Subclassing worse than U35?

Zyaneth_Bal

BattleAxe wrote: »

Zyaneth_Bal wrote: »

BattleAxe wrote: »

SaintJohnHM wrote: »

Maggusemm wrote: »

what a pity, Saint John. I mean the new patch would exactly enable players like you or your guild to progess some trifecta which are Rockgrove or past for which in the past, damage, tank skillsets or strenght of healing were missing or all together.

There are a lot more opportunities and fine-tuning possible and power is increasing. Isnt this seen as something positive to make older content easier?

it's not more fun for us to have content become boringly easy while ruining the classes we love to play, we already clear the HMs and trifectas, and we like doing it with a challenge. There are already normal and veteran modes, hard modes and trifectas should be more of a challenge for the folks who want them.

More of a challenge create your own challenge for these trials make them more difficult such as no gear run of trial or some other creative way to make a trial more challenging. We the players create majority of problems with the game with metas and finding other broken interactions within the game so devs respond by nerfing said broken interactions and metas.

Your point of view is plain wrong. In short players “finding metas” and otherwise becoming stronger is one of the core design principles of the mmorpg genre.

How is my point of view wrong just because we have different points of view? Do you have fun playing the game the way you want to play it? Do I have fun playing the way I want to play? Yes end goal of any rpg regardless if it’s an mmo or not is to get stronger however above that at the core of it all it is a game and a game is suppose to be objectively fun to the individual player to tell someone else only your way of playing is fun is wrong because not everyone is the same and everyone’s definition of what’s fun for them is different. It is as you said an mmo at its core and the devs have to try to balance a game around everyone to give everyone a chance at having fun in their way are all changes gonna be favorable to everyone absolutely not because if they were the game would be nigh unplayable.

Neither my nor your own post I answered were about having fun, your reply is completely off topic.
As to why your point of view is incorrect, you said that players create the majority of game’s problems implying that if an issue hasn’t been brought to attention then there is none which is twisted logic to me. By that line of thought the perfect game is the one that no one plays. Devs set the rules and create boundaries within which players can act. If there is a problem with said boundaries the fault lies with the devs and not the players. Of course obvious technical issues and unintended interactions should not be exploited but those are usually quickly fixed, what I’m talking about are typically longer standing subjects like balance and gameplay interactions.

ADarklore

But the players ARE creating the problem. There are certain players- min/maxers- who spend all their time trying to find the most minute increase... and then since so many people are followers- those players just blindly follow along. Then, many of these leaders start making the, "Well you need to run this certain build, set, in order to run with our group"... and followers gotta follow. So no matter WHAT the devs do, no matter what 'balance' they try to achieve- these min/maxers will always find the 'best build' even if it's a fraction of a percent- and people will follow along. That's not the devs fault... AT ALL. There is no way they can find a perfect balance, and IMO, I believe they have given up trying to appease this group.

If players just said... NO! If they just stopped following these people, if they stopped grouping with those who limit what players can have for builds... they would either leave or open up their groups. This would eliminate the 'meta' problem because people would stop following along and would then play what they find to be personally FUN. Yes, some people find being a follower to be fun... I don't... hence the reason I refuse to deal with groups or group content. Since ZOS's established concept for ESO is 'Skyrim with friends'... then subclassing further moves the game to that end.

Zyaneth_Bal

ADarklore wrote: »

But the players ARE creating the problem. There are certain players- min/maxers- who spend all their time trying to find the most minute increase... and then since so many people are followers- those players just blindly follow along. Then, many of these leaders start making the, "Well you need to run this certain build, set, in order to run with our group"... and followers gotta follow. So no matter WHAT the devs do, no matter what 'balance' they try to achieve- these min/maxers will always find the 'best build' even if it's a fraction of a percent- and people will follow along. That's not the devs fault... AT ALL. There is no way they can find a perfect balance, and IMO, I believe they have given up trying to appease this group.

If players just said... NO! If they just stopped following these people, if they stopped grouping with those who limit what players can have for builds... they would either leave or open up their groups. This would eliminate the 'meta' problem because people would stop following along and would then play what they find to be personally FUN. Yes, some people find being a follower to be fun... I don't... hence the reason I refuse to deal with groups or group content. Since ZOS's established concept for ESO is 'Skyrim with friends'... then subclassing further moves the game to that end.

💀

Renato90085

ADarklore wrote: »

But the players ARE creating the problem. There are certain players- min/maxers- who spend all their time trying to find the most minute increase... and then since so many people are followers- those players just blindly follow along. Then, many of these leaders start making the, "Well you need to run this certain build, set, in order to run with our group"... and followers gotta follow. So no matter WHAT the devs do, no matter what 'balance' they try to achieve- these min/maxers will always find the 'best build' even if it's a fraction of a percent- and people will follow along. That's not the devs fault... AT ALL. There is no way they can find a perfect balance, and IMO, I believe they have given up trying to appease this group.

If players just said... NO! If they just stopped following these people, if they stopped grouping with those who limit what players can have for builds... they would either leave or open up their groups. This would eliminate the 'meta' problem because people would stop following along and would then play what they find to be personally FUN. Yes, some people find being a follower to be fun... I don't... hence the reason I refuse to deal with groups or group content. Since ZOS's established concept for ESO is 'Skyrim with friends'... then subclassing further moves the game to that end.

nope,made 400+ (or 500?)useless set/you cant use other 5 class do this 2 year hard thing in eso/cant respectively balance pve and pvp, so some time a class pvp too strong , they nerf F tier class in pve too/alway nerf some good but not op set because they ready sell next dlc,this is the devs fault,meta just some player research bis in game,like you are solo player, your main play overland is easy ,so order's wrath(good new player/pvp set) will better than rele(meta set), because rele in low health boss cant work,we alway research what set can work,like all new trial set is meme,cant use in any time(solo too)

cuddles_with_wroble

Update 35 was a fumble of unrivaled proportion, EVERYONE told them it was a bad change and not to do it and they did it anyway and thus culled 50% of the player base is weeks, it’s pretty hard to top that.

