Subclassing and the Buffs will SAVE this game, not "Break" it

TORCH15

Twohothardware wrote: »

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Exactly. Can't break what's already broken, can't kill what's already dead. Meanwhile, I don't think I've seen this much excitement and action on the PTS since before Summerset.

Exactly. The only reason people are talking about this next DLC is because of the subclassing. There's a number of people commenting negatively about it but there's plenty looking forward to it as well.

I just hope ZOS makes measured and minor adjustments and doesn't listen to a loud minority like they have with other releases. The class specific armor sets for example were ruined to the point of noone even caring about them after a few people on here lost their minds thinking the DK set was going to end the game.

Theres definitely too much doomsday mentality here from a tiny subset of people that think they are above everyone. I think the majority will thrive with the new update and bring life back to the game. A few hundred people across 3 platforms can stay big mad about it. The rest of us will have fun.

FoJul

TORCH15 wrote: »

Twohothardware wrote: »

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Exactly. Can't break what's already broken, can't kill what's already dead. Meanwhile, I don't think I've seen this much excitement and action on the PTS since before Summerset.

Exactly. The only reason people are talking about this next DLC is because of the subclassing. There's a number of people commenting negatively about it but there's plenty looking forward to it as well.

I just hope ZOS makes measured and minor adjustments and doesn't listen to a loud minority like they have with other releases. The class specific armor sets for example were ruined to the point of noone even caring about them after a few people on here lost their minds thinking the DK set was going to end the game.

Theres definitely too much doomsday mentality here from a tiny subset of people that think they are above everyone. I think the majority will thrive with the new update and bring life back to the game. A few hundred people across 3 platforms can stay big mad about it. The rest of us will have fun.

1000% Agree

AdmiralDigby

TORCH15 wrote: »

AdmiralDigby wrote: »

TORCH15 wrote: »

AdmiralDigby wrote: »

TORCH15 wrote: »

AdmiralDigby wrote: »

1. I don't think any of my post's were included in that. I think it was yours & Dimes (could be wrong).
2. Yes, I'm sure this was possible with Arcanists which provide a really easy option to get great DPS. This is something ZOS has done. Prior to this I'm sure your team would have struggled to clear with older builds that require high APM. ZOS introducing easier options for less skilled players is a good thing. However it can be overdone. For example....170k AOE damage type of overdone...
3. You've contradicted yourself multiple times over and over and other people are picking up on it as well.

The AVG player will continue to not optimize and play overland and struggle with Vet Banished Cells because they are not interested in looking up or theory crafting a build that is half optimized. You could give them a 200% power spike and it wouldn't help them. Because they don't care. Which is fine, they can play the game how they want.

At this point I'm just gonna respond with I disagree for previously stated reasons.

1. yea it was yours and his. Some of mine as well in response, particularly around the bad leader attack on me, by you.


2. Still condescending towards my group which you seem to be hyper focused on and its bizarre. Rent free. Not sure why you are obsessed with assuming struggles of my group that dont exist in the manner you keep saying over and over again to be provocative. Baiting is also against these community rules so id appreciate if you would stop engaging with me in a way that violates civility rules. thanks.

3. I haven't contradicted myself at all. Provide an example and il respond. Others have their opinions and have cordially responded, unlike you. I have quite a few agree reacts on my OP as well. you underestimate the average player based on a bubble you cant get your mind out of. Its why my GH cleared with people you would have kicked and it had nothing to do with arcanists. Hence, my point. People that would have gotten kicked may not anymore. Thats great. Im glad this update is coming.

I disagree for previously stated reasons.

Thank you for responding cordially. Appreciate the feedback.

Glad I could help you.

Oh not me, the feedback help is for ZoS making these updates.

Thank you for clarifying.

TORCH15

AdmiralDigby wrote: »

TORCH15 wrote: »

AdmiralDigby wrote: »

TORCH15 wrote: »

AdmiralDigby wrote: »

TORCH15 wrote: »

AdmiralDigby wrote: »

1. I don't think any of my post's were included in that. I think it was yours & Dimes (could be wrong).
2. Yes, I'm sure this was possible with Arcanists which provide a really easy option to get great DPS. This is something ZOS has done. Prior to this I'm sure your team would have struggled to clear with older builds that require high APM. ZOS introducing easier options for less skilled players is a good thing. However it can be overdone. For example....170k AOE damage type of overdone...
3. You've contradicted yourself multiple times over and over and other people are picking up on it as well.

The AVG player will continue to not optimize and play overland and struggle with Vet Banished Cells because they are not interested in looking up or theory crafting a build that is half optimized. You could give them a 200% power spike and it wouldn't help them. Because they don't care. Which is fine, they can play the game how they want.

At this point I'm just gonna respond with I disagree for previously stated reasons.

1. yea it was yours and his. Some of mine as well in response, particularly around the bad leader attack on me, by you.


2. Still condescending towards my group which you seem to be hyper focused on and its bizarre. Rent free. Not sure why you are obsessed with assuming struggles of my group that dont exist in the manner you keep saying over and over again to be provocative. Baiting is also against these community rules so id appreciate if you would stop engaging with me in a way that violates civility rules. thanks.

3. I haven't contradicted myself at all. Provide an example and il respond. Others have their opinions and have cordially responded, unlike you. I have quite a few agree reacts on my OP as well. you underestimate the average player based on a bubble you cant get your mind out of. Its why my GH cleared with people you would have kicked and it had nothing to do with arcanists. Hence, my point. People that would have gotten kicked may not anymore. Thats great. Im glad this update is coming.

