Do you want class identity or role diversity?

Chilly-McFreeze

I want class identity and im a PVP-Player

b.bredfeldtub17_ESO wrote: »

To all you people "I want a reason to play a specific class!"

That reason should be ONLY because you like the way the class does it's stuff, or the theme, etc. If that's not good enough, what you're really saying is that

"I like this thing and I want it to have a statistical advantage because I don't have the skill to back up my desires to be the best at something and I don't want my feelings hurt, getting stomped by someone who I think is a tank/heal class out-dpsing me"

Sorry, but this is BS. I choose to play a DK because I wanted to be a tanky, foe-pulling, slowly walking MOFO. And now all of a sudden there are tanky, foe-pulling, slowly walking MOFOS on all classes. But I guess I should be happy with some fire and poison? I choose a sorc because I wanted to be that hyper-mobile guy that bursts people down. And what do we have now? Every stam class is more mobile, even the formerly mentioned slow-walking DK has a class snare removal, while the oh-so-mobile sorc hasn't and can't even streak out of gap closer range + their burst is nothing to write home about anymore. Or look at the "come in my house and be trashed" class, how is that house building going for them?

THAT is what people mean by diversity being important. It's okay that everyone can do every role, but the signature skills, the essence of the different classes vanish with every patch.

Minno

I want role diversity and im a PVP-Player

Role diversity will make spell crafting easier for balance reasons.

Class identity will most likely change to loose design intents or collection of passives/base skills with outside skillines giving you access to other base morphs.

Example of current distinctions:
"Degeneration giving access to major sorcery for Templar" is role diversity friendly statement. Class identity friendly statement would be "Templars should not have access to major sorcery at all because their class has no source of it". Most players support the former but pretend it means the later.

Marginis

Chilly-McFreeze wrote: »

b.bredfeldtub17_ESO wrote: »

To all you people "I want a reason to play a specific class!"

That reason should be ONLY because you like the way the class does it's stuff, or the theme, etc. If that's not good enough, what you're really saying is that

"I like this thing and I want it to have a statistical advantage because I don't have the skill to back up my desires to be the best at something and I don't want my feelings hurt, getting stomped by someone who I think is a tank/heal class out-dpsing me"

Sorry, but this is BS. I choose to play a DK because I wanted to be a tanky, foe-pulling, slowly walking MOFO. And now all of a sudden there are tanky, foe-pulling, slowly walking MOFOS on all classes. But I guess I should be happy with some fire and poison? I choose a sorc because I wanted to be that hyper-mobile guy that bursts people down. And what do we have now? Every stam class is more mobile, even the formerly mentioned slow-walking DK has a class snare removal, while the oh-so-mobile sorc hasn't and can't even streak out of gap closer range + their burst is nothing to write home about anymore. Or look at the "come in my house and be trashed" class, how is that house building going for them?

THAT is what people mean by diversity being important. It's okay that everyone can do every role, but the signature skills, the essence of the different classes vanish with every patch.

The crux of the problem with this (and I agree with you, by the way) is the difficulty in balancing such different skills. Invariably, with the game as it is, players gravitate toward a meta, and so decide that one strategy is better than another. The system would have to balanced incredibly well to tolerate wider differences between classes while not allowing that gravitation to a certain class for a certain role.

Let me use an example.

We have the traditional Dragonknight tank on one hand, with pulls and fire and huge defence, then we have a siphoning Nightblade tank on another with high recovery and a bit more mobility. Both do the job of tanking, and they do it in different ways, but one is considered worse and less viable. Unless ZOS can properly balance the two (and in reality there are way more than two) playstyles, it makes sense it's better to give all classes more similar skills, so they can be considered equally viable. The question we're really asking is "do we think ZOS can balance the game well enough to justify bigger class differences?" not "should we make the classes more unique." Anyone who goes too far to either extreme (getting rid of classes entirely or making each class only good at one way of playing) I think misunderstands how ESO is meant to be played and their opinion shouldn't factor in on this particular perspective I'm offering. Classes are both meant to be unique but also adapt to different playstyles, so we can experience the variety and creativity players have to offer.

JinMori

Role is decided by what you are playing, either dps, tank or healer/support etc, class identity is class playing in different ways, and with different effects, the question is a bit strange because you can have both, you can have a templar that plays tank, just as you can have a dk that plays dps.

In any case i think class identity is more important

b.bredfeldtub17_ESO

I want role diversity and im a PVE-Player

Chilly-McFreeze wrote: »

THAT is what people mean by diversity being important. It's okay that everyone can do every role, but the signature skills, the essence of the different classes vanish with every patch.

