Subclassing vs Base Classing - Ideas & Potential

NxJoeyD

It’s pretty evident to everyone by now that Subclassing has opened the door to new and unique build ideas and mechanical combinations in both PvE & PvP. While this is a good thing for build diversity it does open the door to some questions on the nature of some abilities .. but … while chatting with a guild mate we were talking about what this all means for the potential of legacy pure classing.

In the current state, subclasses builds will easily out perform pure class builds simply due to access of mechanics. This is to be expected so it got us thinking.

What do we all think about the possibility of each classes having an additional passive with the intention of providing a buff to a class which doesn’t subclass? The buff being something similar in mindset like class headsets which seek to give that class, specifically, an identity enhancing buff?

Every class has 3 skill trees, and each of those trees have 4 class passives. What we’re thinking is that each one of those 3 trees would receive an extra passive, a very minimal effect passive which would be a 1 of 3.

A player who chooses to remain their base class would be able to unlock each of the 3 passives and if all 3 are unlocked they provide the actual class, specific, passive which is what would give the class identity based perk.

This would work to give players who want to keep their base class intact an incentive to do so and would also work to slightly elevate base class builds and help keep them in-line with the performance level of subclassed builds.

We’re not talking about anything crazy or over powering; just something that seeks to keep the idea of base class potential just as viable as subclassed ones. Let’s be honest, nobody wants to get excited about a build that seemingly falls behind in Cyrodill, Dungeons, or Arenas.

This could also do something for restoring the idea of class identity which has been somewhat eroded with subclassing.

What is everyone’s thoughts on an idea like this? What are some class 3 piece passive ideas people think would be a good idea?

flizomica

I'd rather see each skill line have a mixture of DPS/tank/sustain passives, along with morphs consolidated and expanded so that every line has something appealing for each role. That would limit the current power of stacking 3x lines dedicated to your role. It would also not leave pure classes in a state where you "need" to drop a skill line because it doesn't benefit you, since each skill line should now have something you can meaningfully benefit from.

Gabriel_H

flizomica wrote: »

I'd rather see each skill line have a mixture of DPS/tank/sustain passives, along with morphs consolidated and expanded so that every line has something appealing for each role. That would limit the current power of stacking 3x lines dedicated to your role. It would also not leave pure classes in a state where you "need" to drop a skill line because it doesn't benefit you, since each skill line should now have something you can meaningfully benefit from.

While the base classes have a lean towards roles their skill lines are mixed. It's the newer classes that have the much more distinct lines.

Gabriel_H

NxJoeyD wrote: »

We’re not talking about anything crazy or over powering; just something that seeks to keep the idea of base class potential just as viable as subclassed ones. Let’s be honest, nobody wants to get excited about a build that seemingly falls behind in Cyrodill, Dungeons, or Arenas.

There is a flaw in this premise, it's the same flaw many players fall into when they listen to YouTube too much. All builds have a maximum potential, and some builds are easier to play, but it is the player who is the one responsible for meeting that potential.

Lets say for the sake of argument that the current max damage potential sits in Ardent/Aedric/Herald - lets say the potential is 100. Can everyone reach the maximum? No, player efficiency (skill/understanding/engagement) is what determines how much of that potential is unlocked. Somebody who finds the playstyle not to be fun will not be as engaged, it will mean mistakes are made, it will mean they may fail to understand the interplay between skills, and so their efficiency is only 80%.

Somebody on a pure Templar will have less maximum potential - lets say it is 81, but the playstyle may suit them better, they may find it more fun which means they are more engaged meaning they make less mistakes through boredom, they die less - all of that leading to an efficiency of 100%.

So which performs better for that player?! Just something to consider.

That said, I believe that pure class loyalty should be rewarded.

LunaFlora

no thanks.
"pureclassing" is a weird term anyways.

Lysorris

It is currently impossible to balance anything because all skill lines can be mixed and buff to one is buff to all classes.
Due to how subclassing was implemented it provides only benefits to mix and maching skill lines but it did not give anything back to classes itself - what's more it took away form class skill lines. All nerfs that happened were not made because these passives or skills were OP on that class but were OP while subclassing.

Example: Nighblade Assisantion worked how it worked becase Nightbalde has no access to AoE or cleave - thus it resulted in high single target damage. Assisation passives and skills are obvisly too strong on AoE skills and so far NB was balanced around not having access to it or only having access to it via weapon skills. Allowing Assasination being mixed with beam-person-class results in skills and passives having interaction that they were not made for resulting in current power creep and god awful balance. Playing pure class is not only weaker in realtion to suclassing but also in relation the class they were before subclassing existed. Right now players that want to play NB got nerfed and players who want to use Assisnation skill line got buffed. Assasination example is just top of my head.

