Solving the Class Stacking in PvE (Poll)

polgarah

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.

Do you think devs want meta??? No, they don't want it, for sure... but it's impossible that every class have the same amount of dps and be different for the rest. And yes, I know it happens in every game but if you want scores you'll always have a meta because you guys are going to looking for it. And you know guys, the scores are the stick and you are always running for them.
The efficient way is NOT the only way but it's exactly what we have now, right??? why?? We are always running in circles, you can't have diversity, identity, scores and no meta at the same time.

I'm going to say it again. I'm not against Masel or his proposals but it won't change anything.

idk

For the most part it seems the idea presented in the OP is to force class diversity. Not through good designs of each class but by providing buffs to each class that makes it impossible to ignore. This seems to be a slippery slope that is more likely to cause more issues than it solves. It could also add to more server load (think PvP) if the added "utility" requires more calculation by the servers.

Further, it does not solve the bigger issue that stam does not perform as well in situations a great deal of movement is required such as vAS +2 because their means to deliver the DPS while highly mobile falls well behind magicka. There are others areas where certain classes or builds fall behind as well.

Outside of classes (and more specifically mag or stam versions of classes) that perform poorly there is class diversity outside of the most competitive raid groups. While a balance between melee and ranged is desired for anti-stacking mechanics in some fights, most raids that are formed are not restricting class from joining but merely require they can do their role.

Tasear

Other (Provide another case)

idk wrote: »

For the most part it seems the idea presented in the OP is to force class diversity. Not through good designs of each class but by providing buffs to each class that makes it impossible to ignore. This seems to be a slippery slope that is more likely to cause more issues than it solves. It could also add to more server load (think PvP) if the added "utility" requires more calculation by the servers.

Further, it does not solve the bigger issue that stam does not perform as well in situations a great deal of movement is required such as vAS +2 because their means to deliver the DPS while highly mobile falls well behind magicka. There are others areas where certain classes or builds fall behind as well.

Outside of classes (and more specifically mag or stam versions of classes) that perform poorly there is class diversity outside of the most competitive raid groups. While a balance between melee and ranged is desired for anti-stacking mechanics in some fights, most raids that are formed are not restricting class from joining but merely require they can do their role.

Class diversity is also pushed by most competitive groups. They have ethos and logos to convince many that this is right way of doing things. Then the sheep have no exposure to anything else and follow down the slope we have been following.

tinythinker

Other (Provide another case)

Still waking up so I apologize if this actually fits in one of the listed cases or goes off-topic. But my framing is different.

I would categorize DPS as

Type 1: Selfish - no group buffs, just does a ton of DPS. Yeeeehaaaaaaaaw!
Type 2: Support - provides group buffs

You could further distinguish between
Type A: Single-Target focused
Type B: Multi-Target focused

This second group could be based on self-buffing and synergies. Note that this doesn't mean that a class is *only* good at one or the other but that it's noticeably *better* at one than the other.

So to sketch that out as a "for instance", you'd want a few Type 2s for the buffs (and there could be limited redundancy or overlap between classes so that "as long as you have a this or a that" you are OK). Of course, people might then still want to ask "Which has higher dps?" but there could be comparable yet no essential differences in what each Type 2 brings and roughly similar dps potential. If some people want try to optimize *sooooo* much let them sit down and crunch out all the possible combinations and let everyone else play with multiple configurations that can do comparably well. (After all with all of sets and skill lines classes aren't the only balance issue.)

You'd also want a few Type 1s for the raw damage output, both 1 As and 1 Bs. Again there would be balance issues, but again more among a limited subset. Like stamsorcs vs stamomancers.

I guess then my answer is somewhere between Case 1 and Case 2. There would still be some stacking. If you tried to eliminate any and all remotely possible potential for stacking, people would be forced to wait until they got a particular class/build before starting unless they wanted to be at a serious disadvantage. You will never get rid of some min-maxers stacking some things, but at least in the Types 1 and 2/Subtypes A and B scenario or something like it, there is less stacking and it's easier to see why a particular 1A isn't measuring up to what another 1A brings.

To that point let's look at a game that has a unique take on balance -- FFXIV. Why? Because you can level up all jobs (what they call classes) on a single character and swap between them in a snap. So yeah, Bard and Machinist are both ranged physical DPS but Bard seems to give better group buffs, so people can pin down what might make Machinist better by a direct comparison to Bard. Does it mean perfect balance is achieved? No. It means the devs can see which types of classes doing certain roles are getting played more and why, which helps with future planning. Obviously FFXIV doesn't have multiple options for skills within a class nor gear that radically changes gameplay with major set bonuses so keep in mind I'm simply talking about the idea of asking "Which type of or variant on a role are you?" issue.

