Subclassing: Is It the Cause or Is It…the Symptom?

sans-culottes

By now, the debates are well-rehearsed. Subclassing is either the great liberation from ESO’s rigid class silos or the final blow to its already threadbare identity system. Some cheer the possibilities. Others see only entropy.

But perhaps the more interesting question isn’t whether subclassing is good or bad. It’s whether subclassing is even the real issue.

Because what if subclassing feels like the cause but is really just the symptom?

What if this Frankenstein patchwork of skill lines and re-skinned passives is less an act of bold experimentation and more a desperate attempt to cover structural rot? What if the real problem is that ESO’s class system, long underdeveloped and out of step with its own lore, has finally collapsed under its own contradictions? What if subclassing is just the bandage?

You can see it in Necromancer, a class so dysfunctional in core design that subclassing only highlights its incoherence. Or in the recurring cycle of homogenization that began with hybridization and now intensifies as class distinctions are flattened even further. This isn’t creative freedom. It is design surrender.

Subclassing isn’t the monster. It is the panic response to a decade of deferred decisions, neglected systems, and ill-fitting mechanics. The question is no longer whether subclassing fits the game. The question is: does anything?

So was subclassing the monster, or was it just what ZOS stitched together to distract from what’s really on the slab?

Come up to the lab and see what’s on the slab.

Soarora

First off, I love your writing style. Secondly, I agree. 7 classes that don’t go anywhere (no actual subclasses), 7 classes that have such a limited kit that there’s only about 1-3 ways to play each role within a class. Either the class system should be enhanced with more class lines and possibly true subclassing or the class system should be destroyed in favor of a completely new system. This method of unlocking the ability to choose entire skill lines feels like a halfway point and halfway isn’t good enough. But halfway is only ever where ZOS stops.

ImmortalCX

sans-culottes wrote: »

By now, the debates are well-rehearsed. Subclassing is either the great liberation from ESO’s rigid class silos or the final blow to its already threadbare identity system. Some cheer the possibilities. Others see only entropy.

But perhaps the more interesting question isn’t whether subclassing is good or bad. It’s whether subclassing is even the real issue.

Because what if subclassing feels like the cause but is really just the symptom?

What if this Frankenstein patchwork of skill lines and re-skinned passives is less an act of bold experimentation and more a desperate attempt to cover structural rot? What if the real problem is that ESO’s class system, long underdeveloped and out of step with its own lore, has finally collapsed under its own contradictions? What if subclassing is just the bandage?

You can see it in Necromancer, a class so dysfunctional in core design that subclassing only highlights its incoherence. Or in the recurring cycle of homogenization that began with hybridization and now intensifies as class distinctions are flattened even further. This isn’t creative freedom. It is design surrender.

Subclassing isn’t the monster. It is the panic response to a decade of deferred decisions, neglected systems, and ill-fitting mechanics. The question is no longer whether subclassing fits the game. The question is: does anything?

So was subclassing the monster, or was it just what ZOS stitched together to distract from what’s really on the slab?

Come up to the lab and see what’s on the slab.

Structural rot?

They can't balance the classes, so with subclassing they are leaving that up to the players.

I see it as a cost savings measure. Rather than try to balance the game, they can just focus on threadbare story content and let the players come up with a meta build that can be achieved with any class.

How can they balance the classes when 90% of the zos employees are working on the new game, and 99.9% of their creative energy is going into it.

Look at it this way. They have a new MMO being built in house, do you think anyone in that company is willingly investing brainpower into ESO?

sans-culottes

ImmortalCX wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

By now, the debates are well-rehearsed. Subclassing is either the great liberation from ESO’s rigid class silos or the final blow to its already threadbare identity system. Some cheer the possibilities. Others see only entropy.

But perhaps the more interesting question isn’t whether subclassing is good or bad. It’s whether subclassing is even the real issue.

Because what if subclassing feels like the cause but is really just the symptom?