I'm completely on board with everyone getting the same results using different methods. I'm not asking for classes to be homogenized in any way. For instance, sorc tanks could tank via spell shields. DK tanks could tank via dmg reduction. NB tanks could tank via lifesteal.

I'm not asking for the methods everyone uses to be the same. I'm asking for everyone to have the capability to reach the same potential for all roles while using those different methods. If one is vastly superior to others numerically, then the others will just get discarded.

Marginis wrote: »

The question we're really asking is "do we think ZOS can balance the game well enough to justify bigger class differences?"

You're spot on, but I think the real question is "do we think ZOS will actually put in the effort required to balance it." They're obviously capable of coding and manipulating the numbers. They COULD do it. I think it's a fat chance in coldharbour they'd spend the effor ton that versus more crown store crap, though.

Silver_Strider

I want role diversity and im a PVP-Player

I prefer role diversity. Class identity is subjective and what one person sees as Class Identity might not mesh with another's views.

When people see NB, they think Sneaky DPS and nothing about the Siphoning Healer or Shadow Tank. When they see Templar, they see Cleric Healer and ignore the Aedric Warrior or Paladin Tank. It's the same with all classes.

I doesn't matter that these alternative views get buffs because people will say it takes away from THEIR views of the class's Identity while completely ignoring the other identities that class has. To them, It doesn't matter that a NB tank is shrouded in shadows to make them harder to hit while healing itself and allies with Refreshing Path and Sap Essence is completely different from the heavy CC oriented DK tank with its Talons and Chains because to them, it doesn't matter so long as they're not being hit to continue DPSing.

Classes have more than 1 identity and people need to be open to them all, else we'll just keep getting nothing but Templar healers and DK tanks, with Wardens here and there, at end game.

Amdar_Godkiller

I pvp and pve, as do most I'm sure. So I want PVE diversity and PVP identity.

MerlinPendragon

I want class identity and im a PVE-Player

There is no need for change here.

Aznox

I want role diversity and im a PVP-Player

Interesting results.

In my opinion, buffing so-called class defining skills would be detrimental to game diversity.

But then again i'm part of a minority on this forum who thinks the game is fine overall and still moving in the good direction.

Dudis

I want role diversity and im a PVP-Player

Let classes have unique mechanics and other ways of doing things, but allow for different playstyles to be viable within those limits.

For PvE i dont mind either way, but i think its cool that more classes can come up with more unique builds.

Imo, what this game needs is like two more class skill lines each for more diversity and uniqueness, while still staying true to the above, not more general skill lines.

Xuhora

I want role diversity and im a PVE-Player

Marginis wrote: »

Chilly-McFreeze wrote: »

b.bredfeldtub17_ESO wrote: »

To all you people "I want a reason to play a specific class!"

That reason should be ONLY because you like the way the class does it's stuff, or the theme, etc. If that's not good enough, what you're really saying is that

"I like this thing and I want it to have a statistical advantage because I don't have the skill to back up my desires to be the best at something and I don't want my feelings hurt, getting stomped by someone who I think is a tank/heal class out-dpsing me"

Sorry, but this is BS. I choose to play a DK because I wanted to be a tanky, foe-pulling, slowly walking MOFO. And now all of a sudden there are tanky, foe-pulling, slowly walking MOFOS on all classes. But I guess I should be happy with some fire and poison? I choose a sorc because I wanted to be that hyper-mobile guy that bursts people down. And what do we have now? Every stam class is more mobile, even the formerly mentioned slow-walking DK has a class snare removal, while the oh-so-mobile sorc hasn't and can't even streak out of gap closer range + their burst is nothing to write home about anymore. Or look at the "come in my house and be trashed" class, how is that house building going for them?

THAT is what people mean by diversity being important. It's okay that everyone can do every role, but the signature skills, the essence of the different classes vanish with every patch.

The crux of the problem with this (and I agree with you, by the way) is the difficulty in balancing such different skills. Invariably, with the game as it is, players gravitate toward a meta, and so decide that one strategy is better than another. The system would have to balanced incredibly well to tolerate wider differences between classes while not allowing that gravitation to a certain class for a certain role.

Let me use an example.