I disagree for previously stated reasons.

Thank you for responding cordially. Appreciate the feedback.

Glad I could help you.

Oh not me, the feedback help is for ZoS making these updates.

Thank you for clarifying.

Welcome!

Ph1p

TORCH15 wrote: »

Twohothardware wrote: »

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Exactly. Can't break what's already broken, can't kill what's already dead. Meanwhile, I don't think I've seen this much excitement and action on the PTS since before Summerset.

Exactly. The only reason people are talking about this next DLC is because of the subclassing. There's a number of people commenting negatively about it but there's plenty looking forward to it as well.

I just hope ZOS makes measured and minor adjustments and doesn't listen to a loud minority like they have with other releases. The class specific armor sets for example were ruined to the point of noone even caring about them after a few people on here lost their minds thinking the DK set was going to end the game.

Theres definitely too much doomsday mentality here from a tiny subset of people that think they are above everyone. I think the majority will thrive with the new update and bring life back to the game. A few hundred people across 3 platforms can stay big mad about it. The rest of us will have fun.

This is just as unhelpful as saying: "There's definitely too much toxic positivity here from a tiny subset of people that think everyone else is just being arrogant. I think the majority will suffer in the long-term and the game will decline because of it. A few hundred role-players can live out their fantasy dreams. The rest of us will move on to another game."

The truth is in between the two extremes and we need a healthy debate about both the benefits and the very real risks and concerns that this massive combat shake-up will deliver. Disparaging critics as elitist who look down on others instead of engaging with meaningful arguments isn't the way. Sadly, social media engagement metrics will probably classify pointless back and forth like this as "hype" for the game...

EDIT: Typo

sarahthes

I'm not against subclassing at all.

I just think there shouldn't be only 1 build used in endgame. I want it balanced enough there's diversity, and I think the way to do it is to dial back that one build (the one I'm using in my pts raids haha).

Also if we could get 20% power creep instead of 40% that'd be neat too. Less likely to get destroyed by the nerf hammer sometime in the next 6 months that way. It sucks losing power. Better to get a bit less up front but get to keep it.

AdmiralDigby

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/676403/should-pure-classes-be-stronger-than-subclassing/p1

The people on this forum have voted and the overwhelming majority want multiclassing to be on par or weaker than pureclass's (85% combined). Which makes sense. You can have increased flexibility over raw power. This would imply most don't want an insane power creep.

I think the avg person on here its not a sweaty progger. If people who feel otherwise can't even bother to sign up on a forum which takes 5-10 mins at most to state an opinion. That tells you how little they actually care about the game. Multiclassing is fine. Making pureclass's obsolete through insane powercreep is not.

sans-culottes

TORCH15 wrote: »

Ph1p wrote: »

TORCH15 wrote: »

Twohothardware wrote: »

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Exactly. Can't break what's already broken, can't kill what's already dead. Meanwhile, I don't think I've seen this much excitement and action on the PTS since before Summerset.

Exactly. The only reason people are talking about this next DLC is because of the subclassing. There's a number of people commenting negatively about it but there's plenty looking forward to it as well.

I just hope ZOS makes measured and minor adjustments and doesn't listen to a loud minority like they have with other releases. The class specific armor sets for example were ruined to the point of noone even caring about them after a few people on here lost their minds thinking the DK set was going to end the game.

Theres definitely too much doomsday mentality here from a tiny subset of people that think they are above everyone. I think the majority will thrive with the new update and bring life back to the game. A few hundred people across 3 platforms can stay big mad about it. The rest of us will have fun.

This is just as unhelpful as saying: "There's definitely too much toxic positivity here from a tiny subset of people that think everyone else is just being arrogant. I think the majority will suffer in the long-term and the game will decline because of it. A few hundred role-players can live out their fantasy dreams. The rest of us will move on to another game."

The truth is in between the two extremes and we need a healthy debate about both the benefits and the very real risks and concerns that this massive combat shake-up will deliver. Disparaging critics as elitist who look down on others instead of engaging with meaningful arguments isn't the way. Sadly, social media engagement metrics will probably classify pointless back and forth like this as "hype" for the game...

EDIT: Typo

[snip]

@TORCH15, I want to respond not out of hostility but because your style of engagement deserves some scrutiny.

You’ve repeatedly said this thread is full of “a tiny subset of players” who are “big mad,” “doomposting,” or “gatekeeping.” But let’s pause on what that rhetoric actually does:

1) It doesn’t engage with arguments.
2) It doesn’t respond to specific points.
3) It simply discredits entire groups of people based on vague generalizations and imagined majorities.

You’ve insisted you’re not speaking about your group, then cited your group repeatedly as the basis for your conclusions. You’ve said this power boost won’t trivialize mechanics, while also saying it’s needed because otherwise content isn’t “feasible.” These aren’t minor inconsistencies. They point to a conversation built on emotional pivoting and selective framing, not reasoned dialogue.

You call for empathy, accessibility, and inclusion—values most of us agree on—but then casually mock critics for not agreeing with your precise solution, or for voicing concerns about design integrity. That’s coercion through tone.

And then, when challenged, you pivot again: “It’s just my opinion,” or “people are attacking me.” But this is a cycle you repeatedly initiate. You set the temperature, then blame others when it boils.

