Solving the Class Stacking in PvE (Poll)

Masel

Hey There!

SInce the main goal of the class rep program is to deliver feedback and pain points ot the developers, we've been trying to find a way to achieve long-term class diversity in both aspects of the game, mainly for PvE 12-Man groups. The developers are aware of this problem, since we've been dealing with a class stacking meta for multiple patches now, and they've been trying to fix it by changing a few nightblade skills, (i.e. nerfing them). We've been voicing our disagreement to the changes because that is (as we perceive) the wrong direction to go for, given that it does not fix the underlying problem. Nerfing nightblade will simply shift the meta to something else, meaning another class that does the highest individual dps (it might even stay because NBs have other advantages that werent changed) will be the way to go fro most effective gameplay. So how could we potentially solve this undoubtedly complex issue?

In general, the thought is that mixing classes should be better than stacking one class as Damage Dealers, Tanks or Healers. This doesnt mean groups should be directly punished for stacking NB dds or DK tanks, but that it should simply not perform as well as mixing classes on the three roles. In the current state of the game, all buffs and debuffs can be delegated to healers and tanks, making many specs (stamplar, mag dk for example) lacklustre. They simply aren't needed to provide the crucial buffs or debuffs that their builds evolve around, because tanks or healers can do it just as well, and you reach a higher group dps output by just using nightblades and shift all of this group utility to tanks and healers.

I'll try to show it by using a simple example.

Let's say you have three Damage Dealers of different classes, all doing different dps on a boss fight:

Class 1 does 83k DPS
Class 2 does 81k DPS
Class 3 does 85k DPS

We also have a healer and a tank, a tank of class 2 and a healer of class 1.

Class 3 has the highest DPS, but does not provide anything to the group. We then have a buff that a Tank of Class 2 can provide, boosting the damage of all three by 10%. Class 1 also has another debuff boosting it by another 5%, but this debuff can be brought by a healer just as easily. In this scenario, it is obviously the best choice to have 3 DDs of Class 3 and use the healer and tank to provide the buffs and debuffs. Having the three DDs of class 3 simply outperforms, since the group dps will be 3*85*1.1*1.05=294.5k, while having one DD of each class will net you only (85+83+81)*1.1*1.05=287.6k group dps. This is the exact scenario that groups are currently in: all the essential buffs and debuffs can be provided by healers and tanks (synergies, engulfing, major/minor armor debuffs, vulnerabilities, major/minor courage, alkosh, crusher, minor brutality, minor prophecy, minor sorcery, minor toughness, minor savagery etc.). Therefore it is simply better to swap almost all of them to support roles. So how can this be resolved? There's a few possible ways to solve it, and i will provide two of them that seem the most doable (we always have to take complexity of implementation into acccount here, so a complete rework of the game is simply not doable at this point).

Case 1 (Diversity through a ot of Group Utility): There could simply be so many buffs and debuffs per class that support just cannot bring them all. So tanks and healers simply run out of bar space, and then some buffs and debuffs (class-specific ones) have to be brought by Damage dealers. However, this scenario has a few drawbacks: It requires a lot of coordination, and it increases the power gap by a whole lot simply because of the sheer amount of group utility to manage we'd have in that case. It also further makes tanks and healers focus less on their actual job.

Case 2 (Diversity through restricted group utility): Make each role of a class have something unique to contribute to the group that is restricted to that role. This wouldnt need more buffs and debuffs, since we already have quite a few of them that can simply be restructured. On the other hand this is tricky to implement and requires a lot of effort. It also increases the power gap since groups have to coordinate what they bring as DDs rather than having only the key roles (tanks and healers) focus on that. It just does not increase it as much as Case 1. There's multiple ways how to restrict the buffs ande debuffs (for example having debuffs only apply if a resource pool is higher than the other two or if you heal another target, e.g. PotL only applying minor breach and fracture if your stamina pool is the highest). It can also be perceived as "forced diversity", since you'd need to have as many specs as possible to reach the best possible outcome. This does not mean healers and tanks are supposed to have no group support, they should be included in this case to provide something unique, but not take away other the identity of other specs by providing their essential buffs/debuffs.