Borrowing skill lines should be less beneficial in terms of passives than it is nowm passives should be adjusted and enhanced and have interaction with all 3 skill lines of that class. Example being:
From:
- Casting *SKILL LINE NAME* ability while are in combat generates 4 Ultimate.
To:
- Casting *CLASS* ability while are in combat generates 4 Ultimate.

This is a buff to ONLY pure classes. It incentives building around your own class skill lines and without making subclassing weaker (becase we all know beam-people will be mad if that happens). With something like that we are not put into corener where every buff is buff to ALL classes and every nerfs is just nerf of a class.

LunaFlora wrote: »

no thanks.
"pureclassing" is a weird term anyways.

yes please.
"subclassing" is a wierd term anyways.

NxJoeyD

Gabriel_H wrote: »

NxJoeyD wrote: »

We’re not talking about anything crazy or over powering; just something that seeks to keep the idea of base class potential just as viable as subclassed ones. Let’s be honest, nobody wants to get excited about a build that seemingly falls behind in Cyrodill, Dungeons, or Arenas.

There is a flaw in this premise, it's the same flaw many players fall into when they listen to YouTube too much. All builds have a maximum potential, and some builds are easier to play, but it is the player who is the one responsible for meeting that potential.

Lets say for the sake of argument that the current max damage potential sits in Ardent/Aedric/Herald - lets say the potential is 100. Can everyone reach the maximum? No, player efficiency (skill/understanding/engagement) is what determines how much of that potential is unlocked. Somebody who finds the playstyle not to be fun will not be as engaged, it will mean mistakes are made, it will mean they may fail to understand the interplay between skills, and so their efficiency is only 80%.

Somebody on a pure Templar will have less maximum potential - lets say it is 81, but the playstyle may suit them better, they may find it more fun which means they are more engaged meaning they make less mistakes through boredom, they die less - all of that leading to an efficiency of 100%.

So which performs better for that player?! Just something to consider.

That said, I believe that pure class loyalty should be rewarded.

This didn’t come from YouTube, in fact, it came from mechanics that formed the basis of a legacy MMO from years ago, just expanded upon.

I agree, any particular build has a maximum potential, but, what we see with Subclassing is that the gap between the top end meta builds versus the non metas has grown. And I’m not speaking from a play style or player use case I’m speaking purely from a mechanical standpoint.

Many, myself included, see subclassing as great for variety but while at the same time penalizing much of that variety. That’s because subclassing lowered the cost barrier to access to various mechanics.

So looking at this in the vacuum of mechanics rather than player execution we see base class builds seemingly less advantageous and therefore less of an incentive to build them.

There will always be some degree of skill variation; whether it’s in the mastery of the ability mechanics or in learning the combat strategy, that’s the fundamental element we want to see in both PvE & PvP, outcomes more based on player action.

That being said, we also don’t want to penalize someone just because their play style and build choices don’t align with the current state meta so they feel as though they’re coat tailing in content due to mechanics.

What we’re looking at here, is whether the combinations of mechanics in certain builds run away with the farm so to speak.

What we’re brainstorming here is a potential tweak to class passives that would see an incentive for legacy style builds to still exist and be viable in gameplay without making them anymore or less competitive.

BasP

While I do like the idea of reinforcing class identity, I'd personally prefer it if ZOS focused on balancing the skill lines themselves.

I believe a ‘pure’ Sorcerer or Nightblade can already parse noticeably higher than, for example, a thematic setup using Storm Calling, Ardent Flame, and Winter’s Embrace at the moment. Adding extra buffs to pure classes just widens that gap, even if it would help them catch up a bit to meta subclass setups.

If underperforming skill lines and abilities were improved instead, however, both pure classes and subclass setups would benefit, which feels like a more balanced and longer-term solution to me.

Gabriel_H

NxJoeyD wrote: »

This didn’t come from YouTube, in fact, it came from mechanics that formed the basis of a legacy MMO from years ago, just expanded upon.

Regardless, it remains a flawed premise.

NxJoeyD wrote: »

What we’re looking at here, is whether the combinations of mechanics in certain builds run away with the farm so to speak.

That requires looking at player efficiency and habit as well though.

So, pre-subclassing, parses uploaded to ESOLogs. Top DPS by parse/score:

1. DK
2. Templar
3. Sorc
4. Arcanist

Same data, number of parses

1. Arcanist - 6,000
2. Sorc - 100
3. Templar - 75
4. DK - 50

There is something fundamentally wrong with that breakdown. There will always be some who can take the 100% potential build and apply ~100% efficiency to it. Building any system around them is going to lead to nothing but imbalance. The diversity of ESO builds, even before subclassing meant that yes there is a 100% potential build, but there was also a dozen 99.5% potential, and another dozen 99%, etc.

