Radiate77 wrote: »

DenverRalphy wrote: »

And no, I don't think the term "Pure Classes" infers any sense of superiority, or demonizing subclassing. It's merely a term that conveys exactly what it means. I'd rather "Pure Classes" over "OG Classes" or "Virgin Classes".

Referring to a class as impure doesn’t imply superiority?

Only if you choose to take it that way. Sometimes ya just gotta recognize when the intent isn't that deep, and doesn't require deconstructing.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

DenverRalphy wrote: »

. I'd rather "Pure Classes" over "OG Classes" or "Virgin Classes".

OG/Classic vs DLC classes is already a phrase people use to refer to the originally available classes vs those added in later.

I guess we could call them unadulterated classes, pristine classes, immaculate classes, authentic classes. IDK. My Warden is pristine. IDK maybe 🤔🤣

You could just refer to your class as a “class.”
Just a thought. 👀

Radiate77 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

DenverRalphy wrote: »

. I'd rather "Pure Classes" over "OG Classes" or "Virgin Classes".

OG/Classic vs DLC classes is already a phrase people use to refer to the originally available classes vs those added in later.

I guess we could call them unadulterated classes, pristine classes, immaculate classes, authentic classes. IDK. My Warden is pristine. IDK maybe 🤔🤣

You could just refer to your class as a “class.”
Just a thought. 👀

The problem with classes is that they are weaker than classes. I understand that classes should be weaker than classes but the gap between classes and classes is too large.

Yeah, no. Specificity is needed because we are comparing two different types of classes.

''Pure Class'' is a term that ZOS themselves have used.

Alaztor91 wrote: »

''Pure Class'' is a term that ZOS themselves have used.

@ZOS_Kevin who inversely decided to refer to player-made classes as Impure? Seems kind of contradictory to the post you guys pinned encouraging Subclassing.

tomofhyrule wrote: »

Radiate77 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Radiate77 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

DenverRalphy wrote: »

. I'd rather "Pure Classes" over "OG Classes" or "Virgin Classes".

OG/Classic vs DLC classes is already a phrase people use to refer to the originally available classes vs those added in later.

I guess we could call them unadulterated classes, pristine classes, immaculate classes, authentic classes. IDK. My Warden is pristine. IDK maybe 🤔🤣

You could just refer to your class as a “class.”
Just a thought. 👀

The problem with classes is that they are weaker than classes. I understand that classes should be weaker than classes but the gap between classes and classes is too large.

Yeah, no. Specificity is needed because we are comparing two different types of classes.

Thank you. Writing and then reading that first paragraph, it dawned on you how silly it is.

Sorcerer is a class. Druid is a class. Dragonknight is a class. Dragonpriest is a class. Nightblade is a class. Spellblade is a class.

It sounds like what you really want is a semantic argument. As such, let me try to present it in this way:

Hmm, I believe only some of those examples you give are officially designated as Classes. The others seem like player-made names given to Subclass builds.

For anyone who is new to ESO, the official website defines seven Classes:

• Arcanists
• Necromancers
• Wardens
• Dragonknights
• Sorcerers
• Nightblades
• Templars

Therefore when anyone is referring to a Subclassed build which uses three skill lines from the above Classes, those do not have official names, and as such are probably best referred to as "Subclassed builds" to prevent confusion, as something like "Druid" could refer to any combination of Green Balance, Animal Companions, Earthen Heart, Ardent Flame, Storm Calling, Restoring Light, or any other lines.

In the game's official help menu, they do refer to "Primary Class Lines," as in those your character has at character creation, and "Subclassed lines," which are those you've chosen. This means that there is a consideration of "Primary Class Lines" and "Subclassed Lines" being different and they should be balanced as such.

Semantic argument? Are you sure you know what that is?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/lets-argue-semantics

The core issue is that most suggestions floating around do not consider player-made classes as true classes, and therefore inferior(not worthy of consideration). I don’t agree with that sentiment, and find it offensive that it’s insinuated by the link you shared.

