the old days when Class = Role is just not going to happen.

2. If you want to talk about your class's flavor, talk about "Power Fantasy". For example, MagDK's as fire-breathing dragon warriors.

3. If you want to talk about how your class plays, talking about "Play Patterns". For example, MagDKs need to root and then pressure their opponents because they lack executes.

That's rather useful for giving feedback.


Its also useful for seeing the disconnect between how we might interpret a class and how ZOS sees it.

For example, I might give feedback on my beloved Stam Sorc. Speaking for myself, my Power Fantasy for Stam Sorc is the skill Hurricane. My Stam Sorcs are arcane warriors who summon the power of hurricane force winds to rip their enemies apart alongside their blades. That creates a Play Pattern that is heavily focused on AOE damage, and which relied on dual wield, bow, and Caltrops to make up for the lack of stam skills in my class toolkit.

However, its clear that ZOS thinks one of the Power Fantasies of Sorcerer is "Summoning Pets". So they chose to try to change the Play Pattern of Stam Sorc by giving them a Stamina Clannfear.

From my perspective, a Stam Clannfear doesnt match my Power Fantasy nor my Play Pattern, so it "feels" like a "useless" change to me. (Other players who like pets may obviously feel differently.)

I suspect there's a similar thing going on with StamDKs and Stonefist right now. Many StamDK players think a stamina whip would fit their Power Fantasy and Play Pattern better than Stonefist. ZOS sees Stonefist as drawing from the Earth Power Fantasy of DKs in general and giving a good spammable option for StamDKs. Again, disconnect.

Indeed. But this goes under the assumption that they have a consistent power fantasy in mind. Take your example of sDKs. If a brand new player joined the game today and rolled a sDK for a dps role, I bet they would assume that the power fantasy was poison, not rock-chucking.

Imo, the article is all PR speak. Lots of words, little substance.

In a weird way, that's what I like about this article. It gives us and ZOS some precise ways to talk about it, and for us to see the clear disconnect between ZOS and Player visions when that exists.

It lets us say things like "Hey, ZOS, when new players look at StamDK skills, they will assume that Poison is a big part of the power fantasy because the two big DOTs are poison themed, while most earth skills cost magicka so they arent efficient for a StamDK Play Pattern. If you want earth to be a big deal, consider that."

In a weird way, I liken this to corporate or educational lingo. Sometimes to get ideas across, you gotta use the buzzwords.

So I at least appreciate ZOS telling us their buzzwords, as opposed to ignoring feedback on class identity because it conflates "power fantasy" with "Play Patterns".

Its also a great way to call them out on odd changes, like "Hey, the established Play Pattern for DKs is attrition based combat! Have you considered what nerfing all Dots is about to do to DKs?"

Loralai_907

I appreciate that you want each class to have a better identity. But the changes to DK and stam sorc have missed the mark.

As others have said, for stam sorc one of my favorite skills is Hurricane. I love how it looks, I love how it sounds, I love how it feels. Bound armaments does nothing for me. Pets do nothing for me - unless you want to give me a wicked cool and highly powerful mournful aegis as a pet or even an ultimate. Bound armaments is weeeeeeeaaaaak, it isn't worth slotting for me. Whoohooo, let me lightly tap you, are you scared of me now? NO. I don't want to feel like a light summer breeze. I'm never going to be a top tier player, and I'm ok with that, but I would appreciate that not being amplified by giving me only options that aren't powerful in any way. And in a way, that is what I see happening. Several skills I might consider are going to be doing less damage. Ok, I can live with having to adjust what skills I might use. But I want options that feel good, look good, and aren't going to amuse my enemies. Playing as a wood elf, that is already not top tier, I imagine I am already being patted on the head enough, like aww look how cute you are, pat pat. But if I at least have a few things that I can slot that take out my enemies, that makes up for it. She may be tiny, and drunk, and a zombie, but she is also used to taking out at least some of her enemies. I will not be amused if I have to shelf her before I'm ready to move on to another character for my own reasons.

Faulgor

I find it very interesting which image they chose to use to illustrate Power Fantasy for Dragonknights



The Dragonknight brings flame and fury

Truly? When was the last time you saw a stamina DK using Molten Weapons? I agree that it would be a cool power fantasy, indeed it was back when Heavy Attacks were still used for damage, but that was a long, long time ago. Molten Armaments never got overhauled when Light Attacks were buffed and Heavy Attacks nerfed, unlike Sorcerers' Bound Armaments, which used to buff HAs as well.

There seems to be a disconnect between the power fantasy and the actual play patterns here.

It's not really a power fantasy when there's no power in it, right?