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

Kagukan

Having every class fill every role is not class identity. Trying to do that will lead to never ending skill balancing and eventually end up being the same outcome from every class with just a different animation to get to that outcome.

AltariaTheDragon

I think one of the biggest catches with classes lacking distinct play patterns right now is that their toolkits all push them to focus on damage in the same ways, with fairly little distinct variation. There is no special drive for one class to favor one type of damage method (or heal) versus another. I'll also note that by method, I mean DoTs vs direct damage vs other more unique types (such as use of combat pets, unique abilities like Crystal Frags, new Bound Armaments, or Grim Focus).

As an example, I will point to the enormous power of DoTs in the current Update 23 on the Live server. DoTs were buffed and the optimal play (for DPS) for basically every class became DoT spam with direct damage to top it off, especially so for magicka builds. The DoTs and the direct damage abilities are varied for each class, but it is all centered around DoTs. That DoTs so easily overtook the meta for most classes is a sign of failing to distinguish play patterns. I think classes should be more a choice of damage methods.

For instance, take the Sorcerer or Warden class: they have the choice of pets/summons as opposed to directly dealing damage. I can't recall which patch it was but some time back PetSorcs could be totally viable just maxing their magicka out, throwing a few DoTs, and heavy attacking while their pets dealt most of the damage. That was a unique play pattern because it focused on one damage method, where it wasn't just all about your DoTs or spammables, but about your pets foremost.

Building from that example, I think it would be better if classes focused more on one or two damage methods. Make (and I'm just throwing out examples) Nightblades all about direct damage attacks based on their passives and the unique buffs/debuffs that their direct damage abilities can provide. Make Dragonknights focused on AoEs/group damage with their passives and a large variety of AoEs that can all go at once. Stop trying to give every class a bunch of AoEs and DoTs and direct damage and access to a bunch of the same buffs/debuffs, where players they can all suddenly switch to one method (i.e. this patch and DoTs) after they pick their class - make class a choice of one or two play methods instead of trying to keep the routes open to any choice.

With focusing damage methods by class, if a particular method does get nerfed, like the DoT nerf in the upcoming update, that's a matter of rebalancing one or two classes that have heavy focus on DoTs, not drastically affecting the playstyles for every class. Also as an aside, I was mostly saying "damage methods", but healing methods (direct, HoT, damage shield, etc.) could just as easily be more of a class-related choice.

AngeredDaisy2

Dear ZOS,

You and I apparently have different ideas about class identity. If i understand the article correctly, it boils down your idea of class is their power comes from different elements, but do exactly the same thing as other classes. Just some functions work a bit better or worse depending on "class" in this instance.

As a player my idea of class is that each class has an identity as a type of play style. I come into a game for the first time as a brand new player going "I want to be a bad to the bone sword user". And then I proceed to read the classes and races to decide which class meets my sword user requirement. I want to be a healer, same thing.

Now, after reading your article, I understand that we have had a miscommunication for 5 years apparently. Either i have not been playing RPG style games online dating back to MUD's. Or you don't understand RPG class styles. If your goal was to ensure that every class could potentially be a mediocre everything, we've had that ability for years. But that wasn't good enough for you.

Sure, some people from the get go were like, "I want my magic based sorcerer who in theory should be waving a wand or staff chanting, to be an awesome hand to hand combat tank!" But this has not been a majority. People were fine knowing that Sorcs weilded magika and produced pets that fly in other players faces, block ability to talk to merchants, interact with crafting tables, and prevent you from going thru doors. Players were fine knowing DK's were amazing tanks. Templars were good healers. Nightblades were your go to for dual weild.

Now it has become "I want to clear X trial/dungeon and get such and such skin/title/achievement so what does the best DPS/support role this patch". Essentially you're saying class identity is akin to hair color.

So basically to end this long statement of intense frustration and extreme disappointment. I don't want to base my character build around which element my power comes from. I want to base my character on which class best matches the skills and abilities for which I am looking for. In other words, I don't want to go, "oh the brunette skills are the same as the red head skills, so I'll go red because it's prettier"

Ratzkifal

I think ZOS failed DKs in terms of power fantasy when looking at their new Stonefist spammable.