Maybe now someone from the community team can look at it and take a strong stance one way or another.

tomofhyrule wrote: »

Radiate77 wrote: »

Alaztor91 wrote: »

''Pure Class'' is a term that ZOS themselves have used.

ZOS_Kevin who inversely decided to refer to player-made classes as Impure? Seems kind of contradictory to the post you guys pinned encouraging Subclassing.

It really seems like you are the only one referring to Subclassed builds as "impure." Everyone else is calling them "Subclassed builds."

Are you sure you know what the word Pure means? It means undiluted, the second you dilute it, it becomes Impure.

Radiate77 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Radiate77 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

DenverRalphy wrote: »

. I'd rather "Pure Classes" over "OG Classes" or "Virgin Classes".

OG/Classic vs DLC classes is already a phrase people use to refer to the originally available classes vs those added in later.

I guess we could call them unadulterated classes, pristine classes, immaculate classes, authentic classes. IDK. My Warden is pristine. IDK maybe 🤔🤣

You could just refer to your class as a “class.”
Just a thought. 👀

The problem with classes is that they are weaker than classes. I understand that classes should be weaker than classes but the gap between classes and classes is too large.

Yeah, no. Specificity is needed because we are comparing two different types of classes.

Thank you. Writing and then reading that first paragraph, it dawned on you how silly it is.

Sorcerer is a class. Druid is a class. Dragonknight is a class. Dragonpriest is a class. Nightblade is a class. Spellblade is a class.

Some classes are better or worse at different things! That’s the whole point. Our problem is that some skill lines are just too crazy right now, and it’s making a myriad of classes feel broken as a result.

They just need to make pointed changes, none of these sweeping nonsense ones.

Please don't put words in my mouth. There are two different class systems and using the same name to refer to both leads to completely unclear writing. I'm open to suggestions but pretending the new system isn't a new system isn't going to work.

Radiate77 wrote: »

“Pure Class” has got to be the most anti-community identifier I’ve seen in a long time.

Sorry Jimmy, but your off-meta throw-together Druid build is not a “Pure Class” so we should nerf it and while we’re at it, OG Nightblade needs 200% Critical Chance for using their 3 cracked out original skill lines because they are “Pure”.

I’m not sure how you twisted subclassing complaints into the idea that those who don’t like subclassing are class supremacist who are obsessed with purity and look down on everyone who decides to subclass. What?

Anyway, there’s people out there who have really enjoyed one specific class for years. I’ve met a few. Do you think it’s fun for them to boot up the game after one patch just to find that they’re now significantly weaker compared to what other class combinations are possible?

CalamityCat wrote: »

Radiate77 wrote: »

When have I said that classes shouldn’t feel better to play? I agree with you that certain combinations are inherently a problem. I do not agree with the language you’re using to condescend to the issue I have with leaving people in the dust.

I do not agree with footing the bill. There are smarter ways to approach balance where everyone is happy, you’ve just provided none.

You aren't "footing the bill" - we all are. When subclassing gets nerfed, it's coming through changes that hit pure builds too. Only the pure builds weren't doing the high dummy parses or causing any problem. So they get nerfed when they didn't need to be. It hurts pure builds more than subclass ones every single time.

Even if the devs continue to ignore pure builds, they'll still "balance" subclassing to suit their plans for the game. We're seeing that with update 47. The devs aren't showing interest in pure builds right now, yet they still have a lot of combat changes on the PTS. None of it is helping pure builds.

As for balance, other games have genuine template choice and it's fun. I'm not sure how everyone will be happy if we continue with subclassing out-performing pure builds. Or with devs who don't seem sure if they want power creep or nerfs. I certainly don't believe players are all happy now they've seen what's on the PTS

This format is much more approachable.

-In a world where your starter class gets some form of advantage purely for existing, yeah, that would be a world where creatives are footing the bill. Also, one thing to keep in mind… “pure classes” were always dealing with the problem they are currently, it has only exacerbated with the added ability to beam on any class. Arcanist was meta, before that it was DK. The overwhelming majority of classes were not represented for years, and if they showed up on leaderboards, they were played by exceptional players and for niché purposes. Now anybody can run any subclass, and next patch Arcanist mains are losing their exclusive Crux-gen from Class Mastery. This is not the solution I would like personally, but it is a step in the right direction.