Case 3 (Class Stack): Current situation.


Since the devs are not that interested in suggestions and possible solutions, I will leave it at that here and simply let you vote on whichever case you find best or if you see another solution, provide it here.

EDIT: After a lot of discussions with players, i wanted to add a short list of frequent pro- and contra- arguments to the above cases that came up.

1. Players promoting the class stack do not want to be forced into a specific spec. If i want to play magplar, what if someone else in my group also wants to, but my group gets punsihed for using 2 of them? The counterargument that you are currently also forced into a specific spec was mentioned, but the likelihood of you playing what you want is actually lower in the class stack scenario, because you can also look for a group that needs what you can do or alternate with a friend to play your favorite toon.
2. Players said that ideally, you'd just have all classes be very close in terms of effective damage output and be done with it. The counterargument that it does not fix the setup for support roles came up and that individual DPS is not what should ultimaely decide what to bring, but rather group DPS. How would you make e.g. a templar tank more viable in that case when looking at DPS alone?
3. Players said that it is possible to do anything on any spec right now and that we don't need to change anything. While it is certainly true that all achievements can be done on any spec, it was countered by the point that you are holding your group back by going for a spec that is less effective than another.

troomar

Other (Provide another case)

You can start by giving stamSorcs an identity.

Masel

Case 2: Diversity throug restricted Group Utility

troomar wrote: »

You can start by giving stamSorcs an identity.

That is ideally part of the deal. And going back through all the older rep meeting notes, this is what i find:


Stamina based sorcerers are unhappy they don’t feel much they get much out of the class as Hurricane is the only damage ability they used. UNRESOLVED and CURRENTLY RECURRING AS IMPORTANT
The idea of a stamina Air Atronach morph (ala Ra Kotu from Hel Ra) was mentioned by several people. UNRESOLVED
Also a number of sorcerer passives don’t help the Stamina sorcerer UNRESOLVED

Stamina Sorcerers want to get more out of their class (bars dominated by weapon/generic abilities) and want to bring more to a group. UNRESOLVED

Stamina classes, in particular Dragonknight and Sorcerer, need to get more out of their native kit and feel a better sense of identity rather than just a collection of weapon abilities.
Stamina diversity in DPS is also lacking as gear and weapon bars are almost identical between classes. UNRESOLVED and RECURRING AS IMPORTANT


Overall we felt that from a Stamina sorcerer perspective, update 20 was more about what was being taken away, rather than was being added to make the class more interesting to play. The same, of course, is true from a Magicka perspective. UNRESOLVED

So you cant say we dont try to solve that problem.

LongMaySheReign

Case 3: Class Stacking

I think as long as the dps output of other classes are similar no need to limit people from using what they want to use as dd.(More people are using magplar and petsorc compared to before after their damage was buffed, and the situation will probably be similar with magdk after the next patch as well)

Destruent

What about making your max-stats effecting the length of the debuff?

e.g. if you have ~10k Stam (as healer) your minor breach/fracture from PotL lasts only 2 Sec. If a Stamplar has 30k...35k Stam the debuff lasts ~6...7 seconds. This would still allow everyone to apply the same debuff, but it would be really stressfull to do so.
This could atleast solve the problem for stamina-based buffs and debuffs. Not so much for Magicka based ones, but even there it should be a bit better, bc healers don't build for full magicka/spelldmg but for regen and maybe even health aswell.

Masel

Case 2: Diversity throug restricted Group Utility

Destruent wrote: »

What about making your max-stats effecting the length of the debuff?

e.g. if you have ~10k Stam (as healer) your minor breach/fracture from PotL lasts only 2 Sec. If a Stamplar has 30k...35k Stam the debuff lasts ~6...7 seconds. This would still allow everyone to apply the same debuff, but it would be really stressfull to do so.
This could atleast solve the problem for stamina-based buffs and debuffs. Not so much for Magicka based ones, but even there it should be a bit better, bc healers don't build for full magicka/spelldmg but for regen and maybe even health aswell.