Rungar

ADarklore wrote: »

But the players ARE creating the problem. There are certain players- min/maxers- who spend all their time trying to find the most minute increase... and then since so many people are followers- those players just blindly follow along. Then, many of these leaders start making the, "Well you need to run this certain build, set, in order to run with our group"... and followers gotta follow. So no matter WHAT the devs do, no matter what 'balance' they try to achieve- these min/maxers will always find the 'best build' even if it's a fraction of a percent- and people will follow along. That's not the devs fault... AT ALL. There is no way they can find a perfect balance, and IMO, I believe they have given up trying to appease this group.

If players just said... NO! If they just stopped following these people, if they stopped grouping with those who limit what players can have for builds... they would either leave or open up their groups. This would eliminate the 'meta' problem because people would stop following along and would then play what they find to be personally FUN. Yes, some people find being a follower to be fun... I don't... hence the reason I refuse to deal with groups or group content. Since ZOS's established concept for ESO is 'Skyrim with friends'... then subclassing further moves the game to that end.

remember that the best build is only because of zos's ( obsolete imo) dps/raid mechanic centric linear model that supports that. There's lots of things they could be doing to support more balanced builds, they just have no will or maybe expertise to do it. Zos's lack of creativity is really its own worst enemy. I get they are risk averse since they had a crap launch, but that was along time ago. lol.

Rungar

cuddles_with_wroble wrote: »

Update 35 was a fumble of unrivaled proportion, EVERYONE told them it was a bad change and not to do it and they did it anyway and thus culled 50% of the player base is weeks, it’s pretty hard to top that.

steamcharts dont actually show any major population change during that time period other than normal ups and downs related to a chapter release. i imagine from zos point of view it was the same as any other patch. meme really.

January 2023 16,353.8 +2,316.1 +16.50% 29,480
December 2022 14,037.7 +737.6 +5.55% 20,644
November 2022 13,300.1 -287.5 -2.12% 21,737
October 2022 13,587.7 +506.5 +3.87% 22,010
September 2022 13,081.2 -726.7 -5.26% 22,490 --normal population
August 2022 13,807.9 -2,354.1 -14.57% 24,309 update 35
July 2022 16,162.0 -104.6 -0.64% 27,980 update 35
June 2022 16,266.6 +2,517.2 +18.31% 26,754 high isle release
May 2022 13,749.4 -1,613.3 -10.50% 24,474--normal population

cuddles_with_wroble

Rungar wrote: »

cuddles_with_wroble wrote: »

Update 35 was a fumble of unrivaled proportion, EVERYONE told them it was a bad change and not to do it and they did it anyway and thus culled 50% of the player base is weeks, it’s pretty hard to top that.

steamcharts dont actually show any major population change during that time period other than normal ups and downs related to a chapter release. i imagine from zos point of view it was the same as any other patch. meme really.

January 2023 16,353.8 +2,316.1 +16.50% 29,480
December 2022 14,037.7 +737.6 +5.55% 20,644
November 2022 13,300.1 -287.5 -2.12% 21,737
October 2022 13,587.7 +506.5 +3.87% 22,010
September 2022 13,081.2 -726.7 -5.26% 22,490 --normal population
August 2022 13,807.9 -2,354.1 -14.57% 24,309 update 35
July 2022 16,162.0 -104.6 -0.64% 27,980 update 35
June 2022 16,266.6 +2,517.2 +18.31% 26,754 high isle release
May 2022 13,749.4 -1,613.3 -10.50% 24,474--normal population

Steam charts aren’t the best considering most people are on console and even those of us on pc are mostly on the launcher. But I can tell you from first hand experience that while the overall population of the game may not have been affected, the high end trials and dungeons as well as the pvp populations were absolutely decimated by update 35

What you aren’t factoring in is that the game is basically gaining as many players as it’s losing every expansion, the top end is dying and constantly filtered out by around the same amount of new people starting. So in effect they did achieve their goal of getting new players but in exchange they made the game very undesirable to veteran and more hardcore players.

Rungar

so what your saying is that most eso players don't actually do any of those activities. That actually makes sense to me given the combat system.

sans-culottes

ADarklore wrote: »

But the players ARE creating the problem. There are certain players- min/maxers- who spend all their time trying to find the most minute increase... and then since so many people are followers- those players just blindly follow along. Then, many of these leaders start making the, "Well you need to run this certain build, set, in order to run with our group"... and followers gotta follow. So no matter WHAT the devs do, no matter what 'balance' they try to achieve- these min/maxers will always find the 'best build' even if it's a fraction of a percent- and people will follow along. That's not the devs fault... AT ALL. There is no way they can find a perfect balance, and IMO, I believe they have given up trying to appease this group.

If players just said... NO! If they just stopped following these people, if they stopped grouping with those who limit what players can have for builds... they would either leave or open up their groups. This would eliminate the 'meta' problem because people would stop following along and would then play what they find to be personally FUN. Yes, some people find being a follower to be fun... I don't... hence the reason I refuse to deal with groups or group content. Since ZOS's established concept for ESO is 'Skyrim with friends'... then subclassing further moves the game to that end.