Sub-classing, as implemented was a fundamentally bad idea imo. It looks great in theory but does not account for player behaviour, and the niche-imposition of "required" builds found in all MMOs. In an effort to diversify builds all ZOS has done is (to keep the terminology going) given builds a massive potential but ignored the playerbase only runs at 10% efficiency, thereby limiting the builds actually used, especially at end-game.

Keeping class identity is something the MMO part of my brain very much wants, BUT to make remaining a pure-class feasable it would have to compete with the sub-classed builds. Whichever has even the slightest advantage will then become the dominant build driven by the players.

ZOS opened an can of worms with sub-classing. There will be even more calls for combat balance going forward, because they do not seem to recognize that a lot of players want the pew pew, and a lot of players want class identity. They will be tweaking this forever more. Additions such as class specific passives would add to the chaos. It may work for a while but will eventually fall prey to the same player habits. Class Specialization would have been a far more sensible option by ZOS.

At some point the constant to and fro will become too much of a drain for players to be bothered with.

fufu_from_ps4

i miss making friends with templars. i used to enjoy getting minor sorcery from them, they enjoyed minor savagry from me. i would provide aoe cc support to them cuz they're so slow, they provide an anchor for me. i was unable to heal very well.... he struggled to get people into beam range. together we made a great team.

he no longer needs my support to get people into beam range, or to peel a group off of him. i no longer need his off heals or execute.

he quit playing.

this goes on and on. wardens would seek out templars and plars wardens. nbs would look for dks. we needed each other. we WANTED each other.... now everyone has everything. another social pillar of the mmo that created friendships, stories, experiences.... thrown to the wayside.

excellent game design i look forward to seeing which feature is gutted next. i hear its leaderboards? less is more! less rewards. removal of class ranks. we may as well just delete peoples alts at this point.

where is that "we're killing it" meme? insert here.

Soarora

I feel like it doesn’t go far enough. A small passive won’t make any difference and even if it was build-altering, then people would feel locked into a specific playstyle.
Here’s some of my ideas (not saying to do all of them, just maybe one):
- Cut the effectiveness of subclassed skill lines
- Give all classes a class-synergizing mechanic (such as Arcanist’s crux) and scatter it across the skill lines
- Make a new class for each possible class combination (ex. DK base class + daedric summoning = summons fire atronachs) (not happening but cool to think about)
- Make a new skill line for each class that only shows up if you’re pure class, gives unique group buffs and debuffs and leans hard into each class’ main power fantasy

NxJoeyD

Gabriel_H wrote: »

NxJoeyD wrote: »

This didn’t come from YouTube, in fact, it came from mechanics that formed the basis of a legacy MMO from years ago, just expanded upon.

Regardless, it remains a flawed premise.

NxJoeyD wrote: »

What we’re looking at here, is whether the combinations of mechanics in certain builds run away with the farm so to speak.

That requires looking at player efficiency and habit as well though.

So, pre-subclassing, parses uploaded to ESOLogs. Top DPS by parse/score:

1. DK
2. Templar
3. Sorc
4. Arcanist

Same data, number of parses

1. Arcanist - 6,000
2. Sorc - 100
3. Templar - 75
4. DK - 50

There is something fundamentally wrong with that breakdown. There will always be some who can take the 100% potential build and apply ~100% efficiency to it. Building any system around them is going to lead to nothing but imbalance. The diversity of ESO builds, even before subclassing meant that yes there is a 100% potential build, but there was also a dozen 99.5% potential, and another dozen 99%, etc.

Sub-classing, as implemented was a fundamentally bad idea imo. It looks great in theory but does not account for player behaviour, and the niche-imposition of "required" builds found in all MMOs. In an effort to diversify builds all ZOS has done is (to keep the terminology going) given builds a massive potential but ignored the playerbase only runs at 10% efficiency, thereby limiting the builds actually used, especially at end-game.

Keeping class identity is something the MMO part of my brain very much wants, BUT to make remaining a pure-class feasable it would have to compete with the sub-classed builds. Whichever has even the slightest advantage will then become the dominant build driven by the players.

ZOS opened an can of worms with sub-classing. There will be even more calls for combat balance going forward, because they do not seem to recognize that a lot of players want the pew pew, and a lot of players want class identity. They will be tweaking this forever more. Additions such as class specific passives would add to the chaos. It may work for a while but will eventually fall prey to the same player habits. Class Specialization would have been a far more sensible option by ZOS.