If you believe subclassing will benefit the broader community, then argue that. But leave the baiting language and sweeping dismissals behind. The debate deserves better than that, and so do the people participating in it.

[edited to remove quote]

AdmiralDigby

sans-culottes wrote: »

TORCH15 wrote: »

Ph1p wrote: »

TORCH15 wrote: »

Twohothardware wrote: »

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Exactly. Can't break what's already broken, can't kill what's already dead. Meanwhile, I don't think I've seen this much excitement and action on the PTS since before Summerset.

Exactly. The only reason people are talking about this next DLC is because of the subclassing. There's a number of people commenting negatively about it but there's plenty looking forward to it as well.

I just hope ZOS makes measured and minor adjustments and doesn't listen to a loud minority like they have with other releases. The class specific armor sets for example were ruined to the point of noone even caring about them after a few people on here lost their minds thinking the DK set was going to end the game.

Theres definitely too much doomsday mentality here from a tiny subset of people that think they are above everyone. I think the majority will thrive with the new update and bring life back to the game. A few hundred people across 3 platforms can stay big mad about it. The rest of us will have fun.

This is just as unhelpful as saying: "There's definitely too much toxic positivity here from a tiny subset of people that think everyone else is just being arrogant. I think the majority will suffer in the long-term and the game will decline because of it. A few hundred role-players can live out their fantasy dreams. The rest of us will move on to another game."

The truth is in between the two extremes and we need a healthy debate about both the benefits and the very real risks and concerns that this massive combat shake-up will deliver. Disparaging critics as elitist who look down on others instead of engaging with meaningful arguments isn't the way. Sadly, social media engagement metrics will probably classify pointless back and forth like this as "hype" for the game...

EDIT: Typo

[snip]

@TORCH15, I want to respond not out of hostility but because your style of engagement deserves some scrutiny.

You’ve repeatedly said this thread is full of “a tiny subset of players” who are “big mad,” “doomposting,” or “gatekeeping.” But let’s pause on what that rhetoric actually does:

1) It doesn’t engage with arguments.
2) It doesn’t respond to specific points.
3) It simply discredits entire groups of people based on vague generalizations and imagined majorities.

You’ve insisted you’re not speaking about your group, then cited your group repeatedly as the basis for your conclusions. You’ve said this power boost won’t trivialize mechanics, while also saying it’s needed because otherwise content isn’t “feasible.” These aren’t minor inconsistencies. They point to a conversation built on emotional pivoting and selective framing, not reasoned dialogue.

You call for empathy, accessibility, and inclusion—values most of us agree on—but then casually mock critics for not agreeing with your precise solution, or for voicing concerns about design integrity. That’s coercion through tone.

And then, when challenged, you pivot again: “It’s just my opinion,” or “people are attacking me.” But this is a cycle you repeatedly initiate. You set the temperature, then blame others when it boils.

If you believe subclassing will benefit the broader community, then argue that. But leave the baiting language and sweeping dismissals behind. The debate deserves better than that, and so do the people participating in it.

The world needs more people like you sir. Again, very well articulated & reasonable.

[edited to remove quote]

TORCH15

sarahthes wrote: »

I'm not against subclassing at all.

I just think there shouldn't be only 1 build used in endgame. I want it balanced enough there's diversity, and I think the way to do it is to dial back that one build (the one I'm using in my pts raids haha).

Also if we could get 20% power creep instead of 40% that'd be neat too. Less likely to get destroyed by the nerf hammer sometime in the next 6 months that way. It sucks losing power. Better to get a bit less up front but get to keep it.

I agree one build not dominating everything. I think the key will be groups allowing variety vs going for the 170k and instead settling with fun varieties that now hit 130k but, that could be a dream. We will see i guess.

ZOS_Icy

Greetings,

We have removed some insulting back and forth that was disruptive. Please ensure you are treating others with respect on the forums even when they have views that differ from your own.

The Elder Scrolls Online Team

BeerMoneyPlatypus

AdmiralDigby wrote: »

If people who feel otherwise can't even bother to sign up on a forum which takes 5-10 mins at most to state an opinion. They tells you how little they actually care about the game.

[snip]

So basically you're saying that if someone does not want to engage in absurdly long opinion debate where at this point it's a dumb question of who's right/who's wrong, like what this thread has become right here, they aren't caring about the game and should not be taken into account ? This is gatekeeping at it's finest and just straight up horrible.

This is the kind of statement that makes people leave games and makes them worse, not better.

At first i said, without arguing much, because i did not wanted to get dragged in this terrible thread, that i supported the OP for his statement but at this point i don't think i support anyone here anymore. It has just become pure toxicity, whatever if you're for subclassing or not it's just straight up toxic here.

Someone from ZOS should come on this thread and stop this.

Edit : well, actually someone from ZOS did, good job !
[edited for baiting]

TORCH15

sans-culottes wrote: »

TORCH15 wrote: »

Ph1p wrote: »

TORCH15 wrote: »

Twohothardware wrote: »

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Exactly. Can't break what's already broken, can't kill what's already dead. Meanwhile, I don't think I've seen this much excitement and action on the PTS since before Summerset.

Exactly. The only reason people are talking about this next DLC is because of the subclassing. There's a number of people commenting negatively about it but there's plenty looking forward to it as well.

I just hope ZOS makes measured and minor adjustments and doesn't listen to a loud minority like they have with other releases. The class specific armor sets for example were ruined to the point of noone even caring about them after a few people on here lost their minds thinking the DK set was going to end the game.