---

But the thing is, all of this also depends on dugeon/trials design. People will want to take what is needed. If we don't need healing, it will get nerfed and replaced by buffs, or for some dungeons the healer may be replaced altogether by a third dps. There is that, and also how trying to balance all of the sets and non-class skill lines somehow seems to come back to punish classes from time to time.

Moreover, the whole discussion of how to fix class stacking and the proposed work-arounds seem at odds with the philosophy of the last few years that "all classes should be comparably viable at all things and content", with class changes and new sets to ensure this is possible (go back and see above paragraph for a fun loop). Yeah, sure, you should be able to heal as a DK, but should it just be a reskin of another class' healing? Or something unique? In the end maybe a unique way of DK healing could be harder to master but just as effective with a skilled player.

Sooooo... I mean... there has to be a consistent vision and priority here between gear designers, class designers, dungeon/trial designers, the PvP experience designers, etc. Are classes supposed to be easily and equally interchangeable at every level or not? If not, in what ways are they set with or set apart from other classes? Which "type" of tank, healer, or dps does a class (or class subtype) excel at? Is there anything totally unique to them?

For me, personally, if the whole "How do I balance dungeon and trial groups" was my top priority I would have to sit down and come up with something like what I hinted at above:

Tank
- Type 1 and 2
- Subtype A and B

Healer
- Type 1 and 2
- Subtype A and B

DPS
- Type 1 and 2
- Subtype A and B

(And yes you could have more types and subtypes as needed or desired.)

Then I would look at subtypes within each class:
- tank
- stamina DPS
- magicka DPS
- healer
- hybrid stam-magicka?

I would ask, "Where do stamDKs fit in to the top list? Oh, I think they should be Type 1 dps with subtype B..." Then, "Hmm, where should a DK healer go? Yeah, their theme and current kit most closely fit Type 2 healer with subtype B..."

Now that doesn't mean they are totally crammed into or restricted to those niches, but that these are what they are *primarily* optimized for. But with so many other skill lines and all of the gear options you could still defy that as a clever theorycrafter. Yet it gives focus for a dev team.

From the perspective a non-class rep player it feels to me like class balancing is a bit patchwork and piecemeal then remodeled over the old layers of patchwork to create a new layer, with a few additional reactionary changes tossed in here and there. I don't have access to what actually happens but that's the impression I've received for a while now. Which leads to some players going so far in their imaginations to believe that balancing at ZOS is like, "People are $#%ing about this or that class/build so let's nerf it by X% because a spreadsheet says that is the percent they are doing better than other classes in this particular role." I hope that's an unfair mis-characterization. But it's a perspective that seems be behind a lot of the threads complaining about class changes, along with the "PvP ruins PvE" mindset.

---

And I will probably make this last bit a separate post at some point, but on a tangent to the theme here -- the OP mentioned the "nerf it" response toward some aspects of class balance, but it really should be based on a known system either like the one I gave or some other similar design to give confidence in dev decisions being more than just piecemeal and reactionary.

Also -- and here's the part that probably could be another post or even a YT video -- the "fun factor" needs to be involved in decision making. I know it doesn't need to be said and I don't think the devs want to make things "less fun", so clarification might help.

Tangent in spoiler below

To give an example, I will make up a fake class and class skill so that the point is not lost on arguing over a real class and skill. And this class has a skill that goes *pop* *pop*. Let's use that for the name as well for convenience. The first *pop* is an animation that hits the target in the throat. The second rapid follow-up *pop* hits the target in the head. (Or for non-humanoids we would imagine some kind of other pressure point). The first pop silences the target. The second concusses or sets the target off balance. It does moderate damage.

Here's how the patch notes have largely looked to me the past few years:

Patch W: Because of recent changes to how blah blah blah works, we've removed the second *pop* but we have also reduced the cast time by 0.5 seconds and increased damage by 12%

Patch X: The (remaining) *pop* no longer silences the target for 3 seconds, but instead interrupts any spell being cast; damage has been reduced by 5%

Patch Y: This ability no longer does a *pop* or interrupt a target, but instead gives the target minor fracture for 6 seconds

Patch Z: This ability has had its damage increased by 8% and the length duration of minor fracture has been reduced to 4 seconds

Yes, class abilities change in MMORPGs and there are always people who get upset by this. Of course. It's how these types of games work. But look at the original ability vs the end-result:

"Ability strikes the target twice, the first blow silencing the target for 3 seconds and the second one knocking the target off-balance" to "Ability gives 4 seconds of minor fracture"

In the first case, if the target were a player they might be able to block the first or perhaps only the second *pop*. Plus the ability went from offering a couple of things with interesting consequences to more of a pure utility option. Plus the feel of it was more unique. Like, I'm playing as a fast-striking fighter who incapacitates foes with multiple effects but then going to a flatter, more generic impact.