The idea that “players are the problem” because they pursue optimization is a strange inversion of responsibility. Min-maxing is not a flaw of the playerbase. It is a predictable behavior in any system that rewards performance. If ESO offers measurable advantages for particular builds, then it is the system—not the players—that incentivizes convergence. Blaming players for responding logically to the parameters set by the game design is like blaming water for flowing downhill.

You say you avoid group content because of this. That’s your prerogative. But let’s not confuse personal preference with a design principle. The presence of a meta doesn’t mean the game is broken. It means players are engaging seriously with its mechanics. If that’s unappealing, then that’s fine. But pretending ZOS bears no responsibility because they “can’t please everyone” is a deflection.

And invoking “Skyrim with friends” doesn’t resolve this contradiction. Instead, it deepens it. Skyrim has no class system. ESO does. If ZOS wanted a sandbox, then they shouldn’t have built a game around fixed class kits, skill lines, and gear sets with performance tiers. Subclassing isn’t an embrace of freedom. It’s a retreat from complexity dressed as liberation.

Meta exists because systems allow it. Design shapes behavior. Pretending otherwise just lets the actual designers off the hook.

Blackbird_V

Subclassing should be restricted to borrowing 1 ability and passive for each of the 3 skill lines. So you Subclass as DK from Templar, you can only chose 1 ability and passive from Ardent flame to add to Aedric spear, 1 Draconic power to Dawn's wrath, etc. etc.

Being able to do what you can do now will basically completely destroy class identity forever. We've already lost a major portion of that.

Subclassing looks fun, but it also looks like the balance trade-off is not going to be worth it in the long run.

---

BattleAxe

sans-culottes wrote: »

ADarklore wrote: »

But the players ARE creating the problem. There are certain players- min/maxers- who spend all their time trying to find the most minute increase... and then since so many people are followers- those players just blindly follow along. Then, many of these leaders start making the, "Well you need to run this certain build, set, in order to run with our group"... and followers gotta follow. So no matter WHAT the devs do, no matter what 'balance' they try to achieve- these min/maxers will always find the 'best build' even if it's a fraction of a percent- and people will follow along. That's not the devs fault... AT ALL. There is no way they can find a perfect balance, and IMO, I believe they have given up trying to appease this group.

If players just said... NO! If they just stopped following these people, if they stopped grouping with those who limit what players can have for builds... they would either leave or open up their groups. This would eliminate the 'meta' problem because people would stop following along and would then play what they find to be personally FUN. Yes, some people find being a follower to be fun... I don't... hence the reason I refuse to deal with groups or group content. Since ZOS's established concept for ESO is 'Skyrim with friends'... then subclassing further moves the game to that end.

The idea that “players are the problem” because they pursue optimization is a strange inversion of responsibility. Min-maxing is not a flaw of the playerbase. It is a predictable behavior in any system that rewards performance. If ESO offers measurable advantages for particular builds, then it is the system—not the players—that incentivizes convergence. Blaming players for responding logically to the parameters set by the game design is like blaming water for flowing downhill.

You say you avoid group content because of this. That’s your prerogative. But let’s not confuse personal preference with a design principle. The presence of a meta doesn’t mean the game is broken. It means players are engaging seriously with its mechanics. If that’s unappealing, then that’s fine. But pretending ZOS bears no responsibility because they “can’t please everyone” is a deflection.

And invoking “Skyrim with friends” doesn’t resolve this contradiction. Instead, it deepens it. Skyrim has no class system. ESO does. If ZOS wanted a sandbox, then they shouldn’t have built a game around fixed class kits, skill lines, and gear sets with performance tiers. Subclassing isn’t an embrace of freedom. It’s a retreat from complexity dressed as liberation.

Meta exists because systems allow it. Design shapes behavior. Pretending otherwise just lets the actual designers off the hook.

But it is player based problem yes your right the devs put the tools in place but we the players aka users of said tools push the boundaries to their limits. If player x uses tool A and it allows them 1 shot or near 1 shot ability of course players a-z will use it as well creating the “meta” the devs again put tools in place. It’s like do u blame the gun manufacturers for shootings or the shooter themselves?

Another thing I’ll say is do I think every change the devs implement is liked. Of course not for example as a dk main the devs completely took away a skill I enjoyed but since other players didn’t like or use it as much it was taken away sea of flames which is now known as cauterize or what is now the sorcs hurricane ability. You think I was happy about it? Do I blame the devs for it or the players? So wut I’m getting at is every change addition subtraction buff or nerf will not be favorable to everyone this is fact. However it doesn’t mean the devs ignore feedback heck if they did sorc mains would have a cast time on damage shields now if devs didn’t listen to feedback. I’m not saying devs are always in the right nor are they always wrong or out of touch with the player base hell quite a few devs are players as well.

Ph1p

BattleAxe wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

ADarklore wrote: »

But the players ARE creating the problem. There are certain players- min/maxers- who spend all their time trying to find the most minute increase... and then since so many people are followers- those players just blindly follow along. Then, many of these leaders start making the, "Well you need to run this certain build, set, in order to run with our group"... and followers gotta follow. So no matter WHAT the devs do, no matter what 'balance' they try to achieve- these min/maxers will always find the 'best build' even if it's a fraction of a percent- and people will follow along. That's not the devs fault... AT ALL. There is no way they can find a perfect balance, and IMO, I believe they have given up trying to appease this group.