That is one we have also thought about. This basically matches the 2nd case, just with another implementation.

Destruent

Masel wrote: »

Destruent wrote: »

What about making your max-stats effecting the length of the debuff?

e.g. if you have ~10k Stam (as healer) your minor breach/fracture from PotL lasts only 2 Sec. If a Stamplar has 30k...35k Stam the debuff lasts ~6...7 seconds. This would still allow everyone to apply the same debuff, but it would be really stressfull to do so.
This could atleast solve the problem for stamina-based buffs and debuffs. Not so much for Magicka based ones, but even there it should be a bit better, bc healers don't build for full magicka/spelldmg but for regen and maybe even health aswell.

That is one we have also thought about. This basically matches the 2nd case, just with another implementation.

True, but it's imo a bit better, bc otherwise the border between gets applied/not applied can be tricky to find. Newer players with less CP may find it hard to reach that point while healers with max-CP could just build for more Stamina.

colossalvoids

Case 2: Diversity throug restricted Group Utility

Was discussing potential potl change to be restricted to stamina stat pool and here is the thread, no-brainer situation fir me.

Runefang

Case 2: Diversity throug restricted Group Utility

I've always thought synergies is good place to encourage (force) group diversity, especially for the DD roles. Consider shadow silk today, it's a synergy that is single-handedly changing the meta.

troomar

Other (Provide another case)

Masel wrote: »

stuff

You've been collecting feedback for 1 year. For 1 whole year. And what did ZoS do? Nothing. They did nothing and they promised nothing. The only response we know from them (via class reps discord) is "We didn't have time".

So what do you need MORE feedback for? Why do you ask for BIGGER and more demanding changes when they "don't have time" (don't care) about such a triviality as giving stamSorcs an identity. Yes, I know it's not trivial to do such thing, but in the scope of "solving the class stacking" it IS just a tiny part. And they don't have time anyway, so why you ask for more? Here is our feedback and don't ask for more until you resolve it.

You should be angry that you spent 1 whole year of collecting feedback and the result is one big nothing. But you are not. You somehow, for whatever reason, are asking for more feedback and defend ZoS. I don't understand.

So my feedback to this topis is: make them finish our feedback from the last year and then we can talk about other things

polgarah

Any. So simple.

I wouldn't like you take this as something personal because it's not but you guys are the biggest part of the problem.

You guys are who have been pushing the game at this point and everybody is following you. If any of you, i don't wanna say any name, say this set is bis the truth is that if I want to play medium-high end I'll have to wear this set and if I'm not or if my skills are not the "correct" ones , don't deep enough (maybe 3 or 4k) I'll be ***. That's the problem and that's the truth.

I remember when u guys showed us the new bg playing with devs, one of them was a stamina class with a resto staff. Wtf????
Would u guys even considered this build??? Be honest, many of us know the answer.
You guys, not devs, are saying how to play this game and they are just trying to bring diversity until you find the new meta and we start again at point 0. There is not way every class have exactly the same dps and you know it u guys just want more deeps, skip mechanics and get the new high score. Don't put your blame on them guys.

Suddwrath

Case 1: Diversity through a lot of Group Utility

I'm a big fan of group utility through diversity. It encourages group coordination and variety.

Edit:
Meant to select Case 2 lol.

Masel

Case 2: Diversity throug restricted Group Utility

troomar wrote: »

Masel wrote: »

stuff

You've been collecting feedback for 1 year. For 1 whole year. And what did ZoS do? Nothing. They did nothing and they promised nothing. The only response we know from them (via class reps discord) is "We didn't have time".