An important part of Power Fantasy is the visual aspect of it. The "feel" of the skill also plays an important role in this but is equally important for the Play Patterns.
If you want stam DKs to feel powerful, then the slow and weightless animation of the rock throwing looks much more like the mudballs that people toss at each other. There is no power being displayed at all and you certainly don't feel good using it, even if it dealt all the damage.
In contrast to that, Force Shock and Dizzying Swing look much more powerful and threatening and thus appealing, making you feel more like a badass. While the combat team might only be looking at the balance aspect of it, in order for people to enjoy and associate strongly with their classes' identity, the visuals must do their part too. Visual effects are like the PR agency of the combat team.

Personally, what I would change about the Stonefist's visuals is that it should look much more like Killer's Blade does but instead of a red spectral knife, your DK's arm becomes covered in stone and smacks into his enemy! I'm imagining a cone of stone forming around the arm in an acute angle, kind of like a lance, which then crumbles at the end of the ability.

The_Lex

AltariaTheDragon wrote: »

I think one of the biggest catches with classes lacking distinct play patterns right now is that their toolkits all push them to focus on damage in the same ways, with fairly little distinct variation. There is no special drive for one class to favor one type of damage method (or heal) versus another. I'll also note that by method, I mean DoTs vs direct damage vs other more unique types (such as use of combat pets, unique abilities like Crystal Frags, new Bound Armaments, or Grim Focus).

As an example, I will point to the enormous power of DoTs in the current Update 23 on the Live server. DoTs were buffed and the optimal play (for DPS) for basically every class became DoT spam with direct damage to top it off, especially so for magicka builds. The DoTs and the direct damage abilities are varied for each class, but it is all centered around DoTs. That DoTs so easily overtook the meta for most classes is a sign of failing to distinguish play patterns. I think classes should be more a choice of damage methods.

For instance, take the Sorcerer or Warden class: they have the choice of pets/summons as opposed to directly dealing damage. I can't recall which patch it was but some time back PetSorcs could be totally viable just maxing their magicka out, throwing a few DoTs, and heavy attacking while their pets dealt most of the damage. That was a unique play pattern because it focused on one damage method, where it wasn't just all about your DoTs or spammables, but about your pets foremost.

Building from that example, I think it would be better if classes focused more on one or two damage methods. Make (and I'm just throwing out examples) Nightblades all about direct damage attacks based on their passives and the unique buffs/debuffs that their direct damage abilities can provide. Make Dragonknights focused on AoEs/group damage with their passives and a large variety of AoEs that can all go at once. Stop trying to give every class a bunch of AoEs and DoTs and direct damage and access to a bunch of the same buffs/debuffs, where players they can all suddenly switch to one method (i.e. this patch and DoTs) after they pick their class - make class a choice of one or two play methods instead of trying to keep the routes open to any choice.

With focusing damage methods by class, if a particular method does get nerfed, like the DoT nerf in the upcoming update, that's a matter of rebalancing one or two classes that have heavy focus on DoTs, not drastically affecting the playstyles for every class. Also as an aside, I was mostly saying "damage methods", but healing methods (direct, HoT, damage shield, etc.) could just as easily be more of a class-related choice.

Well said.

Dusk_Coven

A lot of vocal forum complainers are actually not interested in power identity. They are interested in numbers.
Whatever the devs do, they will go to an online guide that has jig-sawed a rotation based on NUMBERS they can parse. Then they will say there's no class identity but really they are saying they can't hit the biggest number with their class, or in order to get a big number they have to do this-that-and-the-other-thing and don't have any choice.

So only people actually playing the game and experiencing all the content are interested in what the devs are doing. People who want to try something else than the rubber stamped clones from build guides, maybe because it simply looks fun and can still be effective for what they want to do.

People interested in pushing buttons to get the biggest numbers will complain when they have to change their build, or when those numbers go down after a patch. The same people who complain that such-and-such PvE content is too easy when they don't even bother looking at anything in the game other than the target's health bar and how quickly it goes down.

Sounds like the devs are saying they want to make a game that looks cool, looks fun, and can still complete their content as long as you are not totally stupid and just use light attack while standing in red.
And they are not very interested in everyone just running clones of online builds. Even though they are willing to support people who do want to do that -- as evidenced by their posts highlighting community builds.

So I think people who want a good look and feel while they experience the story should be supportive of the changes during this transition period.
And people who just want the biggest numbers should go play a tap-clicker game. The faster you tap, the bigger the numbers! That's what bunny hopping and animation cancelling is all about, right? Tapping faster than the other guy?

wolfie1.0.

Really this is just an attempt to curb the really bad feedback they have been getting since they started this whole baseline thing.

Maotti

wtlonewolf20 wrote: »

Really this is just an attempt to curb the really bad feedback they have been getting since they started this whole baseline thing.