Many times, I've seen fun abilities get flattened and become *both* less useful to me and more boring. Previously it was like, "Oh we took away Blinding Light but gave you Radiant Destruction". Sure, some people still miss the former but the latter was really fun for a while. Other changes, like Agony to Malevolent Offering, didn't go over quite as well but it was still felt like getting something substantial, trading one thing for another. Now, well, again, see above

tinythinker

Other (Provide another case)

Oops, typed that whole thing out a few hours ago and forgot to post it. Sorry it's so long I think and analyze while I write, so you can kind of see my thought process as I developed my response

Royaji

Other (Provide another case)

The path of forced diversity is a very tricky one. I remember times when people used to bring magDK chainers for vMoL. It really sucked when you had full group ready but wasn't able to find two chainers. And I remember ZOS stating that they want to avoid the situation where group leader has to say "sorry guys, our stamplar is not on today so we are not raiding". At the high end everyone has alts of every class and type and has no trouble switching around depending on where the meta blows but games should not be balanced about that top end. Many casual players can play 1-2 characters at trials level and some of them will enivitably be shut out of groups because "sorry, we need a magplar and you are a magsorc".

Some might say that it already happens today but if group buffs were to be significant enough to shift the meta for score pushing groups they would be a lot more influential than the fact that magsorc pulls 5-6k less than a magplar like it is today. One person pulling several k less is not as significant as the whole group having 10% less DPS because someone didn't bring the required buff.

I would rather see ZOS rethink their approach to content design. Bosses with different vulnerabilities, bosses with different resistances, bosses which do not shut out melee or teleport every 10 seconds turning the fight into that one Benny Hill episode... And add some more targeted adjustments to help some of the weaker class/role combinations to justify their presence in the group.

GrumpyDuckling

Other (Provide another case)

Masel wrote: »

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.

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.

Leaderboard mentality IS the problem. You said in your original post that there is a "class-stacking meta." That exists, mainly, because people want the highest scores, regardless of class. Remove the leaderboards, and the focus is more on completing the content with whatever class a person wants to use, and less about who completes the content with the highest score.

Again, I am sure this take isn't popular, but remove scoring and you get closer to achieving your objective -- diversity of class choice.

Morgul667

Other (Provide another case)

Masel wrote: »

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.

Thank you for this

Morgul667

Other (Provide another case)

I have mixed feelings on this

I like case 2 but i dont trust ZOS for making it correctly

reprosal

Part of the issue in my opinion isn’t necessarily just simply class balance.

It’s that the meta mundus and gearset seems to favor stamblades that synergize well with high crit high crit damage gear.

Want more build diversity and class identity? Make stam classes other than NB hit harder with more weapon damage with a class ability that is relative to stacking crit/crit damage.

templesus

Case 2: Diversity throug restricted Group Utility

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

Masel wrote: »

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.

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.

Leaderboard mentality IS the problem. You said in your original post that there is a "class-stacking meta." That exists, mainly, because people want the highest scores, regardless of class. Remove the leaderboards, and the focus is more on completing the content with whatever class a person wants to use, and less about who completes the content with the highest score.

Again, I am sure this take isn't popular, but remove scoring and you get closer to achieving your objective -- diversity of class choice.

Terrible, terrible idea. If they take away leaderboards they’re effectively killing off what’s left of the endgame community. Might as well make the game single player at that point. Hope what you said NEVER gets implemented, as that will be the day the top players quit the game.

GrumpyDuckling

Other (Provide another case)

templesus wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

Masel wrote: »

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.

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.

Leaderboard mentality IS the problem. You said in your original post that there is a "class-stacking meta." That exists, mainly, because people want the highest scores, regardless of class. Remove the leaderboards, and the focus is more on completing the content with whatever class a person wants to use, and less about who completes the content with the highest score.

Again, I am sure this take isn't popular, but remove scoring and you get closer to achieving your objective -- diversity of class choice.

Terrible, terrible idea. If they take away leaderboards they’re effectively killing off what’s left of the endgame community. Might as well make the game single player at that point. Hope what you said NEVER gets implemented, as that will be the day the top players quit the game.

