Removal of class specific hard CC seems to be the ultimate goal ZOS is slowly crawling towards. Almost every class seems to have lost a Hard CC from their toolkit at one point or another (C.Frags, Shards, Shalks, Agony) and I can already see fear and fossilize being next on the chopping block later down the line. I personally don't feel it's a terrible thing but only if the classes are compensated for it to continue to feel unique, which ZOS has failed to do. By removing the stun from Shalks, it caused Warden to utilize Dizzy Swing or Clutch instead of a class special skill making it feel generic when it really doesn't need to be.

Every class has undesirable skills that are in DESPERATE need of a rework to make them viable and making them actually require some thought on the player's part in determining which morph they should choose instead of having a clear cut winner all the time (This extends further than just having a Stamina or magic variant of a skill as well). How many people pick the other morph of Crippling Blast? How about Shimmering Shield? Volatile Armor? The majority of players in the know will always pick the better morph while new players get screwed by picking a lackluster morph option because they didn't know any better. ZOS has attempted to update some poor morphs, like Lightning Flood vs Liquid Lightning, but so many skills still remain lacking even after those changes.

The current system is the issue. Its far too limited in its reach to make everything feel unique without also making some choices invalid. If each class skill had a Stamina and Magic Morph that had a 2nd branch of morphs to them, all of which being viable options, there'd be much greater variety overall. Going back to Shalks, base skill and the current morph options would be decent starts to them. The 2nd option of morphs for Deep Fissure would include a Stun morph or an Ice Damage morph, while Sub Assault got a Root effect or a longer cast time with a Physical DoT attached to the burst. The stun/root options would be attractive options in PvP while the Ice and DoT morphs are still good options as well, especially in PvE. Of course, for that suggestion to even work something would have to be done about the current number of skill points as you're essentially adding 1.5x the amount of skill points needed to fully upgrade skills to their full potential. I'm personally of the mindset that skill points should just be removed entirely but that's just IMO.

As for strengths and weaknesses, those are harder to challenge since every class is meant to be capable of fulfilling any role but also not impossible, you just need to make each class based role have a niche that doesn't completely nullify other classes as that role, such as when Templars were the only viable healer because they were the only class that could restore Stamina for the longest time. With a 2nd morph option, it could be possible for utility morphs to be opened up for Tanks and Healers to have that are unique to them alone.

Just as an example, we have Blur with Double Take as the magic morph, Miragle the Stamina. Double Take has a morph option that adds a synergy to the skilll for allies to gain Double Take's effects, so major evasion and major expedition for party members or increases spell damage for dodging an attack. Mirage gets a morph that causes dodged attacks to set the target off balance or causes disease damage to enemies that get close to the NB. Since the healer is in a better position for the hypothetical synergy morph, they get a niche purpose of being able to mitigate damage thru dodging and providing major expedition, while a tank could provide more off balance uptime.

This is all just spitballing ideas but hey, at least classes would be unique.

tl;dr
Improve current morph options as well as add 2 additional morph option as an extension of the current morph system to include more options within classes to increase uniqueness.

Ectheliontnacil wrote: »

I'd like to address this trend of class homogenisation that we were able to observe with every major balancing patch. (NOTE: Mostly about openworld pvp, since pve class identity has never existed imo and duelling has always been a joke!)

I'm a big, big advocate of class identity. Where I disagree with you is when you say PvE class identity never existed. Really?? Let's talk about how Templar healers lost their shard stun, or how that synergy got collapsed into the same mechanic as orbs. And some of the changes that caused classes to lose unique abilities in PvE, which made them more flexible, or more fun, or more unique, were actually because of the fact that people were upset about the "imbalance" in PvP!

I do not think that each class should be able to equally heal, tank, and DPS, and I really dislike when it appears that balance changes are made to specifically facilitate this and move unique skills to be accessible by all in exactly the same way. Especially since despite these changes, there is ALWAYS a best and worst DPS class every meta. Not everything will be perfectly balanced, ever, unless classes aren't unique in any way, so I'd like to see more effort being made to provide more unique and fun abilities that are class specific. But PvE can't be changed while ignoring PvP play, or vice versa. And that's the issue that happens frequently because many people don't play both or know enough about both sides to think about this when they advocate for change.