The attempt failed miserably.

LickingHistSap

While I understand the basic conceit behind wanting class skills to play a role in most combat, the method of removing options to force players to go down a certain route doesn't help much. Removing knockback from Dizzying Swing severely limits Stam-DK options, for example, and the complete destruction of a speed-warden build with all the speed nerfs from murkmire were equally detrimental to the 'play any way you want' philosophy. Maybe instead of nerfing all these skills and forcing people to completely change how their character was built to play, buff the skills that are underutilized WITHOUT completely changing and making other skills redundant in the process?

Also, please, PLEASE, PLEASE, stop restricting the combat changes to 4 giant chunks in a year, this would be so much smoother and less painful if they were gradual changes being tested that we could constantly give feedback on every other week on the PTS.

Elsonso

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.

I have not seen any redefinition of that phrase yet. Specific to the roles, that is pretty much what it has always been. I will keep my eye out, though.

VaranisArano

lordrichter 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.

I have not seen any redefinition of that phrase yet. Specific to the roles, that is pretty much what it has always been. I will keep my eye out, though.

The advertisement where it originally appeared is posted earlier in this thread, but for your reference, here's what it used to mean.
https://i.imgur.com/GFiNtHg.jpg

NBrookus

@ZOS_RichLambert @ZOS_RobGarrett
Let me start by saying I appreciate the communication. However this feels very shallow for a "deep dive." It's PTS, y'all are busy, so maybe when you get a breather can we get a deep dive into your vision for each of the classes? Because there seems to be a miscommunication here.

As a new player 5ish years ago, I didn't pick an Dragonknight because I had a power fantasy of doing what every other class could do but with fire animations. I picked Dragonknight because I wanted to be in the thick of battle and use the power of fire and ash to confuse, control wear down my enemies.

But as the game has evolved, mag DKs had to wear dresses and sticks. Their class abilities are worse at attrition than non-class skills and being a Nord or an Argonian is tankier. Confusing enemies is gone. Their roots have become shorter in range and harder to use, and inferior to skills like bombard or restraining prison. Fossilize is probably still the best CC in game (aside from Rune Cage for a while), but everyone has access to hard CC. And poison knight... where did that even come from for a class with Earth skills? Why can't stamina DKs use fire as effectively as magicka DKs? Why can't magDKs use 2H in a powerful way? Those class passives would give DKs more identity than another 2m of melee range.

You could repeat some version of that story for every class. People don't come into RPGs because they want to do everything possible thing on one character in every possible way. They want their characters to have flavor they maintain. This is also good for business: more characters = more time in game and deeper investment. There's no reason to roll a Dragonknight if your stealthy rogue class can play a flame mage just as well. Trust me, looking at a long character screen of toons I now use as mules because they aren't what they used to be doesn't increase my feeling of investment in the game.


TLDR; version:

• Please widen the gap between "viable" and "optimal." Let the orc mag sorc 2H/bow guy be fine at tanking normal dungeons. But make the durable, attrition classes actually be much better at that role, and not just at the hardcore end game min max level.
• Please communicate to the playerbase your vision for each class. Because right now it seems like the vision is limited to different colors and animations. No new player should feel like they are picking a favorite color when they make their first toon.
• Please for the love of Akatosh stop redesigning the combat every quarter. I think a lot of people on limited internet are dreading re-downloading the whole game, but we all know it's coming. Expectations have been set. Telling us Q4 2020 there will be a massive combat overhaul and a 3 month long PTS would be setting an expectation we can deal with and plan for, and a lot more palatable than every quarter.

SirAndy

ZOS_SarahHecker wrote: »

"Developer Deep Dive"

Just like the underwater experience in-game, this is all rather shallow ...

Dragonnord

And that's why you nerfed DoTs, right? So Magicka DKs can't kill a skeever now with their class skills and need to find better damage options out of their class skills for both bars, right?
 

SirLeeMinion

As others have mentioned, thank you for communicating some of the thought processes going on behind the scenes. It all sounds good, but then it doesn't actually seem to get implemented so well. Take the sorc play pattern. It already had the crystal frags mini game, now it gets the nightblade's grim focus mini-game, too. Nobody wanted it. It already is characteristic of another class, but now sorc has it too. Then there's the pet play pattern, like the shield play pattern, that has been nerfed into oblivion. So, sorcs lose two established play patterns and get an unwanted new one from another class. This is just an easy, but not unique example, of where application is not matching your stated vision.