The thing is, though, I'm not wrong. That carrot (leaderboards) exists, so obviously people are going to choose what gets them to the carrot first, and the fastest.

idk

Tasear wrote: »

idk wrote: »

For the most part it seems the idea presented in the OP is to force class diversity. Not through good designs of each class but by providing buffs to each class that makes it impossible to ignore. This seems to be a slippery slope that is more likely to cause more issues than it solves. It could also add to more server load (think PvP) if the added "utility" requires more calculation by the servers.

Further, it does not solve the bigger issue that stam does not perform as well in situations a great deal of movement is required such as vAS +2 because their means to deliver the DPS while highly mobile falls well behind magicka. There are others areas where certain classes or builds fall behind as well.

Outside of classes (and more specifically mag or stam versions of classes) that perform poorly there is class diversity outside of the most competitive raid groups. While a balance between melee and ranged is desired for anti-stacking mechanics in some fights, most raids that are formed are not restricting class from joining but merely require they can do their role.

Class diversity is also pushed by most competitive groups. They have ethos and logos to convince many that this is right way of doing things. Then the sheep have no exposure to anything else and follow down the slope we have been following.

Really? 6 NBs in this group and Hodor is a fairly competitive raid group. Yes, I know one of the reasons NBs were stacked has changed, but it does show the ethos and logos is not to strive for class diversity but what helps the group meet their goals.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKT8IpCrMOw

Masel

Case 2: Diversity throug restricted Group Utility

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

Masel wrote: »

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.

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.

Leaderboard mentality IS the problem. You said in your original post that there is a "class-stacking meta." That exists, mainly, because people want the highest scores, regardless of class. Remove the leaderboards, and the focus is more on completing the content with whatever class a person wants to use, and less about who completes the content with the highest score.

Again, I am sure this take isn't popular, but remove scoring and you get closer to achieving your objective -- diversity of class choice.

I'm not into score pushing myself, and I agree with you. I dont think that scoreboards are necessary, but they also are part of basically all MMOs, and ESO is a MMO after all. Also there are players who get their fun out of them, and they're part of the community as well.

idk wrote: »

For the most part it seems the idea presented in the OP is to force class diversity. Not through good designs of each class but by providing buffs to each class that makes it impossible to ignore. This seems to be a slippery slope that is more likely to cause more issues than it solves. It could also add to more server load (think PvP) if the added "utility" requires more calculation by the servers.

Further, it does not solve the bigger issue that stam does not perform as well in situations a great deal of movement is required such as vAS +2 because their means to deliver the DPS while highly mobile falls well behind magicka. There are others areas where certain classes or builds fall behind as well.

Outside of classes (and more specifically mag or stam versions of classes) that perform poorly there is class diversity outside of the most competitive raid groups. While a balance between melee and ranged is desired for anti-stacking mechanics in some fights, most raids that are formed are not restricting class from joining but merely require they can do their role.

What you criticise is a different topic and a class having an interesting playstyle and it having group utility is not mutually exclusive. Ideally, they would coincide and have BOTH. All of the points you discussed are entirely different and only indirectly related to what I suggested. I totally agree that those aspects you mentioned are problematic, but they do not affect what I suggested here, and need addressing on top of it.


I'm a little bit baffled by how often the unique playstyles per class are coming up as an Argument to basically replace what i said here. A class can be as interesting as it can be, but if it has low performance and no group utility, why play it? Once again, this is not meant to be the only point of concern, but a very important one. What I posted above for stamsorc is basically valid for almost all damage dealers at this point. Some feel interesting to play (wardens are really fun), but they dont contribute anything that you really need, and what they have is better distributed by a tank or healer.

Royaji

Other (Provide another case)

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

Masel wrote: »

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.

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.

Leaderboard mentality IS the problem. You said in your original post that there is a "class-stacking meta." That exists, mainly, because people want the highest scores, regardless of class. Remove the leaderboards, and the focus is more on completing the content with whatever class a person wants to use, and less about who completes the content with the highest score.

Again, I am sure this take isn't popular, but remove scoring and you get closer to achieving your objective -- diversity of class choice.

There are maybe 5-10 groups per server who are legit going for score runs. Most groups just want to clear content. And due to ZOS decision to make most fights completely unrecoverable (2-3 deaths and time needed to rez those people put you so much behind on mechanics that you might as well wipe and try again) even those groups have only two choices. Either they become flawless and complete every mechanic perfectly (the hard way) or they suck it up, give up on their "favourite" characters and bring the most efficient team because more damage means less mechacis and more wiggle room for mistakes to happen (generaly the easier way).