Theres definitely too much doomsday mentality here from a tiny subset of people that think they are above everyone. I think the majority will thrive with the new update and bring life back to the game. A few hundred people across 3 platforms can stay big mad about it. The rest of us will have fun.

This is just as unhelpful as saying: "There's definitely too much toxic positivity here from a tiny subset of people that think everyone else is just being arrogant. I think the majority will suffer in the long-term and the game will decline because of it. A few hundred role-players can live out their fantasy dreams. The rest of us will move on to another game."

The truth is in between the two extremes and we need a healthy debate about both the benefits and the very real risks and concerns that this massive combat shake-up will deliver. Disparaging critics as elitist who look down on others instead of engaging with meaningful arguments isn't the way. Sadly, social media engagement metrics will probably classify pointless back and forth like this as "hype" for the game...

EDIT: Typo

[snip]

@TORCH15, I want to respond not out of hostility but because your style of engagement deserves some scrutiny.

You’ve repeatedly said this thread is full of “a tiny subset of players” who are “big mad,” “doomposting,” or “gatekeeping.” But let’s pause on what that rhetoric actually does:

1) It doesn’t engage with arguments.
2) It doesn’t respond to specific points.
3) It simply discredits entire groups of people based on vague generalizations and imagined majorities.

You’ve insisted you’re not speaking about your group, then cited your group repeatedly as the basis for your conclusions. You’ve said this power boost won’t trivialize mechanics, while also saying it’s needed because otherwise content isn’t “feasible.” These aren’t minor inconsistencies. They point to a conversation built on emotional pivoting and selective framing, not reasoned dialogue.

You call for empathy, accessibility, and inclusion—values most of us agree on—but then casually mock critics for not agreeing with your precise solution, or for voicing concerns about design integrity. That’s coercion through tone.

And then, when challenged, you pivot again: “It’s just my opinion,” or “people are attacking me.” But this is a cycle you repeatedly initiate. You set the temperature, then blame others when it boils.

If you believe subclassing will benefit the broader community, then argue that. But leave the baiting language and sweeping dismissals behind. The debate deserves better than that, and so do the people participating in it.

1. The comments that set the temperature were deleted by mods and they werent mine. So you are missing context. Lets make sure that is clear.

2. You are making this wayyy deeper than you need to and keep repeating yourself, ive already responded to a number of things you keep bringing up. You just dont like what Im writing. Thats not the same as me doing a disservice to the debate.

3. "if you believe subclassing will benefit the broader community, then argue that" - I have. Over and over. The dismissals are clearly elsewhere, because I wouldnt have to over and over re-explain my stance otherwise.

Lets make this easy and start over so you can debate me in a healthy way as you insinuate you would like to and Ill happily have a healthy debate with you as you seem to want to do?

I think these changes will drastically improve the game from bottom up. I think these changes will bring new players that couldnt participate before to be able to at least try with hope now. hence, I think it will bring ESO activity and player counts up for a longer period of time vs previous updates. This opinion is based on my experience at multiple levels of gameplay within ESO over the years. I think these changes will bring a variety of comps never seen before such as a different number of supports and dd's in 12 man content to increase survivability in certain situations. The creativity increases for end game content and that comes with more accessibility by default. I think this is good thing.

[edited to remove quote]

TORCH15

BeerMoneyPlatypus wrote: »

AdmiralDigby wrote: »

If people who feel otherwise can't even bother to sign up on a forum which takes 5-10 mins at most to state an opinion. They tells you how little they actually care about the game.

[snip]

So basically you're saying that if someone does not want to engage in absurdly long opinion debate where at this point it's a dumb question of who's right/who's wrong, like what this thread has become right here, they aren't caring about the game and should not be taken into account ? This is gatekeeping at it's finest and just straight up horrible.

This is the kind of statement that makes people leave games and makes them worse, not better.

At first i said, without arguing much, because i did not wanted to get dragged in this terrible thread, that i supported the OP for his statement but at this point i don't think i support anyone here anymore. It has just become pure toxicity, whatever if you're for subclassing or not it's just straight up toxic here.

Someone from ZOS should come on this thread and stop this.

Edit : well, actually someone from ZOS did, good job !

yea , they finally stopped some of it. I agree and apologize for the thread becoming toxic. There is further background with certain individuals and intention behind the comments that came here which really took away from I think mine and others really good points regarding these big updates.

Please feel free to add to the discussion because I do feel its important for Zos to see the people who agree with this as many people who dont reside on these forums do and their feedback never gets heard. From my perspective so far, I see a massive support for this update in game and discords and I wanted to try and share some positive opinions about it here.

[edited to remove quote]

AdmiralDigby

BeerMoneyPlatypus wrote: »

AdmiralDigby wrote: »

If people who feel otherwise can't even bother to sign up on a forum which takes 5-10 mins at most to state an opinion. They tells you how little they actually care about the game.

[snip]

So basically you're saying that if someone does not want to engage in absurdly long opinion debate where at this point it's a dumb question of who's right/who's wrong, like what this thread has become right here, they aren't caring about the game and should not be taken into account ? This is gatekeeping at it's finest and just straight up horrible.

This is the kind of statement that makes people leave games and makes them worse, not better.

At first i said, without arguing much, because i did not wanted to get dragged in this terrible thread, that i supported the OP for his statement but at this point i don't think i support anyone here anymore. It has just become pure toxicity, whatever if you're for subclassing or not it's just straight up toxic here.