We have the traditional Dragonknight tank on one hand, with pulls and fire and huge defence, then we have a siphoning Nightblade tank on another with high recovery and a bit more mobility. Both do the job of tanking, and they do it in different ways, but one is considered worse and less viable. Unless ZOS can properly balance the two (and in reality there are way more than two) playstyles, it makes sense it's better to give all classes more similar skills, so they can be considered equally viable. The question we're really asking is "do we think ZOS can balance the game well enough to justify bigger class differences?" not "should we make the classes more unique." Anyone who goes too far to either extreme (getting rid of classes entirely or making each class only good at one way of playing) I think misunderstands how ESO is meant to be played and their opinion shouldn't factor in on this particular perspective I'm offering. Classes are both meant to be unique but also adapt to different playstyles, so we can experience the variety and creativity players have to offer.

its not even the balancing of the variations thats is hard to manage. First of all ZOS would have to create content which demands for such different tanking styles... We dont have content that requires one tank to be that "Stand your ground" DK tank on one corner of the bossarena while a mobile NB Tank ports arround and does his NB stuff.
Same goes for healers, there is nothing such as a group healer or a tank healer in the content that exists today. We all just stand there, spam healing springs and combat prayer.

If ZOS would manage to create new, interesting content which requires different tanking or healing styles, the role diversity would merge together with class identity and would make such a great gaming expierence in my opinion.

datgladiatah

I want class identity and im a PVE-Player

Oh I thought you meant like... I wanted more uniqueness from the class. Can't I get both?

sneakymitchell

I want role diversity and im a PVP-Player

Both is good.

Khivas_Carrick

I want role diversity and im a PVE-Player

I choose both, because a class can do a role just as good as another class, but what will set that class apart is how the class achieves that goal.

A templar for example would be burst based DPS with group utility, and a healer given amazing burst capability and utility. Tanking would be based on being a pure meatshield with strong selfheals and buffs.

A Nightblade would be fantastic DoTs with baller execute, and as a healer would be almost entirely HoT based. Tanking is more about strong evasion.

Dragonknights would be more well rounded but possess more group utility as a DPS, with healing built more akin to preventative vs reactive with shields and such, and tanking revolving around strong aoe and CC.

Sorcerers would be very much built on sustainability and debuffs for dps, with healing and tanking both being built on more well rounded approaches.

Warden would bring hella CC to the table as a DPS, with more supportive healing with less reliance on synergies, and it's tanking would be akin to a cross between DK and NB.

These are all just loose examples of how a class can fulfill a role while maintaining its identity in the mechanical sense, let alone how each class operates from an aesthetic "flavor", so to say that a class can't have both is just plain silly.

Khivas_Carrick

I want role diversity and im a PVE-Player

b.bredfeldtub17_ESO wrote: »

ITT: People acting like the best performing guilds aren't elitist or like the community of achieving individuals at large aren't.

To all you people "I want a reason to play a specific class!"

That reason should be ONLY because you like the way the class does it's stuff, or the theme, etc. If that's not good enough, what you're really saying is that

"I like this thing and I want it to have a statistical advantage because I don't have the skill to back up my desires to be the best at something and I don't want my feelings hurt, getting stomped by someone who I think is a tank/heal class out-dpsing me"

Same type of people crying that ret paladins shouldn't do competitive damage in vanilla wow.

When I finally dusted my Ret Paladin off after TBC and made him my main for Wrath, the anger directed at me was as vitriolic as a Klan rally lol To this day people are still salty that classes got properly balanced in WotlK

SkyIsTheLimit1206

I want class identity and im a PVE-Player

Identity is the reason why classes should be still around. Sure, they should all be able to reasonably fill each role, but some classes should be better at a role than the other:

DKs should be the standing-still tough guy, gaining resistance and buffs while dishing out reasonable damage, not bursty, but slow and steady sustained damage with fire and poison while protecting oneself with stone

Sorcs should be the elemental master, whether it be storms or winds, also the conjurer of shields to protect themselves and allies, even using the dark forces of daedra and dark magic to aid itself

NBs should be the assassins and blood mages, gaining bonuses from stealth, damaging while healing, being that BURST and disappear guy, dishing out extra when the opponent is weakened/low health

Templars should be the light-ritual guy, hates necromancy and other dark things, calls upon holy light to deal either flame or literal physical light, as well as use light to heal friendlies

Lastly, Wardens should be the utility, the nature guy, summoning animals to fight, heal, and tank, using Mother Nature to cleanse allies, using the natural force of ice to immobilize and slow down enemies as well


They would all have abilities that make them viable in any role, but DKs should still be the best tanks, Templars the best healers, etc. BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THEIR CLASS AESTHETICS ARE BUILT UPON



Also, please don't assume that PvE players will think one way and PvPers the other, I mainly PvE and find class identity a hundred times more important than "versatility"

This is my opinion, thank you.