Removing scores will not solve that issue. You can bring 6 stamina to vAS (not even talking about +anything) but you will need a lot of patience and lube which pretty much defeats the whole point of casual non-meta raid group. Meta exists not only because it gives the best score. But also because it is the easiest way to actually clear content and not spend weeks wiping on twins or something (another thing more casual group can't really do).

idk

Masel wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

Masel wrote: »

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.

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.

Leaderboard mentality IS the problem. You said in your original post that there is a "class-stacking meta." That exists, mainly, because people want the highest scores, regardless of class. Remove the leaderboards, and the focus is more on completing the content with whatever class a person wants to use, and less about who completes the content with the highest score.

Again, I am sure this take isn't popular, but remove scoring and you get closer to achieving your objective -- diversity of class choice.

I'm not into score pushing myself, and I agree with you. I dont think that scoreboards are necessary, but they also are part of basically all MMOs, and ESO is a MMO after all. Also there are players who get their fun out of them, and they're part of the community as well.

idk wrote: »

For the most part it seems the idea presented in the OP is to force class diversity. Not through good designs of each class but by providing buffs to each class that makes it impossible to ignore. This seems to be a slippery slope that is more likely to cause more issues than it solves. It could also add to more server load (think PvP) if the added "utility" requires more calculation by the servers.

Further, it does not solve the bigger issue that stam does not perform as well in situations a great deal of movement is required such as vAS +2 because their means to deliver the DPS while highly mobile falls well behind magicka. There are others areas where certain classes or builds fall behind as well.

Outside of classes (and more specifically mag or stam versions of classes) that perform poorly there is class diversity outside of the most competitive raid groups. While a balance between melee and ranged is desired for anti-stacking mechanics in some fights, most raids that are formed are not restricting class from joining but merely require they can do their role.

What you criticise is a different topic and a class having an interesting playstyle and it having group utility is not mutually exclusive. Ideally, they would coincide and have BOTH. All of the points you discussed are entirely different and only indirectly related to what I suggested. I totally agree that those aspects you mentioned are problematic, but they do not affect what I suggested here, and need addressing on top of it.


I'm a little bit baffled by how often the unique playstyles per class are coming up as an Argument to basically replace what i said here. A class can be as interesting as it can be, but if it has low performance and no group utility, why play it? Once again, this is not meant to be the only point of concern, but a very important one. What I posted above for stamsorc is basically valid for almost all damage dealers at this point. Some feel interesting to play (wardens are really fun), but they dont contribute anything that you really need, and what they have is better distributed by a tank or healer.

I have said nothing about playstyle other than stamina being mostly limited to melee, but that was such as small part of the comment.

I am baffled how you ignored that and are focused on what really matters so much less. If you are actually interested in feedback you will go back and what I stated again and hopefully take time to actually read that I have stated the idea presented in the OP is suggesting FORCING the use of all classes in competitive raiding instead of bringing about balancing the classes. My fear is it would lead to Zos being lazy in managing class damage.

That says nothing about playstyle,

DoonerSeraph

Case 2: Diversity throug restricted Group Utility

I think people are offloading too much utility into tanks and healers.

Really, I think there must be a balance of which kind of utility a role should bring to a group, without turning the tank into a permablockin meatball or turning healer into a springs spammer (whick would be boring).

Maybe utilities should be more evenly distributed so DPS can pick up some of the utility too, look at good designed sets like Master Architect and War Machine, they are good for DPS and have utility.

I think it's OK for a tank to use group sets like Ebon, which is a defensive utility and fits a tank, but IMO a tank using Alkosh does not fit that much, and this set should IMO scale the debuff from max stam and weapon damage, same thing for engulfing flames, scale it from max magicka and spell damage. Maybe even crusher could use that scaling (in this case, max stats).

I know people woule be pissed at this , but otherwise groups will just push all the utility into the tank and healer and go with the most DPS class regardless of what it brings to the table.

pelle412

Case 3: Class Stacking

I believe it is reasonable to balance classes so that they perform relatively similar within reason. All classes are already viable for end game content as it's up to the player to develop their skills with the class. Chasing class diversity in score pushes runs the risk of creating other problems as it would be a very delicate process. I don't really see this as a big problem for ESO overall.

Heelie

Case 3: Class Stacking

Some classes are easy for learning the game and reaching 30k dps+, a good case for this is magicka sorcerers. I see countless of people specing something like Xynodes easy sorc and then never bothering to learn anything else since his builds will get you through the easier content like DLC dungeons and so on.