Jeremy wrote: »

Ectheliontnacil wrote: »

I'd like to address this trend of class homogenisation that we were able to observe with every major balancing patch. (NOTE: Mostly about openworld pvp, since pve class identity has never existed imo and duelling has always been a joke!)

I'm quite upset about the incap nerf (yes, yes harvest my nightblade tears). Why? Because incap into execute has been the trademark move of stamblades since day one basically. I'm not here to debate over the strength of the nightblade class, I merely wish to question the way zeni usually balances classes. Instead of decreasing burst potential, healing power or access to generic debuffs like major defile (which is what I would have removed from incap) they attack core class mechanics. The nightblade playstyle will never be the same after this and an unpredictable stun is worse than no stun at all imo.


And nightblades are just the last ones to be turned into generic and mind-numbingly boring class:

It happened to sorcs who had their crystal fragment stun removed, which forced them to crutch on dsa flame reach or use the cancer that is rune cage. The once fluid and satisfying playstyle of sorc is a thing of the past. Flame reach builds are cookie cutters and rune cage feels clunky to use and a nightmare to fight against. The unpredictability has been removed from the class imo. Without rune cage two decent sorcs will not be able to kill one another, period.

It happened to magicka wardens, who were underperforming from the start. The one thing they had going for them was their unique, timed stun. It allowed the class to build up their burst in very unique ways - now that's gone. All because wardens desperately 'needed' access to major breach...

(Magicka) Templars and Dragonknights were *** over a long time ago. The idea of protecting the house has been given up. To me they feel sluggish, their playstyle is all about slowly grinding down an enemy's health and hoping they don't escape or kite you. Out in the open they're like sitting ducks though. They may take a minute to kill, but they'll die all the same.


All stamina classes with the exception of nightblades and perhaps wardens (to an extent) feel very generic as well. There's a set number of builds that work on all classes and any deviation from these setups will result in you performing at a non competitive level. They're also very reliant on weapon skills. The core build mechanics of most stamina classes are shuffle, snare immunity, rally, heroic slash/ransack bash weaves or overperforming bleeds - nothing class specific. Also more dynamic playstyles like 2h/bow are dead, except on nbs.

So where's the root of the problem?
As I see it, these changes are always made because we cannot accept that a class is good at something. Every class must be good at tanking, healing dpsing, kiting etc. When dks were awesome at tanking zergs, the mob was screaming for them to be nerfed. As stamblades were ambushing and slaughtering scattered zerglings, only to cloak away before they could be attacked, the pvp crowd once again screamed for them to be nerfed. Sorcs kiting entire zergs with streak and instant nuking '0 crit resist nooblets' was not tolerated either. I could go on with this but I think you get what I'm trying to say.

The point is that we need to allow classes to be good at something. Let dks be mighty zergtanks and let nightblades be rogues. What's so inherently wrong with classes being well suited for one type of gameplay. Also if you ever get bored of your class, you should be able to reroll and have an entirely different experience.


That's just my opinion on the matter, feel free to disagree with me. I'd like to hear your thoughts.

This is what happens when PvPers demand "balance". The devs give in and classes are watered down to the point they become boring and unimpressive.

I've never understood this obsession for "balance" in an MMORPG anyway. The whole point of different classes used to be that they all had their own unique strengths and weaknesses. This idea that every class should perform the same as the other makes the gameplay a lot less interesting.

It isn't the fault of the PvPers that the devs destroy the abilities. PvPers voice their opinion on things that are over performing from their perspective and it's the devs that *** up the set/ability beyond repair.

to the OP, since you asked for opinions...

I don't pvp all that much - I've done it, I've enjoyed it, don't really feel a pressing need to do it all that often

however, virtually all the points you brought up I've experienced to one degree or another (except for warden gameplay), so I feel qualified to have an opinion, at least...

nearly all of the examples you brought up were some form of hard CC combined with the ability to follow up into an execute
now, I won't argue against this requiring *skill* - *skill* isn't the point

the point is, that "competitive" gameplay, as you called it, ideally denies your opponent the ability to react. If the opponent can react, they may save themselves, they may potentially beat you. A true winning move is one in which you craft an opening that kills your opponent before they can respond and threaten you

doing the above takes skill - quite a bit of skill. But it still basically screws 1/2 of the player base, if done correctly, because the whole point of it is to effectively deny the person you're targeting the ability to play in any way.