What if this Frankenstein patchwork of skill lines and re-skinned passives is less an act of bold experimentation and more a desperate attempt to cover structural rot? What if the real problem is that ESO’s class system, long underdeveloped and out of step with its own lore, has finally collapsed under its own contradictions? What if subclassing is just the bandage?

You can see it in Necromancer, a class so dysfunctional in core design that subclassing only highlights its incoherence. Or in the recurring cycle of homogenization that began with hybridization and now intensifies as class distinctions are flattened even further. This isn’t creative freedom. It is design surrender.

Subclassing isn’t the monster. It is the panic response to a decade of deferred decisions, neglected systems, and ill-fitting mechanics. The question is no longer whether subclassing fits the game. The question is: does anything?

So was subclassing the monster, or was it just what ZOS stitched together to distract from what’s really on the slab?

Come up to the lab and see what’s on the slab.

Structural rot?

They can't balance the classes, so with subclassing they are leaving that up to the players.

Yes. That would be the “structural rot.” When the design team throws up its hands and offloads coherence, identity, and balance onto the players, it’s a tacit admission that they can’t do it themselves.

P.S. I wanted to respond to your edit because it includes an important clarification. I should add that this is precisely what I’m referring to. Subclassing is an abdication. When a studio quietly redirects its design responsibility onto the playerbase, that’s just not innovation. It’s triage. A workaround. A white flag.

You can feel it in every system held together with legacy code and borrowed mechanics. And yes, when 90% of your staff is elsewhere and the rest are pushing out shallow seasonal content, subclassing becomes the illusion of depth.

ImmortalCX

sans-culottes wrote: »

ImmortalCX wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

By now, the debates are well-rehearsed. Subclassing is either the great liberation from ESO’s rigid class silos or the final blow to its already threadbare identity system. Some cheer the possibilities. Others see only entropy.

But perhaps the more interesting question isn’t whether subclassing is good or bad. It’s whether subclassing is even the real issue.

Because what if subclassing feels like the cause but is really just the symptom?

What if this Frankenstein patchwork of skill lines and re-skinned passives is less an act of bold experimentation and more a desperate attempt to cover structural rot? What if the real problem is that ESO’s class system, long underdeveloped and out of step with its own lore, has finally collapsed under its own contradictions? What if subclassing is just the bandage?

You can see it in Necromancer, a class so dysfunctional in core design that subclassing only highlights its incoherence. Or in the recurring cycle of homogenization that began with hybridization and now intensifies as class distinctions are flattened even further. This isn’t creative freedom. It is design surrender.

Subclassing isn’t the monster. It is the panic response to a decade of deferred decisions, neglected systems, and ill-fitting mechanics. The question is no longer whether subclassing fits the game. The question is: does anything?

So was subclassing the monster, or was it just what ZOS stitched together to distract from what’s really on the slab?

Come up to the lab and see what’s on the slab.

Structural rot?

They can't balance the classes, so with subclassing they are leaving that up to the players.

Yes. That would be the “structural rot.” When the design team throws up its hands and offloads coherence, identity, and balance onto the players, it’s a tacit admission that they can’t do it themselves.

P.S. I wanted to respond to your edit because it includes an important clarification. I should add that this is precisely what I’m referring to. Subclassing is an abdication. When a studio quietly redirects its design responsibility onto the playerbase, that’s just not innovation. It’s triage. A workaround. A white flag.

You can feel it in every system held together with legacy code and borrowed mechanics. And yes—when 90% of your staff is elsewhere and the rest are pushing out shallow seasonal content, subclassing becomes the illusion of depth.

Throws up their hands? Rot? Illusion of depth? That is some very colorful langauge.

The game is largely in maintenance mode with reduced staff. Its just them cutting costs.

My langauge is less colorful but probably more true.

sans-culottes

ImmortalCX wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

ImmortalCX wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

By now, the debates are well-rehearsed. Subclassing is either the great liberation from ESO’s rigid class silos or the final blow to its already threadbare identity system. Some cheer the possibilities. Others see only entropy.