I think one of the things Class Reps have completely missed is the difficulty to dps ratio. A class that have tons of damage from free sources of dps "passives" should'nt be a class played a lot among the top end game. There has to be a hierarchy among dps classes where the respective position of the classes represent their difficulty.

Now I think the argument can be made for night blades vastly overperforming in the recent two years. Also when putting into perspective the relative difficulty. But lets try and actually look at which groups have been stacking only nightblades.

If you define "end game" by simply getting the "hard" acheivements like TTT, GH and IR you're wrong to suggest that NBs are the only class picked up. Most of the TTT and the other acheivements earned the past few patches have sported "off meta" dps classes like magicka DK's and other classes that do not perform up to par. This is because power creep has pushed dps so high up that something like a 10k dps disparity is not as impactiful as just a year ago. You can put that one on Relequen.

So the groups running mainly nightblades "at least succesfully" is not the groups pushing acheivements. It's really only less than 5 guilds doing score pushing. Now these groups do have a huge impact on the meta as many eyes are often watching what they're doing and trying to implement it in their own groups. The problem i see is that these groups don't do class selecting like the average player. They don't have a personal ties to their characters at all. Almost all of them dont care about character specific acheivements if they even care at all. Trying to do social engineering / forced diversity on a group of people whom in realistic terms really work like an algorithm will never work. Every time ZOS does a new change it's simply a mathematical equation to them.

But what i think is most important to ask here is. Who is asking for these changes? Now the classes are essentially so close together that if you're better at a class. You will perform better on that class. and learning a new one will only gain you a minimal dps advantage. The most prestigious titles in the game can be made with essentially any group set up. and the top end game raiders arent really asking for ultimate class diversity.

This brings me to my point that really it's people whom wont be impacted by the radical changes screaming in an echo champer asking for class changes. It seems to be a thing pandered by people whom have heavy class biases who and try and scream as loud as possible so it might seem like their points are shared among more people.

idk

DoonerSeraph wrote: »

I think people are offloading too much utility into tanks and healers.

Really, I think there must be a balance of which kind of utility a role should bring to a group, without turning the tank into a permablockin meatball or turning healer into a springs spammer (whick would be boring).

Maybe utilities should be more evenly distributed so DPS can pick up some of the utility too, look at good designed sets like Master Architect and War Machine, they are good for DPS and have utility.

I think it's OK for a tank to use group sets like Ebon, which is a defensive utility and fits a tank, but IMO a tank using Alkosh does not fit that much, and this set should IMO scale the debuff from max stam and weapon damage, same thing for engulfing flames, scale it from max magicka and spell damage. Maybe even crusher could use that scaling (in this case, max stats).

I know people woule be pissed at this , but otherwise groups will just push all the utility into the tank and healer and go with the most DPS class regardless of what it brings to the table.

Before Zos nerfed Alkosh, and all proc sets, it was worn by dps in some competitive groups. iirc the damage does scale with stats as it should but when they removed the chance to crit it became not very good for dps.

I think it would also be the first buff/debuff that scaled, was variable in and of itself which would potentially add more load to the servers when we want to reduce it.

tinythinker

Other (Provide another case)

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

Leaderboard mentality IS the problem. You said in your original post that there is a "class-stacking meta." That exists, mainly, because people want the highest scores, regardless of class. Remove the leaderboards, and the focus is more on completing the content with whatever class a person wants to use, and less about who completes the content with the highest score.

Again, I am sure this take isn't popular, but remove scoring and you get closer to achieving your objective -- diversity of class choice.

Yes and no. The "top-tier raiding meta" syndrome exists even in MMORPGs where there are no leaderboards. Maybe some world first competition when a patch hits, but that's it.

Even in one game that comes to mind that fits what I just wrote, people *still* are like, "Oh but this is what top groups do!"

And streamers who are good at/knowledgeable about the game are like, "No my dudes, unless you are trying for world or sever first it doesn't matter. The extra few minutes you save aren't worth it, especially if you aren't good enough to pull off the meta anyway. Play what you want. Play what you think is fun. Everything is viable at end-game."

Yet people who use pre-made groups are often *still* grumbling about "only being able to get" a certain class or still blaming people who play a certain class for problems even if they did mechanics well with high parses.

In another game, the devs made it much easier to get high-end gear, so a lot of people leveled a flavor of the patch class and geared up like top raiders... but still do waaaaaay worse than actual skilled players who learned to play non-meta classes really well because they really love to play those off-meta choices.

A lot of this (not all, but quite a bit) is a perception and attitude issue.