Someone from ZOS should come on this thread and stop this.

Edit : well, actually someone from ZOS did, good job !

Please don't call me obnoxious & horrible because I share a different opinion than you.

The point of the post was to illustrate a suspected correlation between those who think powercreep will solve all their problems. And individuals who don't invest alot of effort into this game (for x,y,z reason). That low investment including taking 5-10 mins to post about what they think they need in order to progress.

The average player should play at an average difficulty (normal)
The above average player should play at an above average difficulty (Vet)
The Elite player should play at a Hard difficult (Hard Mode Challenges)

The average player complaining they can't clear the higher difficulties without investing time to get better is doesn't make sense to me. To further this and repeat myself. Powercreep isn't what will help them anyways. What will is ZOS making HM mechanics easier. However....to balance the highest difficulty of a game so "The average player" can beat it seems silly. As I mentioned above. The average person should play the average difficulty. If they want to progress. They need to improve their skill, gear, rotation, etc. and start to make the climb.

[edited to remove quote]

peacenote

sans-culottes wrote: »

That’s a flattering narrative, but it’s not an accurate one. This isn’t about being “mad” that others will have access to power. It’s about a systemic shift away from meaningful class structure and identity toward an increasingly modular, even more spreadsheet-like meta.

Subclassing doesn’t fix broken skills or outdated kits. It circumvents them. And if the best path forward becomes cobbling together a composite build with the best-performing lines, then yes, that does reduce the reason to play a class as a class. It changes the fantasy, not just the function. For those of us who enjoy both performance and thematic cohesion, this feels like a degradation, not an upgrade.

Some players enjoy min-maxing and optimization. Others enjoy tight, well-developed archetypes. Both have always existed in ESO. The concern is that this new direction sacrifices the latter to please the former, while hand-waving any discontent as elitism or insecurity.

This is a phenomenally written post, getting to the heart of the issue. It explains perfectly a sentiment I tried to write and failed with many more words. The only thing I would add is that this solution potentially also sacrifices the potential art of group composition, if any class can have access to anything. I don't have space on PTS, so I haven't tested myself.

In my humble opinion, ESO has been going down the road of sacrificing something for the sake of something else more and more often, and when this happens the outcome is a worse game with a less broad appeal, and often alienates a segment of longtime dedicated players. Examples include AwA, where we lost character historical data and tracking, the long period of time when group queuing was removed from BG's, and the myriad of changes done for "performance" but not reversed when it was confirmed that the changes did not improve performance.

I can absolutely see the appeal of subclasses, and I, too, feel the little pull of excitement to think of "what will I be able to combine together?" and I have zero resentment if this helps "raise the floor" -- I am a fan of one bar builds and the arcanist class. However, I don't want to lose the "feel' of my templar, my warden, my arc, and so on, and if, due to balancing, the pure classes essentially become nonviable for all content except overland... this will feel like another "loss," I suspect. I just wish that new functionality could be rolled out more slowly and thoughtfully so it accomplishes the "new idea" while not killing a current, fun feature.

TORCH15

Theres definitely too much doomsday mentality here from a tiny subset of people that think they are above everyone. I think the majority will thrive with the new update and bring life back to the game. A few hundred people across 3 platforms can stay big mad about it. The rest of us will have fun. [/quote]

This is just as unhelpful as saying: "There's definitely too much toxic positivity here from a tiny subset of people that think everyone else is just being arrogant. I think the majority will suffer in the long-term and the game will decline because of it. A few hundred role-players can live out their fantasy dreams. The rest of us will move on to another game."

The truth is in between the two extremes and we need a healthy debate about both the benefits and the very real risks and concerns that this massive combat shake-up will deliver. Disparaging critics as elitist who look down on others instead of engaging with meaningful arguments isn't the way. Sadly, social media engagement metrics will probably classify pointless back and forth like this as "hype" for the game...

EDIT: Typo[/quote]

It takes 2 reasonable parties to have healthy debate and meaningful arguments. Tough thing to ask for nowadays. Its very difficult not to disparage given the context though at times and i think its ok to do so in certain situations to keep reason.

The hype seems true though. I havent seen people excited or as engaging in a while.

Edit: Responding to Ph1p

FoJul

AdmiralDigby wrote: »

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/676403/should-pure-classes-be-stronger-than-subclassing/p1

If people who feel otherwise can't even bother to sign up on a forum which takes 5-10 mins at most to state an opinion. That tells you how little they actually care about the game. Multiclassing is fine. Making pureclass's obsolete through insane powercreep is not.

I didn't think about making a forums account for my first 7-8 years playing ESO. After high isle, that's when I decided it was time to start expressing my opinions.

Ive been in Trial progs/PvP smallscale some ballgroup action. I consider myself a vet.

Its not that I didn't care about the game, I wasn't particularly not caring. It was more in the ball field that Zos did decent for a long time, untill hybridization hit. Thats when I started expressing my opinions.

To this day I still think hybridization was the worst move, and that subclassing is still objectively better.

TORCH15

FoJul wrote: »

AdmiralDigby wrote: »

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/676403/should-pure-classes-be-stronger-than-subclassing/p1

If people who feel otherwise can't even bother to sign up on a forum which takes 5-10 mins at most to state an opinion. That tells you how little they actually care about the game. Multiclassing is fine. Making pureclass's obsolete through insane powercreep is not.