If players just said... NO! If they just stopped following these people, if they stopped grouping with those who limit what players can have for builds... they would either leave or open up their groups. This would eliminate the 'meta' problem because people would stop following along and would then play what they find to be personally FUN. Yes, some people find being a follower to be fun... I don't... hence the reason I refuse to deal with groups or group content. Since ZOS's established concept for ESO is 'Skyrim with friends'... then subclassing further moves the game to that end.

The idea that “players are the problem” because they pursue optimization is a strange inversion of responsibility. Min-maxing is not a flaw of the playerbase. It is a predictable behavior in any system that rewards performance. If ESO offers measurable advantages for particular builds, then it is the system—not the players—that incentivizes convergence. Blaming players for responding logically to the parameters set by the game design is like blaming water for flowing downhill.

You say you avoid group content because of this. That’s your prerogative. But let’s not confuse personal preference with a design principle. The presence of a meta doesn’t mean the game is broken. It means players are engaging seriously with its mechanics. If that’s unappealing, then that’s fine. But pretending ZOS bears no responsibility because they “can’t please everyone” is a deflection.

And invoking “Skyrim with friends” doesn’t resolve this contradiction. Instead, it deepens it. Skyrim has no class system. ESO does. If ZOS wanted a sandbox, then they shouldn’t have built a game around fixed class kits, skill lines, and gear sets with performance tiers. Subclassing isn’t an embrace of freedom. It’s a retreat from complexity dressed as liberation.

Meta exists because systems allow it. Design shapes behavior. Pretending otherwise just lets the actual designers off the hook.

But it is player based problem yes your right the devs put the tools in place but we the players aka users of said tools push the boundaries to their limits. If player x uses tool A and it allows them 1 shot or near 1 shot ability of course players a-z will use it as well creating the “meta” the devs again put tools in place. It’s like do u blame the gun manufacturers for shootings or the shooter themselves? [...]

I blame the shooter and the lawmakers who made it possible for a shooter to easily obtain a weapon. Just like I blame a tax dodger and the loopholes in the tax code or an environmental polluter and the lax regulations that led to a spill. But great job comparing endgame or min-maxing players to homicidal maniacs - really elevates the level of discussion, doesn't it...

How about we stick to the field of games and sports? If you allow a Magic the Gathering tournament to use any card from any set ever, then don't blame the players if someone comes up with an OP combo that ruins the format. If you permit the use of smartphones during a chess tournament, then don't complain if the players leave for another competition that doesn't see the use of chess computers. Blaming players for using novel additions to a game is just dodging developer accountability and gaslighting at its finest.

sans-culottes

Ph1p wrote: »

BattleAxe wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

ADarklore wrote: »

But the players ARE creating the problem. There are certain players- min/maxers- who spend all their time trying to find the most minute increase... and then since so many people are followers- those players just blindly follow along. Then, many of these leaders start making the, "Well you need to run this certain build, set, in order to run with our group"... and followers gotta follow. So no matter WHAT the devs do, no matter what 'balance' they try to achieve- these min/maxers will always find the 'best build' even if it's a fraction of a percent- and people will follow along. That's not the devs fault... AT ALL. There is no way they can find a perfect balance, and IMO, I believe they have given up trying to appease this group.

If players just said... NO! If they just stopped following these people, if they stopped grouping with those who limit what players can have for builds... they would either leave or open up their groups. This would eliminate the 'meta' problem because people would stop following along and would then play what they find to be personally FUN. Yes, some people find being a follower to be fun... I don't... hence the reason I refuse to deal with groups or group content. Since ZOS's established concept for ESO is 'Skyrim with friends'... then subclassing further moves the game to that end.

The idea that “players are the problem” because they pursue optimization is a strange inversion of responsibility. Min-maxing is not a flaw of the playerbase. It is a predictable behavior in any system that rewards performance. If ESO offers measurable advantages for particular builds, then it is the system—not the players—that incentivizes convergence. Blaming players for responding logically to the parameters set by the game design is like blaming water for flowing downhill.

You say you avoid group content because of this. That’s your prerogative. But let’s not confuse personal preference with a design principle. The presence of a meta doesn’t mean the game is broken. It means players are engaging seriously with its mechanics. If that’s unappealing, then that’s fine. But pretending ZOS bears no responsibility because they “can’t please everyone” is a deflection.

And invoking “Skyrim with friends” doesn’t resolve this contradiction. Instead, it deepens it. Skyrim has no class system. ESO does. If ZOS wanted a sandbox, then they shouldn’t have built a game around fixed class kits, skill lines, and gear sets with performance tiers. Subclassing isn’t an embrace of freedom. It’s a retreat from complexity dressed as liberation.

Meta exists because systems allow it. Design shapes behavior. Pretending otherwise just lets the actual designers off the hook.

But it is player based problem yes your right the devs put the tools in place but we the players aka users of said tools push the boundaries to their limits. If player x uses tool A and it allows them 1 shot or near 1 shot ability of course players a-z will use it as well creating the “meta” the devs again put tools in place. It’s like do u blame the gun manufacturers for shootings or the shooter themselves? [...]

I blame the shooter and the lawmakers who made it possible for a shooter to easily obtain a weapon. Just like I blame a tax dodger and the loopholes in the tax code or an environmental polluter and the lax regulations that led to a spill. But great job comparing endgame or min-maxing players to homicidal maniacs - really elevates the level of discussion, doesn't it...