-I agree that ZOS are not focusing on starter class synergy too much, the Heroism changes were a step in that direction though, as I believe we will start to see more named buffs in passives, that way you have less of a benefit from stacking -like- skill lines.

-Not every new class outperforms their starters, unless you’re talking about Necromancer, I think just about anything is better than a default Necro. Unfortunately. That said, is there room to improve? Yes. Yet if every skill line felt great to use, it wouldn’t feel like such a disadvantage when your starter class is stuck with one in particular. If we’re talking raw numbers and performance, until passives are handled appropriately, or more skills become available for everyone through World Skills or Scribing, expect people that run 3 of any give role skill lines to outperform those who don’t.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

DenverRalphy wrote: »

. I'd rather "Pure Classes" over "OG Classes" or "Virgin Classes".

OG/Classic vs DLC classes is already a phrase people use to refer to the originally available classes vs those added in later.

I guess we could call them unadulterated classes, pristine classes, immaculate classes, authentic classes. IDK. My Warden is pristine. IDK maybe 🤔🤣

I reckon pure classes should be called sub classes now, as in suboptimal and sub par.

Thanks, @ZOS_Icy!

Radiate77 wrote: »

“Pure Class” has got to be the most anti-community identifier I’ve seen in a long time.

Lately I’ve seen people use the term “Pure Class” as a means to demonize people for utilizing Subclassing, generally right next to entitled claims that people who don’t use the system should benefit over those who do.

In what world should you benefit for -limiting- yourself? It’s one thing to comment about certain aspects of the system over-performing, but what about all of the unique community driven creations?

Sorry Jimmy, but your off-meta throw-together Druid build is not a “Pure Class” so we should nerf it and while we’re at it, OG Nightblade needs 200% Critical Chance for using their 3 cracked out original skill lines because they are “Pure”.

Enough. We as a community should be fostering creativity and smashing barriers, not walling ourselves in.

Radiate77 wrote: »

“Pure Class” has got to be the most anti-community identifier I’ve seen in a long time.

Lately I’ve seen people use the term “Pure Class” as a means to demonize people for utilizing Subclassing, generally right next to entitled claims that people who don’t use the system should benefit over those who do.

In what world should you benefit for -limiting- yourself? It’s one thing to comment about certain aspects of the system over-performing, but what about all of the unique community driven creations?

Sorry Jimmy, but your off-meta throw-together Druid build is not a “Pure Class” so we should nerf it and while we’re at it, OG Nightblade needs 200% Critical Chance for using their 3 cracked out original skill lines because they are “Pure”.

Enough. We as a community should be fostering creativity and smashing barriers, not walling ourselves in.

I've participated in some of the recent subclass discussions and saw this today.

So, on the forums, lately, not necessarily here but in many instances, I'm seeing this sort of phenomena where it's like someone is taking like a counterargument and assigning a rational to it, which really is just an assumption. I mean, you know, when I post on here, I have no idea what someone is thinking, and I don't presume to know what they mean unless they tell me right? This is perhaps, a reason, why on some occasions I don't mind providing an explanation. Because I don't want someone to take what I'm saying and twist it into this whole other line of thinking that I never thought of ok.

OP. I'm just looking at your post and for me and my discussions that I saw, no one is using any terms, of any kind, to demonize anyone. You are literally most welcome to decide for yourself. Then you also said that people who don't use the system are making entitled claims that they alone should benefit from vs other whom I guess you might say are open to change or at least the new system. Ok, so again in my posts this was never the case. The people there... it was never even anything that was brought up. So, this is like the 2nd or 3rd one of these threads I've seen and I'm really not sure what the expectation is for those of us who disagree, uh with you.