At some point the constant to and fro will become too much of a drain for players to be bothered with.

We have other threads that are absolutely discussing factors in game balance from ability balancing to MRR logics, etc. Those are all valid points and ideas but even if one were to “balance” abilites, so to speak, you’re still not accounting for the combinations of mechanics.

Previously there was an element of “passive balance” because various classes didn’t have access to various mechanics; forcing them to seek a higher commitment to get them. Even with a balanced ability you’re still enabling subclasses bulds low cost access to mechanics that they didn’t have before.

As for parses, a base class Sorc isn’t going to parse higher than a Sorc + Animal Companions + Ardent Flame. .. and why is that? Is it a player skill issue? No, not necessarily; it’s because that both a base class Sorc, played properly, versus a Sorc+AC+AF played properly is going to see the subclasses build have access to more persistent & strong DoTs that contribute to a significantly higher overall parse than the base class.

In that example, why would I be encouraged to build a base class Sorc if I can slot & rotate more significant damage with those subclassed lines?

One could possibly make a case that some of the abilities in the Animal Companion line need to be balanced and I would 100% agree, but, we also live in the real world and we all know the Devs aren’t going to do much on a broad scale to fix most of the abilities out there.

So where does that leave us? We all know subclassing has unintended consequences and if the devs aren’t committing to broad balance then we either do something to encourage base class building or just toss classes in general in the trash and have a single library of skills that all players can pick from and call it a day?

Lysorris

The fundamental issue is that three DPS skill lines will always mathematically yield more damage than the setup of older, original classes, which were designed with a more mixed distribution of one DPS, one Utility, and one Heal skill line. No amount of individual player skill can change this core math. As a result, there will always be two DPS skill lines that are superior to slot in place of a class's non-DPS lines.

The game was clearly not originally designed with the intention of allowing players access to all the best possible DPS tools. Classes were initially balanced based on:
The accessibility level of different ways to gain buffs.
Their damage profile (e.g., Area of Effect (AoE), single-target, direct damage, damage over time, or burst damage).

The introduction of subclassing was likely a late-stage addition, and we are now seeing years of player progress undermined simply because the current balancing philosophy seems overly reliant on spreadsheets. #spreadsheetgate #consumablesgate

While balancing the numbers on available skill lines is necessary, it will not fix the fundamental problems introduced by subclassing. The current discussion centers on purging skill lines of the unique, essential elements that made them viable and functional. Instead of establishing clear, foundational rules for what subclassing can and cannot achieve, the focus is on removing "Overpowered" (OP) skills or functions.
However, if one "OP" skill is removed, another will simply take its place. Furthermore, you cannot homogenize skill lines without fundamentally altering every skill in the game—a massive undertaking.

We must accept that we are living in a new era of game design. The boundary for combat design has been crossed (and, arguably, crossed more than once), and we are now past that point of no return.
I do not believe in "taking away" from subclassing now, as I firmly believe that once a feature or capability has been given to the player base, it should not be taken back. However, there are opportunities to give in the other direction to re-establish class identity.
Classes should have superior interactions with their own skill lines. To truly give original classes a competitive edge without removing features from subclassing, the developers could even consider adding a passive skill line that interacts specifically with a character's core class identity (perhaps housed within the "World" skill tab).

GloatingSwine

flizomica wrote: »

I'd rather see each skill line have a mixture of DPS/tank/sustain passives, along with morphs consolidated and expanded so that every line has something appealing for each role. That would limit the current power of stacking 3x lines dedicated to your role. It would also not leave pure classes in a state where you "need" to drop a skill line because it doesn't benefit you, since each skill line should now have something you can meaningfully benefit from.

Unfortunately, beam exists so you can't have that. Herald of the Tome is and will forever remain 100% pure DPS because a four second channeled main skill and crux interaction demand so much of the design space of the line.

Parasaurolophus

Guys, please, stop. Playing a pure class today is basically the same as giving up on Champion Points or new sets. And instead of saying that the subclassing system is breaking your gameplay, you’re saying things like, “subclassing would be good if…”. That makes it sound like everything is basically fine, except for a few minor nuances. There’s no “if” — there never will be. Subclassing is what it is right now, and there’s no point in consoling yourself.

As for buffing pure classes — that’s not going to work. It’s not just about stacking passive abilities, it’s also about choosing the best active skills. And you’re suggesting just buffing skills that aren’t supposed to be too strong on their own. On top of that, don’t forget that a pure DPS class still has lines with passives for regeneration and defense, which ZOS can already consider a compromise.