How about we stick to the field of games and sports? If you allow a Magic the Gathering tournament to use any card from any set ever, then don't blame the players if someone comes up with an OP combo that ruins the format. If you permit the use of smartphones during a chess tournament, then don't complain if the players leave for another competition that doesn't see the use of chess computers. Blaming players for using novel additions to a game is just dodging developer accountability and gaslighting at its finest.

A brilliant response. 💯

Pevey

Zyaneth_Bal wrote: »

Honestly sometimes it feels like over and over again I try to find a reason to play eso and zos try to make me leave.

The classic ESO experience in a nutshell.

Pevey

I'm not looking forward to subclassing at all. I would have welcomed a way to change classes in game, perhaps through the same type of quests that were implemented for subclassing. I'm jut going to wait and see how this all shakes out.

The way in the stream Rich acknowledged that subclassing would increase power and that they were not too concerned about that... it was extremely odd to me. Always in the past, they have been obsessed with power creep, to the point of putting out mostly useless new sets year after year. And to the point of releasing the hated U35, which had a goal of lowering the power ceiling and raising the floor (failed at both). Power has crept up, for sure, but in all cases, it was completely unintended, from interactions the combat dev team did not fully understand or predict (there is a LOT they do not fully understand or predict). So, if suddenly they are not so concerned about power creep (leap?) from subclassing, that makes me think surely they have something up their sleeve. Like maybe the new optional difficulty is not just a reworking of overland difficulty, but also perhaps a new level of difficulty for dungeons and trials. That would be a smart thing to do, I think. It would provide a lot of "new" content for endgame players to work through with relatively little development time compared to creating that much new content from scratch. Or, of course, maybe I'm thinking too logically, and this is yet another example of ZOS completely changing their stripes for no particular reason. Who knows.

gronoxvx

Im looking forward to seeing even more threads complaining about ball groups when this goes live. Lol. Its going to break pvp

cuddles_with_wroble

BattleAxe wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

ADarklore wrote: »

But the players ARE creating the problem. There are certain players- min/maxers- who spend all their time trying to find the most minute increase... and then since so many people are followers- those players just blindly follow along. Then, many of these leaders start making the, "Well you need to run this certain build, set, in order to run with our group"... and followers gotta follow. So no matter WHAT the devs do, no matter what 'balance' they try to achieve- these min/maxers will always find the 'best build' even if it's a fraction of a percent- and people will follow along. That's not the devs fault... AT ALL. There is no way they can find a perfect balance, and IMO, I believe they have given up trying to appease this group.

If players just said... NO! If they just stopped following these people, if they stopped grouping with those who limit what players can have for builds... they would either leave or open up their groups. This would eliminate the 'meta' problem because people would stop following along and would then play what they find to be personally FUN. Yes, some people find being a follower to be fun... I don't... hence the reason I refuse to deal with groups or group content. Since ZOS's established concept for ESO is 'Skyrim with friends'... then subclassing further moves the game to that end.

The idea that “players are the problem” because they pursue optimization is a strange inversion of responsibility. Min-maxing is not a flaw of the playerbase. It is a predictable behavior in any system that rewards performance. If ESO offers measurable advantages for particular builds, then it is the system—not the players—that incentivizes convergence. Blaming players for responding logically to the parameters set by the game design is like blaming water for flowing downhill.

You say you avoid group content because of this. That’s your prerogative. But let’s not confuse personal preference with a design principle. The presence of a meta doesn’t mean the game is broken. It means players are engaging seriously with its mechanics. If that’s unappealing, then that’s fine. But pretending ZOS bears no responsibility because they “can’t please everyone” is a deflection.

And invoking “Skyrim with friends” doesn’t resolve this contradiction. Instead, it deepens it. Skyrim has no class system. ESO does. If ZOS wanted a sandbox, then they shouldn’t have built a game around fixed class kits, skill lines, and gear sets with performance tiers. Subclassing isn’t an embrace of freedom. It’s a retreat from complexity dressed as liberation.

Meta exists because systems allow it. Design shapes behavior. Pretending otherwise just lets the actual designers off the hook.

But it is player based problem yes your right the devs put the tools in place but we the players aka users of said tools push the boundaries to their limits. If player x uses tool A and it allows them 1 shot or near 1 shot ability of course players a-z will use it as well creating the “meta” the devs again put tools in place. It’s like do u blame the gun manufacturers for shootings or the shooter themselves?

Another thing I’ll say is do I think every change the devs implement is liked. Of course not for example as a dk main the devs completely took away a skill I enjoyed but since other players didn’t like or use it as much it was taken away sea of flames which is now known as cauterize or what is now the sorcs hurricane ability. You think I was happy about it? Do I blame the devs for it or the players? So wut I’m getting at is every change addition subtraction buff or nerf will not be favorable to everyone this is fact. However it doesn’t mean the devs ignore feedback heck if they did sorc mains would have a cast time on damage shields now if devs didn’t listen to feedback. I’m not saying devs are always in the right nor are they always wrong or out of touch with the player base hell quite a few devs are players as well.

players will use any advantage given to them just like people do irl, any tool the devs give players will always be used in a way they didnt intend bcs theres like 100 of them and a million of us so theres no possible way they can consider every single interaction... however, THEY should also know this and PTS testing + this forum should be the solution to that issue.

also your guns example is terrible, its more like if the devs gave everyone flaming swords that 1 shot people and you chose to use a blunt sword bcs you wanted to be different

i also would encourage you to look into past changes that effect pvp or hardcore trials guilds and youll see that its just about every change they make those 2 groups of people disagree with, the trend seems to be that the devs do everything in their power to do the opposite of what these 2 groups of players want

BattleAxe

Ph1p wrote: »

BattleAxe wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

ADarklore wrote: »

But the players ARE creating the problem. There are certain players- min/maxers- who spend all their time trying to find the most minute increase... and then since so many people are followers- those players just blindly follow along. Then, many of these leaders start making the, "Well you need to run this certain build, set, in order to run with our group"... and followers gotta follow. So no matter WHAT the devs do, no matter what 'balance' they try to achieve- these min/maxers will always find the 'best build' even if it's a fraction of a percent- and people will follow along. That's not the devs fault... AT ALL. There is no way they can find a perfect balance, and IMO, I believe they have given up trying to appease this group.