Ok you talk about community and the community has anti-identifiers and so forth, no I disagree. The community is just different. We are all just being ourselves. And nobody needs to apologize for it. No one whose made a point, staying in TOS and respecting forum rules and so forth owes anyone anything and no one has done anything wrong. Alot of us have spent quite a bit of time and money on the game, doesn't make us special, or entitled and no I'm not above anyone.

But I disagree with a subclass approach that puts my non-subclass characters under water for no justifiable reason. Ok so take DK Roar and Leap, right? DK Roard and Leap are the backbone of the DK. For years this has worked just fine and there's never been any reason to change it. So why now? I want to play a DK at least at a competitive level. I don't want my build and what I enjoy playing replaced and then being greefed that somehow, I'm trying to hurtful or entitled. Its about responsibility. In other words, If I have a car and I come out with a new car line, but I still have people driving my old model. Do I provide less support for it. You're talking about doing the right here is it right for ZOS to just degrade and not provide the proper support for the old model because it's like you're saying I'm entitled to it?

It isn't now and it's never been about entitlement or um demonizing the new car owner. They sold me this product, and we had a deal. There is no reputable car dealership that would do their customers that way. Although I'm sure it happens. But that's not the point. Wouldn't you want ZOS to support that class, furthermore, why DK by itself, idc what you call it, that is a class. It still is a thing my friend. And some of us want to hold on to something that isn't broke, it doesn't need fixing (at least it didn't) and works fine just how it is/was. I could honestly care less what other people use and do with their time. That's none of my business and this is why we have privacy laws. If they want to limit themselves. None of my business. This is why sometimes we have to agree to disagree for the sake of peace which enables us to have a community in the first place. But launching accusations at seemingly all of us who again, the only conclusion I can draw is those of us who disagree with you, well that will surely further divide the community which you're claiming to try to benefit with this thread. I don't mean to speak for you but to me that seems like what's happening here.

In short. This support issue affects me and could produce a great many issues to the normal means of which I play the game, as well as, you should know, a great many players. Everyone is not rushing out to subclass everything. As I said before some things need it and others don't. And no, it's not too much to ask for non-subclasses, it's not too much to ask to have support done right so we can keep what we have, that we've been using for many long years now. People may not agree with me but there are many people for almost certain who feel the same and subclass feature should indeed be an added benefit and not a liability. The moment it becomes part of the problem then it's about the problem regardless of how we may feel about it.

Classes are a combination of Subclasses.
https://www.elderscrollsonline.com/en-us/classes

A Nightblade is only a Nightblade because they use Assassination, Shadow, and Siphoning.

When you remove one of those, it becomes a different Class. You are not a Nightblade if you remove Shadow. Illusion is part of the core identity of what a Nightblade is, just as Assassination and Siphoning are.

Nightblade = Assassination, Shadow, Siphoning
Nightblade ≠ Assassination, Shadow, Siphoning

Classes are not a combination of subclasses.

Classes came before subclassing existed. They are officially supported and the game is balanced for these original implementations.

Subclassing is a new way to customize your class and build your own character. It empowers you to play the way that you want by swapping out two skill lines for ones from a different class.

A Night blade that decides to sub out skills so that their 3 skill line are assassination, dawn's wrath, and animal companions will have a different play experience than a Warden who chooses to use the same 3 skill lines. For example, they'd have different class mastery scripts as well as completely different early game experiences. This is why if you're going for a specific subclass build there are recommendations for which to use as the base.

The names for different subclassing variations are entirely player driven rather than ZOS driven precisely because these are customization options. So what "druid" means will vary from player to player. But what "Templar" means is always the same and is decided by Zenimax entertainment. Two players could have built their subclasses exactly the same and have different names for their builds based off their personal tastes and sometimes for roleplay reasons.

Finally, attempting to conflate the two does a massive disservice to new players. They cannot use subclasses at character creation. They aren't going to understand scribing yet and the impact class selection has on that system. They make purchasing decisions based on which class they want to play. For example, they need to know that Arcanist specifically come from the Necrom chapter.

TLDR

Classes are the building blocks that Subclassing uses for its player driven builds. They still have meaningful impacts on gameplay, especially for new players.