So what do you need MORE feedback for? Why do you ask for BIGGER and more demanding changes when they "don't have time" (don't care) about such a triviality as giving stamSorcs an identity. Yes, I know it's not trivial to do such thing, but in the scope of "solving the class stacking" it IS just a tiny part. And they don't have time anyway, so why you ask for more? Here is our feedback and don't ask for more until you resolve it.

You should be angry that you spent 1 whole year of collecting feedback and the result is one big nothing. But you are not. You somehow, for whatever reason, are asking for more feedback and defend ZoS. I don't understand.

So my feedback to this topis is: make them finish our feedback from the last year and then we can talk about other things

I very much am frustrated about that. I made a post to the devs that summarised all the old rep meeting notes justa few days ago, leaving a large share of pain points still flagged as unresolved, as you see above. We had an outburst of frustration when elsweyr launched. Dont think we dont care about that.

Lightspeedflashb14_ESO

Man, all you people jumping on the class reps, a job that those people do not get paid for, need to pump the brakes on the crap you are slinging towards them. It really is not a good look for you guys.

ZeroXFF

Other (Provide another case)

Make Alkosh remove 100% of the resistances from the wearer. Boom! At least one stam DD is a must in trials. Seriously, Alkosh on tanks is cancer.

As for other buffs, you can make the utility be tied to how well you perform your role. For example, giving a stacking buff to the group based on how much damage you did in the past X seconds. That way you're forced to bring a DD for that buff.

But seriously, kill Alkosh for tanks, please.

Masel

Case 2: Diversity throug restricted Group Utility

polgarah wrote: »

Any. So simple.

I wouldn't like you take this as something personal because it's not but you guys are the biggest part of the problem.

You guys are who have been pushing the game at this point and everybody is following you. If any of you, i don't wanna say any name, say this set is bis the truth is that if I want to play medium-high end I'll have to wear this set and if I'm not or if my skills are not the "correct" ones , don't deep enough (maybe 3 or 4k) I'll be ***. That's the problem and that's the truth.

I remember when u guys showed us the new bg playing with devs, one of them was a stamina class with a resto staff. Wtf????
Would u guys even considered this build??? Be honest, many of us know the answer.
You guys, not devs, are saying how to play this game and they are just trying to bring diversity until you find the new meta and we start again at point 0. There is not way every class have exactly the same dps and you know it u guys just want more deeps, skip mechanics and get the new high score. Don't put your blame on them guys.

I dont even know what to tell you. Good job getting everything wrong...

polgarah

Masel wrote: »

I dont even know what to tell you. Good job getting everything wrong...

Thank you, I did my best xD.
As I said it's not personal it's just my opinion. Obviously you aren't agree with me but even If I'm wrong in many things there is one u or anyone can deny. Meta is your thing guys, not devs. You and only you are the ones who are looking for the new meta.

GrumpyDuckling

Other (Provide another case)

I am sure this will be unpopular, but it's the scoring aspect that I see as the problem. Chasing numbers reduces creative play and player preference options, leading to more instances where players simply run what is best available.

Why even give players that carrot (scores) to chase? All it does is encourage using the absolute best setups/classes, which is a mentality that trickles down to the rest of the game -- and it goes beyond classes. We have streamers who push usage of small percentage of available sets and call the rest trash. New players don't want to be trash, so many of them just copy builds.

I have said it before -- this is an Elder Scrolls game, but it too often feels like the cool monsters we are fighting are simply backdrops to the "real" game -- perfecting a rotation, buffing, and weaving to put up the highest numbers. When target skeleton parses significantly influence end-game, and that in turn changes how skills perform for ALL players across all content, then we have moved beyond TES being the focus. Some players like that, I don't. Again, I am sure my stance will be unpopular, but I see score-chasing as a significant part of the problem.

polgarah

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

I am sure this will be unpopular, but it's the scoring aspect that I see as the problem. Chasing numbers reduces creative play and player preference options, leading to more instances where players simply run what is best available.