If players just said... NO! If they just stopped following these people, if they stopped grouping with those who limit what players can have for builds... they would either leave or open up their groups. This would eliminate the 'meta' problem because people would stop following along and would then play what they find to be personally FUN. Yes, some people find being a follower to be fun... I don't... hence the reason I refuse to deal with groups or group content. Since ZOS's established concept for ESO is 'Skyrim with friends'... then subclassing further moves the game to that end.

The idea that “players are the problem” because they pursue optimization is a strange inversion of responsibility. Min-maxing is not a flaw of the playerbase. It is a predictable behavior in any system that rewards performance. If ESO offers measurable advantages for particular builds, then it is the system—not the players—that incentivizes convergence. Blaming players for responding logically to the parameters set by the game design is like blaming water for flowing downhill.

You say you avoid group content because of this. That’s your prerogative. But let’s not confuse personal preference with a design principle. The presence of a meta doesn’t mean the game is broken. It means players are engaging seriously with its mechanics. If that’s unappealing, then that’s fine. But pretending ZOS bears no responsibility because they “can’t please everyone” is a deflection.

And invoking “Skyrim with friends” doesn’t resolve this contradiction. Instead, it deepens it. Skyrim has no class system. ESO does. If ZOS wanted a sandbox, then they shouldn’t have built a game around fixed class kits, skill lines, and gear sets with performance tiers. Subclassing isn’t an embrace of freedom. It’s a retreat from complexity dressed as liberation.

Meta exists because systems allow it. Design shapes behavior. Pretending otherwise just lets the actual designers off the hook.

But it is player based problem yes your right the devs put the tools in place but we the players aka users of said tools push the boundaries to their limits. If player x uses tool A and it allows them 1 shot or near 1 shot ability of course players a-z will use it as well creating the “meta” the devs again put tools in place. It’s like do u blame the gun manufacturers for shootings or the shooter themselves? [...]

I blame the shooter and the lawmakers who made it possible for a shooter to easily obtain a weapon. Just like I blame a tax dodger and the loopholes in the tax code or an environmental polluter and the lax regulations that led to a spill. But great job comparing endgame or min-maxing players to homicidal maniacs - really elevates the level of discussion, doesn't it...

How about we stick to the field of games and sports? If you allow a Magic the Gathering tournament to use any card from any set ever, then don't blame the players if someone comes up with an OP combo that ruins the format. If you permit the use of smartphones during a chess tournament, then don't complain if the players leave for another competition that doesn't see the use of chess computers. Blaming players for using novel additions to a game is just dodging developer accountability and gaslighting at its finest.

It’s not as easy as you think to obtain a gun. Just fyi. But ya let’s just blame the developers for everything in a game 10+ yrs old who are still working on the game when they could just as easily take their efforts into something else.

Devs give players what they want players complain devs don’t give what players want players complain anyone throwing blame at the devs for changes if you think you know or can do better be my guest. It’s easy to criticize when it’s someone else.

thinkaboutit

Why not balance on the subclass end rather than the pureclass end?

cuddles_with_wroble

BattleAxe wrote: »

Ph1p wrote: »

BattleAxe wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

ADarklore wrote: »

But the players ARE creating the problem. There are certain players- min/maxers- who spend all their time trying to find the most minute increase... and then since so many people are followers- those players just blindly follow along. Then, many of these leaders start making the, "Well you need to run this certain build, set, in order to run with our group"... and followers gotta follow. So no matter WHAT the devs do, no matter what 'balance' they try to achieve- these min/maxers will always find the 'best build' even if it's a fraction of a percent- and people will follow along. That's not the devs fault... AT ALL. There is no way they can find a perfect balance, and IMO, I believe they have given up trying to appease this group.

If players just said... NO! If they just stopped following these people, if they stopped grouping with those who limit what players can have for builds... they would either leave or open up their groups. This would eliminate the 'meta' problem because people would stop following along and would then play what they find to be personally FUN. Yes, some people find being a follower to be fun... I don't... hence the reason I refuse to deal with groups or group content. Since ZOS's established concept for ESO is 'Skyrim with friends'... then subclassing further moves the game to that end.

The idea that “players are the problem” because they pursue optimization is a strange inversion of responsibility. Min-maxing is not a flaw of the playerbase. It is a predictable behavior in any system that rewards performance. If ESO offers measurable advantages for particular builds, then it is the system—not the players—that incentivizes convergence. Blaming players for responding logically to the parameters set by the game design is like blaming water for flowing downhill.

You say you avoid group content because of this. That’s your prerogative. But let’s not confuse personal preference with a design principle. The presence of a meta doesn’t mean the game is broken. It means players are engaging seriously with its mechanics. If that’s unappealing, then that’s fine. But pretending ZOS bears no responsibility because they “can’t please everyone” is a deflection.