Nothing in the article mentions, apologizes for, or simply explains the wild swings in DoTs. At least with werewolves the buff / nerf cycle took a full year to go from over-tuned to irrelevant. Given that so much of this gets pointed out on the PTS with plenty of time to make adjustments, and that the input is largely ignored, an apology would be in order.

Then, there's this little gem: "We consider these changes to be stop-gap measures while the team evaluates more holistic improvements for each class in the future. We’re not yet ready to share details on those long-term efforts..."

Please, just don't.

Many of us are tired of chasing the radical oscillations. Many of us want to look forward to, rather than dread, incoming patches. Many of us want a character that is more effective at the end of the year than it was at the start. The game is emptying out. We see it in our quiet guilds, in the repeatedly unanswered, "lfg vet [insert dungeon]" in zone chat, and in the statistics published by Steam. While I and others appreciate the damage-control public relations piece, we are losing confidence in the implementation.

Elsonso

VaranisArano wrote: »

lordrichter 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.

I have not seen any redefinition of that phrase yet. Specific to the roles, that is pretty much what it has always been. I will keep my eye out, though.

The advertisement where it originally appeared is posted earlier in this thread, but for your reference, here's what it used to mean.
https://i.imgur.com/GFiNtHg.jpg

Yeah, I know about that... still waiting for the redefinition part. This pretty much comes under "Battle", right?

Aragorn79

I think this direction is not quite right. Having every class be able to fulfill every role sounds good but it homogenizes the classes too much. There should still be classes that are better at certain roles, that makes the game interesting and makes you need to strategize. So you should still gear the classes towards certain roles while keeping your goal of all can do everything. Certain classes should absolutely be more optimally geared towards certain roles, that is part of the understanding of class identity that has been applied in the game.

KappaKid83

ZOS_RichLambert wrote: »

KappaKid83 wrote: »

Is there a reason you didn't post in both areas?

That's what this thread is, and why it has a direct link to the article.

I meant an actual thread containing the context of the article, not a link to the article. Also, it makes sense the way you did it, I am sleep deprived and not thinking at the top of my game today, thanks Rich!

VaranisArano

lordrichter wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

lordrichter 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.

I have not seen any redefinition of that phrase yet. Specific to the roles, that is pretty much what it has always been. I will keep my eye out, though.

The advertisement where it originally appeared is posted earlier in this thread, but for your reference, here's what it used to mean.
https://i.imgur.com/GFiNtHg.jpg

Yeah, I know about that... still waiting for the redefinition part. This pretty much comes under "Battle", right?

Okay, sure, I can see where you are coming from if you include that under Battle.

The way I see it, the "choice" in the original "Play the way you like" was that you could play by battling, play by fishing, play by crafting, play by sieging, etc. It was your choice what you wanted to do.

With this, ZOS doesnt intend for that statement to mean "You can totally fight, fish, steal, siege, and craft if you want" anymore. Now it means "You can tank, DPS, or heal on any class, you just might not be optimal." Its now about role, not your choice of gameplay activities.

That's a change. I called it a redefinition. It could also be a clarification, but I think that's straying into splitting hairs.

Vahrokh

Aragorn79 wrote: »

I think this direction is not quite right. Having every class be able to fulfill every role sounds good but it homogenizes the classes too much. There should still be classes that are better at certain roles, that makes the game interesting and makes you need to strategize. So you should still gear the classes towards certain roles while keeping your goal of all can do everything. Certain classes should absolutely be more optimally geared towards certain roles, that is part of the understanding of class identity that has been applied in the game.

The sad part is that in Classic ESO, our classes actually could fulfill most roles while being extremely well defined and unique.

I was there, when my guild brought trial DK or Templar or NB or even Sorc main tanks!!!
Sure, perhaps a 2014 Sorc could only main tank vAA and not vMOL, but it was a good starting point!

I also recall people healing with all classes. Some were worse, but not so bad that they could not function in Craglorn Trials.

Furthermore, we did not have boring heavy attack builds and light attack did not make 30% of our entire DPS! This alone, means our class abilities are ineffective. "Light attack". Think about the meaning of "light", the next time you do 20k with it and 7k DPS with your class top damage ability.

ESO is totally a mess now. Why not reset it from a "known good" situation, like for example, right before Morrowind?

Fiddling with a 5 years old game like we are back to alpha is not a good way to go, especially when the rebalance team only acts once every quarter!

valeriiya

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.