I didn't think about making a forums account for my first 7-8 years playing ESO. After high isle, that's when I decided it was time to start expressing my opinions.

Ive been in Trial progs/PvP smallscale some ballgroup action. I consider myself a vet.

Its not that I didn't care about the game, I wasn't particularly not caring. It was more in the ball field that Zos did decent for a long time, untill hybridization hit. Thats when I started expressing my opinions.

To this day I still think hybridization was the worst move, and that subclassing is still objectively better.

Yea i didnt create one until U35 because i was worried about the consequences of activity in my guild. I know keeping it behind an invite and a small process is for moderation reasons when it comes to modding abuse, etc but if you go to reddit or discords for example, theres a lot of different views there vs here and its because they are just open to the public. I dont claim to have a good solution but i do think its a fair point to bring up regarding identifying what the actual majority consensus is on things like these updates.

AdmiralDigby

FoJul wrote: »

AdmiralDigby wrote: »

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/676403/should-pure-classes-be-stronger-than-subclassing/p1

If people who feel otherwise can't even bother to sign up on a forum which takes 5-10 mins at most to state an opinion. That tells you how little they actually care about the game. Multiclassing is fine. Making pureclass's obsolete through insane powercreep is not.

I didn't think about making a forums account for my first 7-8 years playing ESO. After high isle, that's when I decided it was time to start expressing my opinions.

Ive been in Trial progs/PvP smallscale some ballgroup action. I consider myself a vet.

Its not that I didn't care about the game, I wasn't particularly not caring. It was more in the ball field that Zos did decent for a long time, untill hybridization hit. Thats when I started expressing my opinions.

To this day I still think hybridization was the worst move, and that subclassing is still objectively better.

I agree about hybrization. I think hybridization killed half of the builds in the game. I think subclassing will continue that path of destruction essentially deleting class identity. This could have been done in so many ways to still preserve class identity. Making it so you can only swap 1-2 skills at a time for another class skills. So you are still feel like X class. You just have a unique flavour/feel with 1-2 skills if you choose so.

I also think this is extremely reckless of ZOS just on a bug issue point. They will not be able to control the amount of bugs form increasing the amount of new interactions between skills and passives by a factor of 100. It will be a buggy mess. As the PTS week 1 has shown. This will last for years if they go through with it.

TORCH15

peacenote wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

That’s a flattering narrative, but it’s not an accurate one. This isn’t about being “mad” that others will have access to power. It’s about a systemic shift away from meaningful class structure and identity toward an increasingly modular, even more spreadsheet-like meta.

Subclassing doesn’t fix broken skills or outdated kits. It circumvents them. And if the best path forward becomes cobbling together a composite build with the best-performing lines, then yes, that does reduce the reason to play a class as a class. It changes the fantasy, not just the function. For those of us who enjoy both performance and thematic cohesion, this feels like a degradation, not an upgrade.

Some players enjoy min-maxing and optimization. Others enjoy tight, well-developed archetypes. Both have always existed in ESO. The concern is that this new direction sacrifices the latter to please the former, while hand-waving any discontent as elitism or insecurity.

This is a phenomenally written post, getting to the heart of the issue. It explains perfectly a sentiment I tried to write and failed with many more words. The only thing I would add is that this solution potentially also sacrifices the potential art of group composition, if any class can have access to anything. I don't have space on PTS, so I haven't tested myself.

In my humble opinion, ESO has been going down the road of sacrificing something for the sake of something else more and more often, and when this happens the outcome is a worse game with a less broad appeal, and often alienates a segment of longtime dedicated players. Examples include AwA, where we lost character historical data and tracking, the long period of time when group queuing was removed from BG's, and the myriad of changes done for "performance" but not reversed when it was confirmed that the changes did not improve performance.

I can absolutely see the appeal of subclasses, and I, too, feel the little pull of excitement to think of "what will I be able to combine together?" and I have zero resentment if this helps "raise the floor" -- I am a fan of one bar builds and the arcanist class. However, I don't want to lose the "feel' of my templar, my warden, my arc, and so on, and if, due to balancing, the pure classes essentially become nonviable for all content except overland... this will feel like another "loss," I suspect. I just wish that new functionality could be rolled out more slowly and thoughtfully so it accomplishes the "new idea" while not killing a current, fun feature.

Pureclasses only being viable in overland doesnt seem to be the way this is going though? Pureclasses are used now all the way to SS so essentially a group can still do that if they so choose. Of course, they would be turning down the option of higher power without subclassing but if they want to then its still viable(for highly skilled players with the time). I put that in my OP as well so i do struggle understanding that argument. I guess that argument stands true if the community rejects pureclasses and I dont think they will and maybe that is where the disagreement lies.

sans-culottes

TORCH15 wrote: »

peacenote wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

That’s a flattering narrative, but it’s not an accurate one. This isn’t about being “mad” that others will have access to power. It’s about a systemic shift away from meaningful class structure and identity toward an increasingly modular, even more spreadsheet-like meta.

Subclassing doesn’t fix broken skills or outdated kits. It circumvents them. And if the best path forward becomes cobbling together a composite build with the best-performing lines, then yes, that does reduce the reason to play a class as a class. It changes the fantasy, not just the function. For those of us who enjoy both performance and thematic cohesion, this feels like a degradation, not an upgrade.

Some players enjoy min-maxing and optimization. Others enjoy tight, well-developed archetypes. Both have always existed in ESO. The concern is that this new direction sacrifices the latter to please the former, while hand-waving any discontent as elitism or insecurity.