And invoking “Skyrim with friends” doesn’t resolve this contradiction. Instead, it deepens it. Skyrim has no class system. ESO does. If ZOS wanted a sandbox, then they shouldn’t have built a game around fixed class kits, skill lines, and gear sets with performance tiers. Subclassing isn’t an embrace of freedom. It’s a retreat from complexity dressed as liberation.

Meta exists because systems allow it. Design shapes behavior. Pretending otherwise just lets the actual designers off the hook.

But it is player based problem yes your right the devs put the tools in place but we the players aka users of said tools push the boundaries to their limits. If player x uses tool A and it allows them 1 shot or near 1 shot ability of course players a-z will use it as well creating the “meta” the devs again put tools in place. It’s like do u blame the gun manufacturers for shootings or the shooter themselves? [...]

I blame the shooter and the lawmakers who made it possible for a shooter to easily obtain a weapon. Just like I blame a tax dodger and the loopholes in the tax code or an environmental polluter and the lax regulations that led to a spill. But great job comparing endgame or min-maxing players to homicidal maniacs - really elevates the level of discussion, doesn't it...

How about we stick to the field of games and sports? If you allow a Magic the Gathering tournament to use any card from any set ever, then don't blame the players if someone comes up with an OP combo that ruins the format. If you permit the use of smartphones during a chess tournament, then don't complain if the players leave for another competition that doesn't see the use of chess computers. Blaming players for using novel additions to a game is just dodging developer accountability and gaslighting at its finest.

It’s not as easy as you think to obtain a gun. Just fyi. But ya let’s just blame the developers for everything in a game 10+ yrs old who are still working on the game when they could just as easily take their efforts into something else.

Devs give players what they want players complain devs don’t give what players want players complain anyone throwing blame at the devs for changes if you think you know or can do better be my guest. It’s easy to criticize when it’s someone else.

they do not give us what we want and i 100% think i could do better and i would do it for free if they asked me

SaintJohnHM

They didn't really have to ruin the game with multiclassing like this, but I won't waste time speculating what led them to so many obviously poor decisions.

IncultaWolf

SaintJohnHM wrote: »

They didn't really have to ruin the game with multiclassing like this, but I won't waste time speculating what led them to so many obviously poor decisions.

At least we have Oblivion Remaster now

Ragnarok0130

Pr0Skygon wrote: »

Honestly, I kinda understand the knee-jerk reaction statement from Rich, especially now. U35 was no where as bad as we thought, because hey, that's why we have pts to test things out. The first week of U35 was laughably bad, but when it actually comes out, it was fine, not bad at all.

Same thing is going on now. A bunch of knee-jerk reaction, no diversity this, class identity that. But from people who are actually testing it out, the reaction is leaning toward positive much more. Is it balanced? *** no. But is it fun? Hell yes. And for an 11 years old mmorpg with no esport attached, fun should trump balance. That being said, balance should not be thrown out entirely. There are some outlier builds that are insanely strong and should be looked into.

My solution is simple: Nerf main stats when you use subclass. Don't nerf the skill line itself, because it will effect the purest. Just make it like a mythic or vampire curse. You gain some, you lose some. If you wanna get 3 dps skill lines, you should get reduced resources. Make it so when you have 1 subclass active, you lose all your attribute points. If you get 2 subclasses, you get reduced resources even compare to base stats.

My experiences were completely the opposite with U35; almost all of my raiding guilds turned into Ghost towns with U35, and the few that didn't became less active as the post U35 nerf patches dropped. Nefas's "Project Vitality" (the project to create new raiders from standard players to stop groups poaching from one another that started somewhere around U31 or 32 I think) went from 120 raid leads across 3 platforms with a ton of players being trained to about 40 raid leads then 20 and then closed the project when the post-U35 nerfs started because the remaining raid leads kept leaving the game. U35 was just as bad for PVE end game as the Morrowind patch was from my experience.

Regarding your solution for subclassing I've said similar things and think that is the way to go. I don't however think ZoS will do anything of the sort and will let it go live with nerfed pure classes and OP subclasses.

Poss

From what I’ve seen, endgamers DO NOT want this update. My raid lead announced he’s disbanding our team of 3 years when the update drops and many in the team were in agreement

Seems the casual one bar heavy attack sorc mains can’t wait for the update

BattleAxe

cuddles_with_wroble wrote: »

BattleAxe wrote: »

Ph1p wrote: »

BattleAxe wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

ADarklore wrote: »

But the players ARE creating the problem. There are certain players- min/maxers- who spend all their time trying to find the most minute increase... and then since so many people are followers- those players just blindly follow along. Then, many of these leaders start making the, "Well you need to run this certain build, set, in order to run with our group"... and followers gotta follow. So no matter WHAT the devs do, no matter what 'balance' they try to achieve- these min/maxers will always find the 'best build' even if it's a fraction of a percent- and people will follow along. That's not the devs fault... AT ALL. There is no way they can find a perfect balance, and IMO, I believe they have given up trying to appease this group.

If players just said... NO! If they just stopped following these people, if they stopped grouping with those who limit what players can have for builds... they would either leave or open up their groups. This would eliminate the 'meta' problem because people would stop following along and would then play what they find to be personally FUN. Yes, some people find being a follower to be fun... I don't... hence the reason I refuse to deal with groups or group content. Since ZOS's established concept for ESO is 'Skyrim with friends'... then subclassing further moves the game to that end.

The idea that “players are the problem” because they pursue optimization is a strange inversion of responsibility. Min-maxing is not a flaw of the playerbase. It is a predictable behavior in any system that rewards performance. If ESO offers measurable advantages for particular builds, then it is the system—not the players—that incentivizes convergence. Blaming players for responding logically to the parameters set by the game design is like blaming water for flowing downhill.