PVP gameplay, ideally, needs to be a give and take, for both/all parties involved, at least, in my opinion. If not, then it's only fun for the people that have successfully designed the ideal opening gambit. Most players, I imagine, don't mind *losing* so much as they mind *getting shut out* without actually being able to play at all. I mean, "competitive" pvp'ers *** up and down the street about lag that gets them kill, denying them the ability to respond to incoming attacks, and whatnot - sure, lag is a technical issue, but what if (and it's happened so I've heard in other games) if you could develop a skill/rotation/series of events that could trigger lag that would make your opponents vulnerable without the ability to respond? wouldn't you be justifiably annoyed if someone did that to you? even if it took "skill" to discover and pull off?

based on your observations OP, it sounds like ZOS has come roughly to the same conclusion that I have - that hard CC's in combination with other abilities are essentially allowing one segment of the pvp population to deny another segment of the pvp population to play more-or-less at all, and from a business perspective, I can see why ZOS would want to disallow such a thing

I like distinction in classes - I like classes to feel different, and to play differently - but if you're going to have any kind of class based system AND a competitive pvp system that's "fun" for the majority of your player-base, you have to be very careful to make sure that everyone gets some kind of chance to actually play pvp, and it seems like for now, at least, that means nerfing various abilities to make sure that at least 1v1, it's as hard as possible for one player to put together a build that assassinates other players without offering them the ability to respond

now, if there were a harder global cooldown for skills, if you could reduce overall ttk and offer stronger mitigation and come-back skills, I think there would be a lot more leeway for more unique class skills - thing is, I'm pretty sure you could still find people to complain

I mean, what if we made invisibility and strike and incap all work - you could open from stealth, get a big hit in, do a big chunk of damage - but skills would be slow enough that this is about all you could do, and your opponent could break free, dodge roll before the next incoming attack, and pop a heal or a damage reflect or something that either gave them a chance to recover some portion of the damage you had done and/or made them more dangerous at a lower health level, etc...

I guarantee you that people would come onto these forums screaming bloody murder, that cloak wasn't "viable" because being invisible didn't give you enough of an advantage to totally kill your opponent, so why use it at all? and that TTK was too low because everyone had time to just heal up, so why even bother....waaaaaahhhhhhh....

not you, necessarily - but I guarantee that *someone* would say it, and would probably infer that they spoke for the pvp community as a whole, as well

me, I'd honestly really enjoy PVP, if it wasn't so focused on killing so fast that people can't respond - I'd really like it if besieging keeps was *more* of a thing, and assassinating individuals on the battlefield was *less* of a thing - but then again, I don't pvp much so...there's that

Ectheliontnacil wrote: »

.

All stamina classes with the exception of nightblades and perhaps wardens (to an extent) feel very generic as well. There's a set number of builds that work on all classes and any deviation from these setups will result in you performing at a non competitive level. They're also very reliant on weapon skills. The core build mechanics of most stamina classes are shuffle, snare immunity, rally, heroic slash/ransack bash weaves or overperforming bleeds - nothing class specific.

THIS! So much this.

My favorite playstyle was saptank because it was so flavorful. It was like a burst of spice and citrus sprinkled with the tears of meta Dk chubby chasers. I felt like a special snowflake tanking as a Nightblade. Felt good man. I didn’t have to be a Dk to hold my own and dance around vWGT. I was chock full of class skills that kept my group overhealed and survived some horrendous pugs.

Or the blazing shield Templar tanks! Paladins bro, paladins. Where have you gone my golden sons?

If I want to go stamina I have only weapon skills. There are too few stamina morphs in every class. Nb has 4. The rest have 2 or 3. That’s not good enough.

All healers are the same, just use resto staff.

All stam dps has always been the same to be fair, y’all have been spinning to win for a few years now.