Why even give players that carrot (scores) to chase? All it does is encourage using the absolute best setups/classes, which is a mentality that trickles down to the rest of the game -- and it goes beyond classes. We have streamers who push usage of small percentage of available sets and call the rest trash. New players don't want to be trash, so many of them just copy builds.

I have said it before -- this is an Elder Scrolls game, but it too often feels like the cool monsters we are fighting are simply backdrops to the "real" game -- perfecting a rotation, buffing, and weaving to put up the highest numbers. When target skeleton parses significantly influence end-game, and that in turn changes how skills perform for ALL players across all content, then we have moved beyond TES being the focus. Some players like that, I don't. Again, I am sure my stance will be unpopular, but I see score-chasing as a significant part of the problem.

I said this some posts above but apparently I got everything wrong xD

Masel

Case 2: Diversity throug restricted Group Utility

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

I am sure this will be unpopular, but it's the scoring aspect that I see as the problem. Chasing numbers reduces creative play and player preference options, leading to more instances where players simply run what is best available.

Why even give players that carrot (scores) to chase? All it does is encourage using the absolute best setups/classes, which is a mentality that trickles down to the rest of the game -- and it goes beyond classes. We have streamers who push usage of small percentage of available sets and call the rest trash. New players don't want to be trash, so many of them just copy builds.

I have said it before -- this is an Elder Scrolls game, but it too often feels like the cool monsters we are fighting are simply backdrops to the "real" game -- perfecting a rotation, buffing, and weaving to put up the highest numbers. When target skeleton parses significantly influence end-game, and that in turn changes how skills perform for ALL players across all content, then we have moved beyond TES being the focus. Some players like that, I don't. Again, I am sure my stance will be unpopular, but I see score-chasing as a significant part of the problem.

It is how this game works though. Damage, Healing, Mitigation, all that comes down to numbers. I've been an advocate for diversity and off-meta builds for as long as i play this game. But since it comes down to numbers and an MMO like ESO has leaderboards and scores as part of it, it is what we have to work with.

In any kind of group play, you have to take into consideration that you are not alone. That you can determine failure or success. And i dont see how that can be changed in a game that is after all, including a group play element.

MLGProPlayer

Case 2: Diversity throug restricted Group Utility

polgarah wrote: »

Masel wrote: »

I dont even know what to tell you. Good job getting everything wrong...

Thank you, I did my best xD.
As I said it's not personal it's just my opinion. Obviously you aren't agree with me but even If I'm wrong in many things there is one u or anyone can deny. Meta is your thing guys, not devs. You and only you are the ones who are looking for the new meta.

What are you talking about?

Everyone looks for the meta because it's the most efficient way to complete content. That's why OP made this post.

The current system encourages players to stack a single class because they have the highest DPS. By creating uniqueness among classes based on utility, class diversity would improve.

Tasear

Other (Provide another case)

I think part of the issue is controlling perception of community. There's just to few who experience end game in PvP or PvE. As such you have a stagnate group of tactics.


The best answer is number 1. Just add enough utility that it overwhelms people. I suggest brute Force method is only way to shake up very rooted beliefs.

Answer 2 as mentioned below, I was thinking about this. This really could work but they simply haven't done a good job with it. Ex warden... minor toughness does not help dps. No matter how much devs see it as such it just doesn't work in actual gameplay.

Cheap answer see how nercomancer and Nightblade plays out for groups. As nercomancer is example of case A while Nightblade changes is example of case b.






😂 P.S this is some irony was going to post a thread on different kinda of utility each class and role offers this weekend but got distracted.

Evemir

Case 3: Class Stacking

Honestly, I do not believe that the meta problem can be solved at all, because if people can choose from two different options, they always choose the path of least resistance, even if the difference is so small that you can't even notice it.
Therefore, I believe that each class should have one role, that's all.
Tanks should be only DK, and DK should be only tanks. Healers should be only Templar, and Templar should be only healers.
When choosing a class, you choose your role, and the game should be balanced around tanks, which are only DK, healers, who are only templar, and so on.