Joy_Division

I haven't read all 4 pages so if may have been brought up.

Why exactly can't we have both?

caperon

I want class identity and im a PVE-Player

Joy_Division wrote: »

I haven't read all 4 pages so if may have been brought up.

Why exactly can't we have both?

Because you need good developers for that.

Silver_Strider

I want role diversity and im a PVP-Player

SkyIsTheLimit1206 wrote: »

Identity is the reason why classes should be still around. Sure, they should all be able to reasonably fill each role, but some classes should be better at a role than the other:

DKs should be the standing-still tough guy, gaining resistance and buffs while dishing out reasonable damage, not bursty, but slow and steady sustained damage with fire and poison while protecting oneself with stone

Sorcs should be the elemental master, whether it be storms or winds, also the conjurer of shields to protect themselves and allies, even using the dark forces of daedra and dark magic to aid itself

NBs should be the assassins and blood mages, gaining bonuses from stealth, damaging while healing, being that BURST and disappear guy, dishing out extra when the opponent is weakened/low health

Templars should be the light-ritual guy, hates necromancy and other dark things, calls upon holy light to deal either flame or literal physical light, as well as use light to heal friendlies

Lastly, Wardens should be the utility, the nature guy, summoning animals to fight, heal, and tank, using Mother Nature to cleanse allies, using the natural force of ice to immobilize and slow down enemies as well


They would all have abilities that make them viable in any role, but DKs should still be the best tanks, Templars the best healers, etc. BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THEIR CLASS AESTHETICS ARE BUILT UPON



Also, please don't assume that PvE players will think one way and PvPers the other, I mainly PvE and find class identity a hundred times more important than "versatility"

This is my opinion, thank you.

By this logic, DK and Templar DPS should suck in comparison to NB and Sorc DPS specs at all times because they're the DPS classes. Are you kidding me? Aesthetics is hardly an argument for having 1 class excel at a role over others as anyone with a SnB with Heavy Armor can look like a tank, just like anyone with robes and a stick can look like a healer.

No one class should be better than the other as far as roles go. Different? Sure, but definitely not better by default.

nimander99

I want role diversity and im a PVE-Player

Chilly-McFreeze wrote: »

nimander99 wrote: »

Elder Scrolls is all about being a Heavy Armor wearing Mage with two swords and a bow tanking healing and dropping bombs on Daedra.

Did I miss anything?

Yes, you did. E.g. that a heay armored dw/bow mag sorc still won’t work very well in eso, even with the further diminishing of class identities.

Yeah... That went over your head. Its all good, not all humor is caught.

ToRelax

zyk wrote: »

Turelus wrote: »

We just need to find ways for each class to achieve the same things via different means..

When you do this, the question becomes why have class at all? Why not just have skill lines? Class is supposed to be loosely analogous to professions and specializations.

I think it's obvious that classes were intended to be flexible enough to perform any role, but each was specialized in one role. It's a reasonable compromise. When the specialization part is removed, so too is the need to have classes.

If flexibility is the goal, let's not invent 5 ways to fry an egg that are all equally desirable. Instead, we may as well:

- Remove classes and label the class skill lines as Specialization Skill Lines.
- Allow characters to select any three Specialization Skill Lines to be active at one time. Perhaps to change them, a respec at a shrine would be necessary.

When you let players combine skill lines from different classes, they will generally pick the most overloaded, best synergizing ones. The same thing that would happen if you let them combine any class skills, without restrictions such as to use only 3 skill lines, just to a lesser degree. The same thing that happens right now to a lesser degree, with players crafting builds out of different skill lines, with some weapon and class skill restrictions.

The freedom to combine different things in builds makes build diversity possible. But the restrictions keep that freedom from killing diversity off, because you have to content with a certain set of skills to achieve your goal that works noticeably different from what other classes would use for that "role".
A class in this game is a theme, with each one providing different tools to complement your role.

So looking at it this way, making every class able to fill out any role competitively itself would only improve class diversity, not diminish their identity. The threat to class identity lies in the streamlining of the roles within the classes themselves, such as one morph being for tanks only, one for DDs; DDs sending animals to die while ice magic is tank-territory; sorcerers being pushed to use pets etc. Because this directly hurts the limited diversity the combining of these different skills made possible in the first place.