Soarora

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

Guys, please, stop. Playing a pure class today is basically the same as giving up on Champion Points or new sets. And instead of saying that the subclassing system is breaking your gameplay, you’re saying things like, “subclassing would be good if…”. That makes it sound like everything is basically fine, except for a few minor nuances. There’s no “if” — there never will be. Subclassing is what it is right now, and there’s no point in consoling yourself.

As for buffing pure classes — that’s not going to work. It’s not just about stacking passive abilities, it’s also about choosing the best active skills. And you’re suggesting just buffing skills that aren’t supposed to be too strong on their own. On top of that, don’t forget that a pure DPS class still has lines with passives for regeneration and defense, which ZOS can already consider a compromise.

CP and sets hardly affect your gameplay as CP you never see and sets you rarely will notice in combat. Subclassing was the final straw for me, we're allowed to fantasize about a better future. I know realistically the answer is simply paying 20 dollars a skill style over the course of 3 years to make all the skills the same color, which will never solve the main problems. Also, people tend to forget about tanks and healers who have even less choice because of subclassing (expected to bring certain buffs/debuffs that require subclassing to obtain them all).

NxJoeyD

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

Guys, please, stop. Playing a pure class today is basically the same as giving up on Champion Points or new sets. And instead of saying that the subclassing system is breaking your gameplay, you’re saying things like, “subclassing would be good if…”. That makes it sound like everything is basically fine, except for a few minor nuances. There’s no “if” — there never will be. Subclassing is what it is right now, and there’s no point in consoling yourself.

As for buffing pure classes — that’s not going to work. It’s not just about stacking passive abilities, it’s also about choosing the best active skills. And you’re suggesting just buffing skills that aren’t supposed to be too strong on their own. On top of that, don’t forget that a pure DPS class still has lines with passives for regeneration and defense, which ZOS can already consider a compromise.

No, we won’t. Subclassing has broken gameplay and people who are invested in the future of the game itself are going to contribute ideas and suggestions to help improve it overall.

Very rarely does a Dev team ever get a game right on the first try, whether it’s game launch or major game updates, such as Subclassing.

We’ve had imbalance issues before and people brought them to light here, but now, it’s become even more pronounced with subclassing.

Having an open forum for ideas where the Devs have access to consider what’s thrown out there is never a bad thing.

If we just acquiesce to the poorer directions of the Devs and offer no constructive criticism or feedback back the game will suffer.

And with that, there are never any guarantees that the Devs will listen. I had that experience with Battlefront 2, but if we say nothing then we get what we get and the game can suffer in the long term.

katanagirl1

The game was built around pure classes, subclassing had brought more power creep than ten years of patches in one instant.

The easy answer is to reduce the effectiveness of subclassed skill lines with something like a percent modifier and bring them in line with the power of previous builds, but I don’t think that will ever happen. The whole game, overland, delves, public dungeons, group dungeons, and trials will either have be increased in difficulty to address the power creep, which is a monumental task, and then it will be too hard for pure classes, or it will be left alone and too easy for subclassed builds.

We’ve already heard what the devs have to say though. Everyone is supposed to subclass, if you don’t you’re just left behind. Good luck, though.

NxJoeyD

katanagirl1 wrote: »

The game was built around pure classes, subclassing had brought more power creep than ten years of patches in one instant.

The easy answer is to reduce the effectiveness of subclassed skill lines with something like a percent modifier and bring them in line with the power of previous builds, but I don’t think that will ever happen. The whole game, overland, delves, public dungeons, group dungeons, and trials will either have be increased in difficulty to address the power creep, which is a monumental task, and then it will be too hard for pure classes, or it will be left alone and too easy for subclassed builds.

We’ve already heard what the devs have to say though. Everyone is supposed to subclass, if you don’t you’re just left behind. Good luck, though.

I’ve seen a lot of these suggestions and, to be fair, I do agree! I’d have loved to have seen a “Subclassed” variation of each skill line that provided an adjusted value for subclassing versus being as part of a base class.

Yeah, the Devs are probably doubling down on their creative direction with subclassing and I don’t expect that they’re going to get rid of it but forums like this are a great venue for critical suggestions.

The AGS Devs lost a ton of players for the very reason that they didn’t listen to the player base. While I don’t expect any Dev studio to enable “back seat driving” from the players at large, I do expect that when they have a huge consistency among the player base in terms of response that they’d be foolish not to at least consider it. … that it unless they want to end up in a similar boat to AGS and push players away; which I don’t think is the case.

That said, maybe that’s posts to be had, Subclassing versus Base Classing maybe shouldn’t be an enhancement to base class, rather than adjustment to subclassed lines. That sounds good to me.