For example, you only need 1 tank for the dungeon and only 2 for the trial, if you give several unique buffs to each tank, then at some point people will still find the most useful, and there will be meta again.
Because you can't bring them all, and since the buffs are unique, some are better than others.

Tasear

Other (Provide another case)

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

polgarah wrote: »

Masel wrote: »

I dont even know what to tell you. Good job getting everything wrong...

Thank you, I did my best xD.
As I said it's not personal it's just my opinion. Obviously you aren't agree with me but even If I'm wrong in many things there is one u or anyone can deny. Meta is your thing guys, not devs. You and only you are the ones who are looking for the new meta.

What are you talking about?

Everyone looks for the meta because it's the most efficient way to complete content. That's why OP made this post.

The current system encourages players to stack a single class because they have the highest DPS. By creating uniqueness among classes based on utility, class diversity would improve.

I would like to interject the issue the biggest issue is simply stacking in PvE.

* Healing springs encourages this as it stacks
* excute burn phases with race against time encourages it
* Trial design encourages it with nothing happening but DPS stacks for players. You simple move DPS stacks from mob a, boss b then phase 3.

Answer is design makes higher dose best soultion always.

FakeFox

Other (Provide another case)

Classes need more actual diversity. Every class already provides unique buffs, but thats just numbers, in the end everything plays the same, just with different colors and names. Classes need to actually play different and have unique abilities and mechanics. Having a certain build being required for a situation, like we had with MagDKs for twins when MOL was new, is good, but having the same builds being required for everything, because all that matters are their damage buffs, is bad. ZOS has taken away a lot of class identity over the last few years and this was in my opinion the wrong thing to do here. I understand the reasoning behind that, but it should have been done the other way round. Classes that lacked unique strengths should have gotten some, instead of taking them away from the classes that had them.

The forced diversity approach with giving unique, kind of role specific, buffs has lead to the situation we have now with healers. We nearly always have the same two classes, because they simply are mathematically best in terms of group DPS. With Elsweyr this could likely narrow down even more with Necromancer having a good chance at becoming dominant in the healer meta. The problem here is that all healers play pretty much the same. There is no reason to pick a certain class because it fits the situation or playstyle, instead you pick whatever provides the superior buffs. The meta here was actually more diverse before the focus on those buffs, because while two Templars was the meta, playing a non Templar healer only really made it harder for your self, but didn't directly hurt the group.

Masel

Case 2: Diversity throug restricted Group Utility

FakeFox wrote: »

Classes need more actual diversity. Every class already provides unique buffs, but thats just numbers, in the end everything plays the same, just with different colors and names. Classes need to actually play different and have unique abilities and mechanics. Having a certain build being required for a situation, like we had with MagDKs for twins when MOL was new, is good, but having the same builds being required for everything, because all that matters are their damage buffs, is bad. ZOS has taken away a lot of class identity over the last few years and this was in my opinion the wrong thing to do here. I understand the reasoning behind that, but it should have been done the other way round. Classes that lacked unique strengths should have gotten some, instead of taking them away from the classes that had them.

The forced diversity approach with giving unique, kind of role specific, buffs has lead to the situation we have now with healers. We nearly always have the same two classes, because they simply are mathematically best in terms of group DPS. With Elsweyr this could likely narrow down even more with Necromancer having a good chance at becoming dominant in the healer meta. The problem here is that all healers play pretty much the same. There is no reason to pick a certain class because it fits the situation or playstyle, instead you pick whatever provides the superior buffs. The meta here was actually more diverse before the focus on those buffs, because while two Templars was the meta, playing a non Templar healer only really made it harder for your self, but didn't directly hurt the group.