I believe ZOS should try to make single skills more useful in different roles, such as their new design for Bound Aegis, which targets both tanks and magicka DDs. I realize this is much more difficult to balance than a simple "DK is the tank class" or "Green Balance is the healer skill line" of course. But, there just isn't a way around that when allowing for a large amount of skill combinations.

bardx86

I want class identity and im a PVP-Player

NO!

RavenSworn

Turelus wrote: »

I want both and I don't think they have to be mutually exclusive.

We just need to find ways for each class to achieve the same things via different means. When it comes to things like shards/chains however they become so intrinsic to to healing and tanking that it pushed any classes without an option to the side. Those iconic abilities had to be shared if we ever wanted to see more than one class per role.

This. Fifth option. However it would be a long while before we accept different forms of tanking / healing aside from the usual DK Templar methods as the community is too entrenched in that mentality.

exeeter702

Frankly there isnt any discussion.

An mmo with..
10 dps classes
1 tank
1 healer
Is downright criminal,

No one in their right mind should want to reinforce that gross lack of variety.

Classes are there to reinforce particular thematics. How class A or B achieves viability in role X or Y should be unique to one another but the tools must be avaialble no matter what. This is why universal skill lines like weapon and guild skill lines exist. To help level out and augment certain classes for any if the 3 roles. Its also why certain classes have tanking or healing options as class skills that are specifically designed to be anagolous to resto staff or snb skills.

Veriety comes with HOW each class is enabled in each role, not by locking classes out of cerrain roles by design. ESPECIALLY when your pool of base classes is a meager 5 count.

jerj6925

I want class identity and im a PVP-Player

Xuhora wrote: »

it seems to me that this question splits up the community: With the resent changes, making it easier for other classes than DK to tank or other classes than Templar to heal, the discussion got a new spark. It would interest me further if you play PVE or PVP

If everyone can do everything there is no need for classes, just pick a race and the skill trees you want. Currently to me it seems like they are getting rid of class identity and Templar has been left in the dust, when game first released I think they were the only one who could build them selves to tank (but not as good as dragon knight), be a damage dealer (but not quite as good as sorc) and they are of course the Main healer (no one can heal as well as they can). Now every class makes Templar looks like trash but in the healing department and even that is looking grim for Templar.

Minyassa

I want role diversity and im a PVE-Player

Class identity is so common and overdone that it's boring. True diversity so that we could build what our imaginations come up with and actually have it be effective would be fresh and exciting.

MisterBigglesworth

I want class identity and im a PVP-Player

DKs should be the tanks
Temps should be the healers
NBs should be the melee
Sorcs should be the ranged
Warden should be deleted

Marginis

MisterBigglesworth wrote: »

DKs should be the tanks
Temps should be the healers
NBs should be the melee
Sorcs should be the ranged
Warden should be deleted

Lol. But seriosly, probably not. I like my magical Nightblade.

Thorstienn

MisterBigglesworth wrote: »

DKs should be the tanks
Temps should be the healers
NBs should be the melee
Sorcs should be the ranged
Warden should be deleted

May as well throw race and stam/Mag in there too.

What you described isn't class identity. It role specific classes. How can a class have an identity if it is the only role that does it? It's not, DKs are flamey, sorcs have pets and lightning, etc... it just do you want to be tank, healer, melee or range!

MisterBigglesworth

I want class identity and im a PVP-Player

Thorstienn wrote: »

MisterBigglesworth wrote: »

DKs should be the tanks
Temps should be the healers
NBs should be the melee
Sorcs should be the ranged
Warden should be deleted

May as well throw race and stam/Mag in there too.

What you described isn't class identity. It role specific classes. How can a class have an identity if it is the only role that does it? It's not, DKs are flamey, sorcs have pets and lightning, etc... it just do you want to be tank, healer, melee or range!

Well to that I would just say: there's nothing inherently disjointed with a flame-based tanking class, and there's nothing about having pets that precludes one from being the dedicated ranged DPS class.

But I was just kidding anyway with my extreme example.

The way I would actually accomplish class identity and allow role diversity would be to get rid of all non-class abilties and give each class dozens of more abilities that fill roughly the same function. That way when you have to nerf/buff an ability because Class A is over/under-performing with it, the change does not inadvertently screw something up with Class B using the same skill. For example, with a Resto staff equipped, a Nightblade has 5 NB-specific healing spells, which can be balanced separately from the 5 DK-specific Resto staff skills or the 5 Sorc-specific Resto skills.