This is a phenomenally written post, getting to the heart of the issue. It explains perfectly a sentiment I tried to write and failed with many more words. The only thing I would add is that this solution potentially also sacrifices the potential art of group composition, if any class can have access to anything. I don't have space on PTS, so I haven't tested myself.

In my humble opinion, ESO has been going down the road of sacrificing something for the sake of something else more and more often, and when this happens the outcome is a worse game with a less broad appeal, and often alienates a segment of longtime dedicated players. Examples include AwA, where we lost character historical data and tracking, the long period of time when group queuing was removed from BG's, and the myriad of changes done for "performance" but not reversed when it was confirmed that the changes did not improve performance.

I can absolutely see the appeal of subclasses, and I, too, feel the little pull of excitement to think of "what will I be able to combine together?" and I have zero resentment if this helps "raise the floor" -- I am a fan of one bar builds and the arcanist class. However, I don't want to lose the "feel' of my templar, my warden, my arc, and so on, and if, due to balancing, the pure classes essentially become nonviable for all content except overland... this will feel like another "loss," I suspect. I just wish that new functionality could be rolled out more slowly and thoughtfully so it accomplishes the "new idea" while not killing a current, fun feature.

Pureclasses only being viable in overland doesnt seem to be the way this is going though? Pureclasses are used now all the way to SS so essentially a group can still do that if they so choose. Of course, they would be turning down the option of higher power without subclassing but if they want to then its still viable(for highly skilled players with the time). I put that in my OP as well so i do struggle understanding that argument. I guess that argument stands true if the community rejects pureclasses and I dont think they will and maybe that is where the disagreement lies.

@TORCH15, you keep responding as if the issue is simply about “viability.” But that’s not what @peacenote was saying.

The concern isn’t whether pure classes can technically still clear content. It’s about the social and structural incentives that will increasingly push players away from those identities. The moment subclassing introduces statistically better options, the “choice” to remain pure becomes cosmetic at best, and a liability at worst—especially in group content. Once the community, including pug leaders and parsing discords, internalizes that message, the option to not subclass becomes self-marginalizing.

You say, “a group can still do that if they so choose.” But this evades the real point: will they be allowed to? Will they be invited? Will they be respected?

Let’s not confuse technical feasibility with cultural viability. The game isn’t played in a vacuum. It’s played in a social ecosystem, one that already exerts heavy pressure toward optimization. The concern is not that pure class play will become impossible. It is that it will become untenable for anyone who wants to participate meaningfully in group environments without constantly justifying their “choice.”

If you genuinely want to engage the argument, then you’ll need to stop flattening it into a question of “well you can still do it, right?” That’s not what anyone is actually saying.

TORCH15

sans-culottes wrote: »

TORCH15 wrote: »

peacenote wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

That’s a flattering narrative, but it’s not an accurate one. This isn’t about being “mad” that others will have access to power. It’s about a systemic shift away from meaningful class structure and identity toward an increasingly modular, even more spreadsheet-like meta.

Subclassing doesn’t fix broken skills or outdated kits. It circumvents them. And if the best path forward becomes cobbling together a composite build with the best-performing lines, then yes, that does reduce the reason to play a class as a class. It changes the fantasy, not just the function. For those of us who enjoy both performance and thematic cohesion, this feels like a degradation, not an upgrade.

Some players enjoy min-maxing and optimization. Others enjoy tight, well-developed archetypes. Both have always existed in ESO. The concern is that this new direction sacrifices the latter to please the former, while hand-waving any discontent as elitism or insecurity.

This is a phenomenally written post, getting to the heart of the issue. It explains perfectly a sentiment I tried to write and failed with many more words. The only thing I would add is that this solution potentially also sacrifices the potential art of group composition, if any class can have access to anything. I don't have space on PTS, so I haven't tested myself.

In my humble opinion, ESO has been going down the road of sacrificing something for the sake of something else more and more often, and when this happens the outcome is a worse game with a less broad appeal, and often alienates a segment of longtime dedicated players. Examples include AwA, where we lost character historical data and tracking, the long period of time when group queuing was removed from BG's, and the myriad of changes done for "performance" but not reversed when it was confirmed that the changes did not improve performance.

I can absolutely see the appeal of subclasses, and I, too, feel the little pull of excitement to think of "what will I be able to combine together?" and I have zero resentment if this helps "raise the floor" -- I am a fan of one bar builds and the arcanist class. However, I don't want to lose the "feel' of my templar, my warden, my arc, and so on, and if, due to balancing, the pure classes essentially become nonviable for all content except overland... this will feel like another "loss," I suspect. I just wish that new functionality could be rolled out more slowly and thoughtfully so it accomplishes the "new idea" while not killing a current, fun feature.

Pureclasses only being viable in overland doesnt seem to be the way this is going though? Pureclasses are used now all the way to SS so essentially a group can still do that if they so choose. Of course, they would be turning down the option of higher power without subclassing but if they want to then its still viable(for highly skilled players with the time). I put that in my OP as well so i do struggle understanding that argument. I guess that argument stands true if the community rejects pureclasses and I dont think they will and maybe that is where the disagreement lies.

@TORCH15, you keep responding as if the issue is simply about “viability.” But that’s not what @peacenote was saying.