Ectheliontnacil wrote: »

I'd like to address this trend of class homogenisation that we were able to observe with every major balancing patch. (NOTE: Mostly about openworld pvp, since pve class identity has never existed imo and duelling has always been a joke!)

I'm quite upset about the incap nerf (yes, yes harvest my nightblade tears). Why? Because incap into execute has been the trademark move of stamblades since day one basically. I'm not here to debate over the strength of the nightblade class, I merely wish to question the way zeni usually balances classes. Instead of decreasing burst potential, healing power or access to generic debuffs like major defile (which is what I would have removed from incap) they attack core class mechanics. The nightblade playstyle will never be the same after this and an unreliable stun is worse than no stun at all imo.

And nightblades are just the last ones to be turned into generic and mind-numbingly boring class:

It happened to sorcs who had their crystal fragment stun removed, which forced them to crutch on dsa flame reach or use the cancer that is rune cage. The once fluid and satisfying playstyle of sorcs is a thing of the past. Flame reach builds are cookie cutters and rune cage feels clunky to use and is a nightmare to fight against. The unpredictability has been removed from the class imo. Without rune cage two decent sorcs will not be able to kill one another, period.

It happened to magicka wardens, who were underperforming from the start. The one thing they had going for them was their unique, timed stun. It allowed the class to build up their burst in very unique ways - now that's gone. All because wardens desperately 'needed' access to major breach...

(Magicka) Templars and Dragonknights were *** over a long time ago. The idea of protecting the house has been given up. To me they feel sluggish, their playstyle is all about slowly grinding down an enemy's health and hoping they don't escape or kite you. Out in the open they're like sitting ducks though. They may take a minute to kill, but they'll die all the same.


All stamina classes with the exception of nightblades and perhaps wardens (to an extent) feel very generic as well. There's a set number of builds that work on all classes and any deviation from these setups will result in you performing at a non competitive level. They're also very reliant on weapon skills. The core build mechanics of most stamina classes are shuffle, snare immunity, rally, heroic slash/ransack bash weaves or overperforming bleeds - nothing class specific. Also more dynamic playstyles like 2h/bow are dead, except on nbs.

So where's the root of the problem?
As I see it, these changes are always made because we cannot accept that a class is good at something. Every class must be good at tanking, healing dpsing, kiting etc. When dks were awesome at tanking zergs, the mob was screaming for them to be nerfed. As stamblades were ambushing and slaughtering scattered zerglings, only to cloak away before they could be attacked, the pvp crowd once again screamed for them to be nerfed. Sorcs kiting entire zergs with streak and instant nuking '0 crit resist nooblets' was not tolerated either. I could go on with this but I think you get what I'm trying to say.

The point is that we need to allow classes to be good at something. Let dks be mighty zergtanks and let nightblades be rogues. What's so inherently wrong with classes being well suited for one type of gameplay. Also if you ever get bored of your class, you should be able to reroll and have an entirely different experience.


That's just my opinion on the matter, feel free to disagree with me. I'd like to hear your thoughts.

While i disagree about the nb incap change in particular ( I don't think the change will mean much), the overall idea is something I fully agree with and am hoping more people come to realize. Forum posts, which are likely the primary way in which ZoS gets community feedback, leans heavily toward pushing for all classes to perform identically in all categories, making it impossible for class identity to be maintained. People love to decry ZoS for not listening to community feedback but frankly the continued homogenization of classes is a direct result of them listening to said feedback. The constant forum crying for buffs and nerfs almost never accounts for class identity and strengths in other areas and therefore doesn't lead to class balance, but rather to homogenization.

Tasear wrote: »

What does class indentity mean to you? Is it one unique that can you can use for your class? Is it class skills? Is it theme of said class? Is it how you work with group?

My view of it is each class having their own strengths AND weaknesses. Class themes are nice and ESO does a good job of catering to those themes but recently there's been a push to eliminate those class weaknesses in particular while also toning down some of the other class strengths. Making each class perform similarly across the board leads to a loss of incentive to play each class uniquely.

RIFT was another game with a good variety of class themes but inevitably those classes lose their unique appeal because they lacked uniqueness beyond visual effects.

I do think races passives have a huge impact in the homogenization as well, its starts there and goes down hill at classes..