This^
I appreciate the attempt at communication. There was silence for so long and even if I don't like where this is going to it's better than the silence we usually get.
Also here to lurk and see if he gets snarky and we get a new quote

Wayshuba

What I find interesting is the things discussed what they want to do and the things we see going on in game from patch to patch are two ENTIRELY different things.

First goal of the combat team should be this: Keep current customers playing and help attract new ones.

Instead, everything they have done the last three patches is causing people to leave at a rather quick pace.

All this article represents is an internal "feel good" piece about the damage they are causing to the game. Not to mention, I am not surprised how they talk in circles at times because they don't know what they are trying to do (and that is obvious at this point).

Want class identity, that is an easy fix. Erase all the stupid changes with U23 and U22 and go back to what we had with U21.

Finally, this is NOT going to stop the current exodus, it only is going to reinforce it. Basically, they are saying this is what it is going to be like every patch. Who the heck is going to put the effort in on doing an end game building for their characters just to have ZoS erase it every three months.

Zos, here is a revolutionary idea. Knock off the huge changes from patch to patch and the comments that you are working on more each patch. Instead, work on some changes that you fine tune over a year on PTS and put them in the game ONLY during Q4 patches. At least then people won't feel like they are wasting their time developing their characters only to have them blown up the next patch.

Somewhere

ESO's class system is being designed like a subclass system. A significant amount of people may ignore or even shut off the Skills Advisor, but the "advisor" basically gives you a list of sub-classes to pick from. These are based on the roles in an MMO: damage dealer, healer, and tank. These roles are how we, the end user typically thinks about the class. ZOS on the other hand just said they think about it from this power fantasy & play patterns point of view, and designs them so they can fill out those 3 roles.

A class is simply an arbitrary distinction between a set of combination of power fantasies and play patterns. In some games, your role is also tied to that distinction, but not in ESO. The role is tied to a secondary arbitrary distinction between power fantasies and play patterns. Each class can be a magicka dd or a stamina dd for example. In most any other game, this further distinction is just a subclass.

As an example Sorcerer has some clear examples of these kind of sub-classes.

• Power Fantasies:
  • The Storm Warrior (stamina storm calling)
  • The Lightning Mage (magicka storm calling)
  • The Summoner (daedric magic),
  • The Mystic (curses, runes, crystals, & mines)

Each has a distinct play pattern, but are united under a similar set of play patterns: delayed burst damage (curse, fury), area denial (atronach, mines, negate), and high mobility (easy access to expedition, streak)

These power fantasies are being given to us currently in the form of:

• Storm Warrior:
  • Hurricane
  • Bolt Escape
  • Overload
  • Surge
• Lightning Mage:
  • Mage's Fury
  • Overload
  • Lightning Form
  • Lightning Splash
  • Surge
  • Bolt Escape
  • Summon Storm Atronach
• Summoner:
  • Summon Clannfear
  • Summon Storm Atronach
  • Summon Familiar
  • Summon Winged Twilight
  • Bound Armor
  • Bound Weapons (Bound Armaments)
• Mystic:
  • Curses (Daedric Curse)
  • Negate
  • Crystals (Crystal Shard, Encase, Rune Prison)
  • Runes & Glyphs (Daedric Minefield, Rune Prison)
  • Dark Exchange

All of these skills function under a similar set of principles which defines the Sorcerer class at large. While all of us can agree a Magicka Sorcerer DD does not play like a Stamina Sorcerer DD, they do have several common similarities. These are just a few examples and are not necessarily unique to the Sorcerer class.

• Delayed Burst Damage (Curse, Mines, Fury)
• Area Denial (Negate, Mines, Atronach)
• High Mobility (Lightning Form, Bolt Escape)
• Passive Area & Splash Damage (Charged Atronach, Fury, Crystal Blast, Hurricane, Lightning Splash)
• Pet Mechanics
• Conditional Damage (Crystal Fragments, Bound Armaments, Daedric Prey)

In almost any other game, developers usually lock you into a single sub-class and once you pick it, that's the end. Sometimes you can re-roll, but it typically it comes at a high cost. ESO doesn't limit us in that regard, and you get access to the entire Sorcerer toolkit at all times (barring re-rolling morphs, which is relatively cheap).

We can make many different subclasses due to the different mix of class skills and non-class skills. The type of content we are completing: 4-man PvE, 12-man PvE, Solo PvE (under-represented, VMA basically), Solo PvP, Small Scale PvP, or Large Scale PvP, changes the subclasses that are most optimal, and the gap between optimal and viable increases or decreases.