The concern isn’t whether pure classes can technically still clear content. It’s about the social and structural incentives that will increasingly push players away from those identities. The moment subclassing introduces statistically better options, the “choice” to remain pure becomes cosmetic at best, and a liability at worst—especially in group content. Once the community, including pug leaders and parsing discords, internalizes that message, the option to not subclass becomes self-marginalizing.

You say, “a group can still do that if they so choose.” But this evades the real point: will they be allowed to? Will they be invited? Will they be respected?

Let’s not confuse technical feasibility with cultural viability. The game isn’t played in a vacuum. It’s played in a social ecosystem, one that already exerts heavy pressure toward optimization. The concern is not that pure class play will become impossible. It is that it will become untenable for anyone who wants to participate meaningfully in group environments without constantly justifying their “choice.”

If you genuinely want to engage the argument, then you’ll need to stop flattening it into a question of “well you can still do it, right?” That’s not what anyone is actually saying.

I responded to you earlier with renewed debate as you insisted to discuss topics with me but skipped over it, just in case you missed it since you are replying to me in here in response to a different person. It feels like you keep coming here telling me how i should argue vs attempt to discuss the topic. Its not really productive to the conversation.

You caught a point that Ill respond to. "You say a group can still do that if they so choose" and then "this evades the real point, will they be allowed to?". I actually touched on this a few times in this long thread. I think they will be. I think new groups will form, and I think some groups that are tight and run together a lot will discuss it as groups on what to do. I dont see this being an issue. I disagree with you on it being a problem. Will groups jump on meta and require it? Absolutely. That already happens. But pureclasses will be a variety of its own just like the rest so theres room to use them still. I really dont think its going to be that deep or a problem in the community. It certainly wont be worse than it is now, and i think it only will be better.

Veinblood1965

The question I have if this is actually ends up being an increase in DPS do we think ZoS will take that into account making new content even harder? So in the end it still just balances out the same? New Trial and Dungeon people won't run the harder new content due to the difficulty? Or will they add even more mechanics which don't have anything to do with DPS....

TORCH15

Veinblood1965 wrote: »

The question I have if this is actually ends up being an increase in DPS do we think ZoS will take that into account making new content even harder? So in the end it still just balances out the same? New Trial and Dungeon people won't run the harder new content due to the difficulty? Or will they add even more mechanics which don't have anything to do with DPS....

,
I think they will 100% consider doing just that based on past Zos update behavior unfortunately but likely will depend on the player activity level. When it comes to Zos i imagine everything is a business decision based on longevity and profitability so if data suggests this update gives them what they are seeking as a goal, perhaps we will be safe from future changes like that for a while.

CahirMawrDyffryn

Yes, I am really looking forward to it! Gonna be lots of fun.

Ph1p

Veinblood1965 wrote: »

The question I have if this is actually ends up being an increase in DPS do we think ZoS will take that into account making new content even harder? So in the end it still just balances out the same? New Trial and Dungeon people won't run the harder new content due to the difficulty? Or will they add even more mechanics which don't have anything to do with DPS....

I remember a certain combat-heavy update that ZOS rolled out specifically "to quell some of the obscene damage production at the high end"... One that the OP called out as "game breaking" and "harmed the active player count". I don't mind the concept of subclassing, but if it isn't balanced decently, I believe that's where we'll end up. That and/or an uptick in difficulty as you wondered.

TORCH15

Ph1p wrote: »

Veinblood1965 wrote: »

The question I have if this is actually ends up being an increase in DPS do we think ZoS will take that into account making new content even harder? So in the end it still just balances out the same? New Trial and Dungeon people won't run the harder new content due to the difficulty? Or will they add even more mechanics which don't have anything to do with DPS....

I remember a certain combat-heavy update that ZOS rolled out specifically "to quell some of the obscene damage production at the high end"... One that the OP called out as "game breaking" and "harmed the active player count". I don't mind the concept of subclassing, but if it isn't balanced decently, I believe that's where we'll end up. That and/or an uptick in difficulty as you wondered.

I completely agree with that there is risk of that big time. I'd say the player count currently is bad though so kind of a double edge sword. Do nothing and it stays somewhat the same or do something dramatic and exciting to bring a bunch of people back.

Wereswan

Let's try this: suppose ZOS is determined to go ahead with this system as currently designed. Suppose they also say "now that's it's trivially easy to complete veteran hardmode, we're creating an additional tier of difficulty, renaming that 'veteran hardmode,' and the existing tiers of difficulty will be renamed 'easy,' 'moderate' (for the existing 'veteran,') and 'veteran' (for the existing 'veteran hardmode.')

That cool, or are we right back at "woe, I am being gatekept?"

Because that's the basic issue here; people play veteran hardmode because they want a challenge. If you take all the challenge out of it, it's not "veteran hardmode" anymore.

TORCH15

Wereswan wrote: »

Let's try this: suppose ZOS is determined to go ahead with this system as currently designed. Suppose they also say "now that's it's trivially easy to complete veteran hardmode, we're creating an additional tier of difficulty, renaming that 'veteran hardmode,' and the existing tiers of difficulty will be renamed 'easy,' 'moderate' (for the existing 'veteran,') and 'veteran' (for the existing 'veteran hardmode.')

That cool, or are we right back at "woe, I am being gatekept?"

Because that's the basic issue here; people play veteran hardmode because they want a challenge. If you take all the challenge out of it, it's not "veteran hardmode" anymore.

Ok lets try.

1. That will never happen.

2. That is an extreme. Going from Not feasible at all for most to now "i can try and challenge myself" is not a destruction of many HM's.