I agree to that, but i dont see that happening. But giving other healers for example a clearly visible contribution creates a tradeoff scenario at least. If i don't pick a NB healer, i miss out on that buff. But if i dont pick a templar healer, i dont have that etc. Classes do not have an identity in group play, and not having something unique to contribute is part of that lack of idendity rather than preventing it

Moonsorrow

Masel wrote: »

Stamina classes, in particular Dragonknight and Sorcerer, need to get more out of their native kit and feel a better sense of identity rather than just a collection of weapon abilities.
Stamina diversity in DPS is also lacking as gear and weapon bars are almost identical between classes. UNRESOLVED and RECURRING AS IMPORTANT


Overall we felt that from a Stamina sorcerer perspective, update 20 was more about what was being taken away, rather than was being added to make the class more interesting to play. The same, of course, is true from a Magicka perspective. UNRESOLVED

So you cant say we dont try to solve that problem.

This.

So many of us hope some passives and active skills (more stam morphs) would be updated on stamsorc especially, so they they would feel as fun (and thus efficient also) to play as stam like as stamden and the stamina necromancer that is so well designed to be both, as well as awesome as a tank. Stamsorc feels so obsolete somehow, it is not that much fun to play anymore.. and i do not want it to become some FOTM op spec on pvp and/or pve, just want to feel it is something more than just Hurricane, it is as close as playing a classless class that can.

Magsorc is in a really good place right now (as all propably know), do not want the stamsorc changes to take out things from msorc, but.. there are magicka morphs that not many use on magsorc, some have had good ideas on them for the stamsorc. And yes, the Air Atronach would be really nice. Also a class spammable stam version like every other class has would be great.

#StamFrags2019

Do it for the cast time morph that see almost no use. @ZOS_BrianWheeler Just do it, i will love you more than the girl did in Titanic, i would not let you drown in the end. I would Silver Leash you back up from the depths and we would be happy and grow old together while playing ESO.

And back to the topic, the buffs to the class buffs like the Minor Sorcery, Brutality and so on was a right move, it already helps a bit.. because groups want them buffs.

To other classes to compete with DK as a tank for example, all need something like Engulfing Flames that buffs the groups dps so much as it does, because as long as its there only for dk, they will be the best choice. Either give others the chance to get that same debuff from some skill line or adjust that skill so that mdk dps would be happy to have that in their rotation (adjust damage) and make mdk be awesome enough to be asked to join in other roles as the tank too lol.

Still, a big part of the class stacking is a monster we as a community have created ourselves, if not for that 0.5% extra dps that people chase, everyone would join with the classes/specs they have most fun playing. I mean they are close enough so to have truly mixed teams is a possiblity. Not sure what ZOS can do much more about that.

But, making certain things available to other classes (like pull on Silver Leash) been really nice, my sorc tank loves that skill. She only wishes to have something like Engulfing.. maybe something similar but that makes the enemy take 10% more damage from all Lightning damage, Warden could have similar but to Frost damage, Templar to Magic damage, Nightblade to Physical damage, Necromancer to Disease damage. And adjusting the % value accordingly after some serious testing.

Would make some fun & interesting things possible.

FakeFox

Other (Provide another case)

Masel wrote: »

FakeFox wrote: »

Classes need more actual diversity. Every class already provides unique buffs, but thats just numbers, in the end everything plays the same, just with different colors and names. Classes need to actually play different and have unique abilities and mechanics. Having a certain build being required for a situation, like we had with MagDKs for twins when MOL was new, is good, but having the same builds being required for everything, because all that matters are their damage buffs, is bad. ZOS has taken away a lot of class identity over the last few years and this was in my opinion the wrong thing to do here. I understand the reasoning behind that, but it should have been done the other way round. Classes that lacked unique strengths should have gotten some, instead of taking them away from the classes that had them.

The forced diversity approach with giving unique, kind of role specific, buffs has lead to the situation we have now with healers. We nearly always have the same two classes, because they simply are mathematically best in terms of group DPS. With Elsweyr this could likely narrow down even more with Necromancer having a good chance at becoming dominant in the healer meta. The problem here is that all healers play pretty much the same. There is no reason to pick a certain class because it fits the situation or playstyle, instead you pick whatever provides the superior buffs. The meta here was actually more diverse before the focus on those buffs, because while two Templars was the meta, playing a non Templar healer only really made it harder for your self, but didn't directly hurt the group.