I would love to see high-end raiders in ESO demonstrate this (and show off their skill) by posting runs using non-meta choices. It won't end the social psychology that leads to top-tier raiding meta syndrome but it might help redirect things. "Oh, the cool kids play off-meta. Yeah, I'm cool like that, too"

Destruent

idk wrote: »

DoonerSeraph wrote: »

I think people are offloading too much utility into tanks and healers.

Really, I think there must be a balance of which kind of utility a role should bring to a group, without turning the tank into a permablockin meatball or turning healer into a springs spammer (whick would be boring).

Maybe utilities should be more evenly distributed so DPS can pick up some of the utility too, look at good designed sets like Master Architect and War Machine, they are good for DPS and have utility.

I think it's OK for a tank to use group sets like Ebon, which is a defensive utility and fits a tank, but IMO a tank using Alkosh does not fit that much, and this set should IMO scale the debuff from max stam and weapon damage, same thing for engulfing flames, scale it from max magicka and spell damage. Maybe even crusher could use that scaling (in this case, max stats).

I know people woule be pissed at this , but otherwise groups will just push all the utility into the tank and healer and go with the most DPS class regardless of what it brings to the table.

Before Zos nerfed Alkosh, and all proc sets, it was worn by dps in some competitive groups. iirc the damage does scale with stats as it should but when they removed the chance to crit it became not very good for dps.

I think it would also be the first buff/debuff that scaled, was variable in and of itself which would potentially add more load to the servers when we want to reduce it.

Iirc alkosh never scaled with stats like wep-dmg/stam but ofcourse made use of crit/critdmg. And it was only worn by DPS if tanks didn't have it in competitive groups. DPS (especially bc of synergy-behaviour) wasn't that good at all.

Lord_Sando

Other (Provide another case)

"SAVE STAM SORC SAVE THE WORLD"

DoonerSeraph

Case 2: Diversity throug restricted Group Utility

G

idk wrote: »

DoonerSeraph wrote: »

I think people are offloading too much utility into tanks and healers.

Really, I think there must be a balance of which kind of utility a role should bring to a group, without turning the tank into a permablockin meatball or turning healer into a springs spammer (whick would be boring).

Maybe utilities should be more evenly distributed so DPS can pick up some of the utility too, look at good designed sets like Master Architect and War Machine, they are good for DPS and have utility.

I think it's OK for a tank to use group sets like Ebon, which is a defensive utility and fits a tank, but IMO a tank using Alkosh does not fit that much, and this set should IMO scale the debuff from max stam and weapon damage, same thing for engulfing flames, scale it from max magicka and spell damage. Maybe even crusher could use that scaling (in this case, max stats).

I know people woule be pissed at this , but otherwise groups will just push all the utility into the tank and healer and go with the most DPS class regardless of what it brings to the table.

Before Zos nerfed Alkosh, and all proc sets, it was worn by dps in some competitive groups. iirc the damage does scale with stats as it should but when they removed the chance to crit it became not very good for dps.

I think it would also be the first buff/debuff that scaled, was variable in and of itself which would potentially add more load to the servers when we want to reduce it.

Most people dont care that much about the damage of the shockwave on alkosh, but yeah, proc sets are kinda dead in PVE, but thats for another moment I think.

I don't think it would put that much stress in the server really, It would be very similar to how Relequen works now, except that the counter is hidden and applied when the shockwave hits the target.

IAVITNI

Case 2: Diversity throug restricted Group Utility

Just to add a little caveat, as I was very tempted to select other, I think dungeon/trial mechanics diversity is also a factor that can be considered. Obviously it’s hard to move away from the stack and burn but there are small ways to kind of push (without forcing) class diversity.

For example, I primarily run a stam sorc in pve outside of trials and I’m usually designated the mobile tasks. In fang lair hm, I’m always put on shalk duty because of the AoE and mobility allowing me to cross the room if necessary. VDSA I’m always asked to do torches (only by people who’ve never run with me because I sick at torches lol) in the ice round.

Another point of influence is the prevalence of single target damage. Mages wrath won’t be buffed because it has an AoE component but who needs an AoE execute when adds will naturally melt from caltrops, WoE etc.

Some boss fights introduce singular powerful adds that would suggest AoE would outperform but they die faster by just focusing st damage on them for a moment.

So in summary, combat mechanics and enemy composition could also be used to influence class diversity.

Tasear

Other (Provide another case)

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

Masel wrote: »

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.

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.

Leaderboard mentality IS the problem. You said in your original post that there is a "class-stacking meta." That exists, mainly, because people want the highest scores, regardless of class. Remove the leaderboards, and the focus is more on completing the content with whatever class a person wants to use, and less about who completes the content with the highest score.