But perhaps the more interesting question isn’t whether subclassing is good or bad. It’s whether subclassing is even the real issue.

Because what if subclassing feels like the cause but is really just the symptom?

What if this Frankenstein patchwork of skill lines and re-skinned passives is less an act of bold experimentation and more a desperate attempt to cover structural rot? What if the real problem is that ESO’s class system, long underdeveloped and out of step with its own lore, has finally collapsed under its own contradictions? What if subclassing is just the bandage?

You can see it in Necromancer, a class so dysfunctional in core design that subclassing only highlights its incoherence. Or in the recurring cycle of homogenization that began with hybridization and now intensifies as class distinctions are flattened even further. This isn’t creative freedom. It is design surrender.

Subclassing isn’t the monster. It is the panic response to a decade of deferred decisions, neglected systems, and ill-fitting mechanics. The question is no longer whether subclassing fits the game. The question is: does anything?

So was subclassing the monster, or was it just what ZOS stitched together to distract from what’s really on the slab?

Come up to the lab and see what’s on the slab.

Structural rot?

They can't balance the classes, so with subclassing they are leaving that up to the players.

Yes. That would be the “structural rot.” When the design team throws up its hands and offloads coherence, identity, and balance onto the players, it’s a tacit admission that they can’t do it themselves.

P.S. I wanted to respond to your edit because it includes an important clarification. I should add that this is precisely what I’m referring to. Subclassing is an abdication. When a studio quietly redirects its design responsibility onto the playerbase, that’s just not innovation. It’s triage. A workaround. A white flag.

You can feel it in every system held together with legacy code and borrowed mechanics. And yes—when 90% of your staff is elsewhere and the rest are pushing out shallow seasonal content, subclassing becomes the illusion of depth.

Throws up their hands? Rot? Illusion of depth? That is some very colorful langauge.

The game is largely in maintenance mode with reduced staff. Its just them cutting costs.

My langauge is less colorful but probably more true.

And that’s precisely what makes it structural rot. It’s not about “colorful language.” It’s about what that language is describing: systems that no longer cohere, creative decisions that defer responsibility, and design frameworks that now rely on player improvisation because the studio no longer has the resources—or perhaps the will—to maintain internal consistency.

You’re right that it’s cost-cutting. That’s the point. When cost-cutting reshapes the game’s very foundation, it stops being incidental. It becomes systemic.

That’s not just “maintenance mode.” That’s structural decay.

Maggusemm

There are like 15 threads about subclassing. There is no reason to open a new one and use it to answer to yourself all the time.

This is not a constructive discussion but just the same lamento you spreaded in many other threads. There is really no need for it and people are tired reading it. Players do not want to read speculations about cost cutting which are based on nothing. Just stop it. There are no facts on which your argumentation is based, you just talk to yourself.

sans-culottes

Maggusemm wrote: »

There are like 15 threads about subclassing. There is no reason to open a new one and use it to answer to yourself all the time.

This is not a constructive discussion but just the same lamento you spreaded in many other threads. There is really no need for it and people are tired reading it. Players do not want to read speculations about cost cutting which are based on nothing. Just stop it. There are no facts on which your argumentation is based, you just talk to yourself.

Appreciate the concern, but players are free to start threads, especially when the topic—like subclassing—is reshaping core systems. If some of us are noticing patterns across design decisions and calling out underlying structural issues, then that’s called analysis. You’re welcome to disagree, but shouting “stop” doesn’t make the criticism less valid. Nor does trying to police who gets to speak.

If it bothers you, then feel free to scroll past. That’s what the rest of us do when we see something we’re not interested in.

Rungar

all it needs to do is cause drama to succeed. Numbers are up lol.

ZOS_GregoryV

Greetings,

After some review, we have decided to close this thread as there is another, more active thread, in regards to this topic, which can be found here.

Regards,
-Greg-