The ramifications are clear: we must communicate to the developers in their effectiveness towards this regard. For example, I don't personally feel Molten Weapons does a very good job at fulfilling its job of making me feel like my weapons are on fire as it gives a generic buff. Just as a brief example, what if it instead your weapons' light and heavy attack damage to fire, or poison if there were a morph for it. This would reinforce the power fantasy, and create a new play pattern.

ZOS_JesC

Greetings, we've removed a few more comments that were offtopic and disruptive. Please keep comments civil and constructive. Thank you.

olsborg

I havent rly played the game in over a month now, because I got tired of playing in bugs, lagg and generally broken or unbalanced skills/stuff. From ZOS its always been «in a future patch or soon, but no eta» Im done with accepting to play a broken game while ZOS clings to the same excuse «we are working on it, soon» My patience is done. Thanks for the time tho.

ToniWinter

Well, the performances can go apart in person.
For me, the Magdk is a spawn of flames and shadows.
The Stamdk a poison fighter with a Bidenhänder and heavy armor.

The Magplar a knight surrounded by sunlight.
The Stampler more like the Stamdk, in heavy armor and Bidenhänder.
But instead of poison he uses the divine power.

Magblade a deceiver and illusions of bewitching assassins.
Stamblade a fighter fighting in medium armor. With bow and two one-handed.

Magsorc a controller of the elements in light armor and staff.
Stamsorc a perfect hybrid. Use physical weapons and reinforce them with their spells.

Magkro, a magician of dark art who uses dead flesh to fight.
The Stamkro more like the Stamsorc, only instead of strengthening himself weakens his opponents with disease and putrefaction.

The Magwarden uses nature and the animals around it to fight.
The Stamwarden is a perfect ranged animal with animal support.

For example, my idea of ​​classes looks like. Therefore it will be difficult to find the golden mean for most people.

Sry for the translate, but my english is Not so good.

technohic

What does this article accomplish? I mean stop gap? Could we just go back to exactly what was in place before the DOT buff patch while we wait rather than these wild swings for a "stop gap.?"

Elsonso

VaranisArano wrote: »

With this, ZOS doesnt intend for that statement to mean "You can totally fight, fish, steal, siege, and craft if you want" anymore. Now it means "You can tank, DPS, or heal on any class, you just might not be optimal." Its now about role, not your choice of gameplay activities.

You misread the article.

One of our mantras for ESO is "play the way you want," and in this case, it means any class can fulfill any role (tank, dps, support/healer).

"This case" being limited to the context of the article.

Suddwrath

I'm having a very difficult time believing this post. While I appreciate the attempt at improving communication (can't really be upset about that), this is a situation where the walk has not been lining up with the talk. The devs can talk about wanting to give classes their own identity and playstyle, but when patch after patch the classes have only become increasingly similar and lost their unique abilities/playstyles it makes it difficult for me to believe that they know what they are doing.

I would love to believe that the devs are going to give each class a unique feel/identity. I would love to have faith in the direction they are going. I just can't muster up that hope anymore. With each new update the classes have had their identity stripped away from them. The "Play the Way You Want" mantra became a beast that forced classes to be more similar and take away the very things that made them stand out or unique.

So while I do acknowledge and appreciate the improved communication, it isn't enough just to talk the talk. The devs will have to actually walk the walk and give the classes back their identity that has been chipped away for so long (including recently).

Edit:
One thing I think almost everyone would agree on which would be a great step in the right direction would be to revert the 'poison theme' of the StamDK toolkit and allow the class to return to its earth and fire theme. That change alone would restore my confidence in the Combat Team.

VaranisArano

lordrichter wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

With this, ZOS doesnt intend for that statement to mean "You can totally fight, fish, steal, siege, and craft if you want" anymore. Now it means "You can tank, DPS, or heal on any class, you just might not be optimal." Its now about role, not your choice of gameplay activities.

You misread the article.

One of our mantras for ESO is "play the way you want," and in this case, it means any class can fulfill any role (tank, dps, support/healer).

"This case" being limited to the context of the article.

I can understand your interpretation.

Effectively, ZOS went from a generic "Battle" to specifics. Instead of "You can battle, among other things", it went to "you can tank, DPS, and heal/support on any class, among other things." Again, it makes it more about roles in battle, something that you can argue was included but certainly wasn't highlighted in the original context.

Clarification or redefining, meh. Like I said, I think I'm hitting the point of splitting hairs, so I'm just going to leave it here, and let us agree to disagree.