You say you avoid group content because of this. That’s your prerogative. But let’s not confuse personal preference with a design principle. The presence of a meta doesn’t mean the game is broken. It means players are engaging seriously with its mechanics. If that’s unappealing, then that’s fine. But pretending ZOS bears no responsibility because they “can’t please everyone” is a deflection.

And invoking “Skyrim with friends” doesn’t resolve this contradiction. Instead, it deepens it. Skyrim has no class system. ESO does. If ZOS wanted a sandbox, then they shouldn’t have built a game around fixed class kits, skill lines, and gear sets with performance tiers. Subclassing isn’t an embrace of freedom. It’s a retreat from complexity dressed as liberation.

Meta exists because systems allow it. Design shapes behavior. Pretending otherwise just lets the actual designers off the hook.

But it is player based problem yes your right the devs put the tools in place but we the players aka users of said tools push the boundaries to their limits. If player x uses tool A and it allows them 1 shot or near 1 shot ability of course players a-z will use it as well creating the “meta” the devs again put tools in place. It’s like do u blame the gun manufacturers for shootings or the shooter themselves? [...]

I blame the shooter and the lawmakers who made it possible for a shooter to easily obtain a weapon. Just like I blame a tax dodger and the loopholes in the tax code or an environmental polluter and the lax regulations that led to a spill. But great job comparing endgame or min-maxing players to homicidal maniacs - really elevates the level of discussion, doesn't it...

How about we stick to the field of games and sports? If you allow a Magic the Gathering tournament to use any card from any set ever, then don't blame the players if someone comes up with an OP combo that ruins the format. If you permit the use of smartphones during a chess tournament, then don't complain if the players leave for another competition that doesn't see the use of chess computers. Blaming players for using novel additions to a game is just dodging developer accountability and gaslighting at its finest.

It’s not as easy as you think to obtain a gun. Just fyi. But ya let’s just blame the developers for everything in a game 10+ yrs old who are still working on the game when they could just as easily take their efforts into something else.

Devs give players what they want players complain devs don’t give what players want players complain anyone throwing blame at the devs for changes if you think you know or can do better be my guest. It’s easy to criticize when it’s someone else.

they do not give us what we want and i 100% think i could do better and i would do it for free if they asked me

I will agree to disagree because it is impossible to make every player happy.

sarahthes

I have lost a third of the members of my core directly because of this update. It's disheartening as a raid lead.

LukosCreyden

sarahthes wrote: »

I have lost a third of the members of my core directly because of this update. It's disheartening as a raid lead.

@sarahthes As a more """"midcore"""" player (i like soloing hard content like DLC dungeons) I am curious, what was it about the update that made your team quit? Genuine question. Is it because the meta will involve absolutely EVERYONE running the same build?

For me, I really want to enjoy subclassing, but I really wish everyone else could do so, too. But, my playstyle does not involve following a meta, it involves making an effective character that can suit a certain theme; the more creative and visually appealing, the better.

As I say, I AM excited for subclassing, but seeing so many people feel disheartened and disappointed is also making me feel the same way about it all.

SaintJohnHM

@ZOS_Kevin will we ever hear why our many concerns about how multiclassing as being implemented is going to ruin the fun of ESO were ignored? There must be some reason why, but it seems like a bad idea to make the game less fun for so many players. We accept that ZOS has a terrible record of communicating with players, but many of us are curious what ZOS was trying to achieve by creating a new system that will ruin large parts of the game?

PrinceShroob

LukosCreyden wrote: »

As a more """"midcore"""" player (i like soloing hard content like DLC dungeons) I am curious, what was it about the update that made your team quit? Genuine question. Is it because the meta will involve absolutely EVERYONE running the same build?

I know I'm not who you're addressing here, but I thought I'd give my perspective.

1. After two years of a relatively stable meta that comfortably allowed one to learn the content instead of having to chase different gear or level certain classes (once you already had the gear farmed and the classes leveled, obviously), we're back to square one--certain sets like Runecarver and Azureblight are completely dead on Arcanist. All the materials you spent, wasted. The time you spent farming those sets, wasted. All your presets using them, wasted.
2. This is a massive grind--if you're, say, a tank main, you can have a Necromancer, Sorcerer, and Dragonknight tank ready to go--but that doesn't matter. Now you need to slog through grinding out the special subclassing versions of those skill lines (at doubled experience cost, too)--Earthen Heart and Grave Lord and Daedric Summoning and on and on--doing the exact same stuff you've already done, like Dragonstar Arena, which you've done so often you can practically quote Hiath from memory. And with doubled skill point cost, you get to go do the same delves and public dungeons again you've done a million times before, too.
3. The meta hasn't settled yet, which is unsettling. You feel like you're drifting aimlessly while people smarter than you consider what's to come. What's more...
4. The meta is shaping up to be incredibly homogeneous. We're talking all DPS are the same, healers are the same, and only tanks are different but they're sharing Earthen Heart.

This is, essentially, people saying "I wish I'd picked pizza instead of hamburger" and the developers hearing "try our new pizzaburger! That's what you wanted, right? Also we made pizza and hamburgers worse so you have to eat it."

And if you think the pizzaburger is disgusting, too bad, everyone's going to make you eat the slop. Why wouldn't they? After all, the developers ensured it's the new best option.

Until, of course, they finally come to grips with the horror they've created and we get a round of nerfs to rival Update 35.