I agree to that, but i dont see that happening. But giving other healers for example a clearly visible contribution creates a tradeoff scenario at least. If i don't pick a NB healer, i miss out on that buff. But if i dont pick a templar healer, i dont have that etc. Classes do not have an identity in group play, and not having something unique to contribute is part of that lack of idendity rather than preventing it

Yes, I though about that problem as well. Just getting rid of the current direction without a adequate replacement isn't a good option. However especially for tanks and healers at least contributing a few buffs is very bad in my opinion. It always leads to support roles having to take over whatever is the largest DPS loss to play for the DDs.

I guess strong class identity goes against the much-cited "every class in every role" and "play however you want." However I think ESO is the best game to push class identity as the shared skill lines provide a interesting counterweight other MMOs don't have.

Tasear

Other (Provide another case)

Masel wrote: »

FakeFox wrote: »

Classes need more actual diversity. Every class already provides unique buffs, but thats just numbers, in the end everything plays the same, just with different colors and names. Classes need to actually play different and have unique abilities and mechanics. Having a certain build being required for a situation, like we had with MagDKs for twins when MOL was new, is good, but having the same builds being required for everything, because all that matters are their damage buffs, is bad. ZOS has taken away a lot of class identity over the last few years and this was in my opinion the wrong thing to do here. I understand the reasoning behind that, but it should have been done the other way round. Classes that lacked unique strengths should have gotten some, instead of taking them away from the classes that had them.

The forced diversity approach with giving unique, kind of role specific, buffs has lead to the situation we have now with healers. We nearly always have the same two classes, because they simply are mathematically best in terms of group DPS. With Elsweyr this could likely narrow down even more with Necromancer having a good chance at becoming dominant in the healer meta. The problem here is that all healers play pretty much the same. There is no reason to pick a certain class because it fits the situation or playstyle, instead you pick whatever provides the superior buffs. The meta here was actually more diverse before the focus on those buffs, because while two Templars was the meta, playing a non Templar healer only really made it harder for your self, but didn't directly hurt the group.

I agree to that, but i dont see that happening. But giving other healers for example a clearly visible contribution creates a tradeoff scenario at least. If i don't pick a NB healer, i miss out on that buff. But if i dont pick a templar healer, i dont have that etc. Classes do not have an identity in group play, and not having something unique to contribute is part of that lack of idendity rather than preventing it

Just finding right group buff is hard. Nightblade healers did get something for group but hasn't changed situation.

RaptorRodeoGod

Case 1: Diversity through a lot of Group Utility

Make it statistically impossible to bring every buff/debuff to a raid. Give every single skill and morph a unique buff or debuff. Give stamina classes skills that aid magicka classes, give dps skills that provide buffs to tanks and healers that make their jobs easier.

Add unique buffs and debuffs that drastically raise the floor, so that low-tier and mid-teir players have access to more of the content they pay for.

Hopefully a solution can be made that makes everyone feel like they bring something unique and desirable to the group.

*Edited for spelling

Tasear

Other (Provide another case)

RaptorRodeoGod wrote: »

Make it statistically impossible to bring every buff/debuff to a raid. Give every single skill and morph a unique buff or debuff. Give stamina classes skills that aid magicka classes, give dps skills that provide buffs to tanks and healers that make their jobs easier.

Add unique buffs and debuffs that drastically raise the floor, so that low-tier and mid-teir players have access to more of the content they pay for.

Hopefully a solution can be made that makes everyone feel like they bring something unique and desirable to the group.

*Edited for spelling

Also got to wiegh the value of dps increase buffs vs defensive buffs better. Again the issue fundamental design that stacks things for DPS increase.