Again, I am sure this take isn't popular, but remove scoring and you get closer to achieving your objective -- diversity of class choice.

They should add score points for different things not just DPS stacking. A lot of issues with diversity could be fixed.

Ragnarock41

Masel wrote: »

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.

A lot of opportunities are missed on this regard. I feel like this recent molten whip situation is one of them, I thought they would take a lesson from evil hunter and how its ''not used''.... but apparently not.

Nothing screams class identity like slotting a magicka skill that will punish me for actually using it

Can't wait for crystal frags to grant bonus weapon crit or something

Royaji

Other (Provide another case)

Tasear wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

Masel wrote: »

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.

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.

Leaderboard mentality IS the problem. You said in your original post that there is a "class-stacking meta." That exists, mainly, because people want the highest scores, regardless of class. Remove the leaderboards, and the focus is more on completing the content with whatever class a person wants to use, and less about who completes the content with the highest score.

Again, I am sure this take isn't popular, but remove scoring and you get closer to achieving your objective -- diversity of class choice.

They should add score points for different things not just DPS stacking. A lot of issues with diversity could be fixed.

But scores are not given for DPS stacking. The only things accounted in scores are very simple objective metrics - time and deaths. Finishing faster and with less deaths equals higher score. Same way as many real life competitions and sport diciplines are based on this very simple (ok, we are not that hardcore so deaths are replaced with mistakes/misses converted into time penalties) and objective system.

idk

Destruent wrote: »

idk wrote: »

DoonerSeraph wrote: »

I think people are offloading too much utility into tanks and healers.

Really, I think there must be a balance of which kind of utility a role should bring to a group, without turning the tank into a permablockin meatball or turning healer into a springs spammer (whick would be boring).

Maybe utilities should be more evenly distributed so DPS can pick up some of the utility too, look at good designed sets like Master Architect and War Machine, they are good for DPS and have utility.

I think it's OK for a tank to use group sets like Ebon, which is a defensive utility and fits a tank, but IMO a tank using Alkosh does not fit that much, and this set should IMO scale the debuff from max stam and weapon damage, same thing for engulfing flames, scale it from max magicka and spell damage. Maybe even crusher could use that scaling (in this case, max stats).

I know people woule be pissed at this , but otherwise groups will just push all the utility into the tank and healer and go with the most DPS class regardless of what it brings to the table.

Before Zos nerfed Alkosh, and all proc sets, it was worn by dps in some competitive groups. iirc the damage does scale with stats as it should but when they removed the chance to crit it became not very good for dps.

I think it would also be the first buff/debuff that scaled, was variable in and of itself which would potentially add more load to the servers when we want to reduce it.

Iirc alkosh never scaled with stats like wep-dmg/stam but ofcourse made use of crit/critdmg. And it was only worn by DPS if tanks didn't have it in competitive groups. DPS (especially bc of synergy-behaviour) wasn't that good at all.

It was a top team on their server. While it may have been a strat they were trying, but all their tanks had extremely easy access to Alkosh.

the_Beard

At first glance case #2 seems like the best approach, but thinking about it further introduces some more variables given the current group buffs.

For example, if using the highest resource pool to determine how much the buff gives, health would need to be taken into consideration. Using tank as an example providing engulfing flames, it could be possible for a tank to have slightly more magicka than stamina if health is ignored.

Power of the Light is another one that could be solved by #2, as no healer is typically going to have a bigger stam pool than magicka.

The main reason to use a sorc right now is for Liquid Lightning providing alkosh to the tank. This can easily be done by using a sorc healer rather than a dps. Storm atro is another unique buff, but only one person gets it. Most of the "support" from dps right now on the live server actually comes from gear sets, specifically those that grant major slayer (which automatically throws out the high-cost ult classes like magdk).

At the end of the day, "meta" dps and score-pushing mostly boil down to doing as much group dps as possible, and progression to a high score involves just cleaning up deaths as you progress.

If the idea is to improve dps composition, group buffs would have to outweigh stacking 8 of the strongest single target setups (ie 8 stamblades on live patch). Its also usually more beneficial to stack all stam over a half mag / half stam group in most of the trials. Because of such things, I tend to think that just narrowing the gaps between certain dps setups is best, even if it may be more difficult to achieve. There will always be a class/setup that does the most single target damage, but in an ideal world, the disparity would be much smaller than what we currently have.

The fixed raid target dummy currently on pts will certainly help point out where all the class/dps setups stack against each other.