Solving the Class Stacking in PvE (Poll)

MLGProPlayer

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.

Players will always seek the most efficient way to complete content. Progression groups that aren't chasing a high score still want to maximise their chances of competing the content, so they will still only use the strongest classes.

ShadowKyuubi

Case 2: Diversity throug restricted Group Utility

@Masel, Although case II is the most restricting for min/max the group buff, it would be more worth it in the long run. Either way we want it, class stacking will almost always be a thing. At least this way, the group is less punished if someone wants to bring another class. At least that class is brining something unique, despite not being bow/bow NB with trapping webs.

ShadowKyuubi

Case 2: Diversity throug restricted Group Utility

DoonerSeraph wrote: »

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.

This used to be a thing with other sets like Night mother's gaze and Sunderflame. It changed when ZoS decided to start standardizing all of the buffs and debuffs to be names and not stack. You used to have a stamblade run NMG because of their crit ratio and stamDK run Sunderflame because of the old heavy attack rotation. If they would revert back to un-named buffs, you would see a resurgence of these sets and non-meta classes wearing them again. But it won't happen, because ZoS

Tannus15

Case 2: Diversity throug restricted Group Utility

I agree in principle, but on the other hand in my progression groups it's usually "bring whatever you do the most dps on" not "NB or GTFO"

I'm doing vCR with some mag sorcs, some mag blades, 1 magplar as dps.
The bigger issue to be me is the lack of melee class representation.

I know people who used to the race change token to change their main from stam to mag simply because range is so important. You're never going to see mDK in trials, not because the tank can run engulfing, but because they are melee. Hell, I love having a mDK in the group as a tank because I have 1 less thing to worry about.

Make all setups good for the content and we'll see variety, but the trials themselves punish us for bringing diversity.

On a side note, I don't know anyone who is running a mag warden dps.
No one.

ShadowKyuubi

Case 2: Diversity throug restricted Group Utility

Tannus15 wrote: »

I agree in principle, but on the other hand in my progression groups it's usually "bring whatever you do the most dps on" not "NB or GTFO"

I'm doing vCR with some mag sorcs, some mag blades, 1 magplar as dps.
The bigger issue to be me is the lack of melee class representation.

I know people who used to the race change token to change their main from stam to mag simply because range is so important. You're never going to see mDK in trials, not because the tank can run engulfing, but because they are melee. Hell, I love having a mDK in the group as a tank because I have 1 less thing to worry about.

Make all setups good for the content and we'll see variety, but the trials themselves punish us for bringing diversity.

On a side note, I don't know anyone who is running a mag warden dps.
No one.

The ban on stamina based melee is leader specific. You can do any trial on vet, and HM, as a stamina dps. It requires a lot more practice however. People aren't patient enough to wait for a good stamina player to learn how to survive the mechanics. Now, certain mechanics, like the cloudrest orbs, are inherently harder for stamina, but they can still get it done, if done properly with the right setup.

idk

MLGProPlayer 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.

Players will always seek the most efficient way to complete content. Progression groups that aren't chasing a high score still want to maximise their chances of competing the content, so they will still only use the strongest classes.

This is not the case overall.

Only the most competitive groups are going to push for certain classes. Beyond that, progression groups not looking for leaderboards but for guild clears only care that you can do whatever numbers they require for their core team.

I also raid with a guild and sometimes get pulled into other guilds that are not competitive by any means and they clearly do not care what class you bring. Granted, I expect there are some raid leaders for similar type groups that may try to emulate top groups but are not wise enough to understand their group would probably do best on what their players do best on, not what other people play best.

Tasear

Other (Provide another case)

Thought about it more just do a and b.

Have unique class skills that give playstle and some identity but put major skills in balance like they did for shards vs orbs situation.

Tannus15

Case 2: Diversity throug restricted Group Utility

ShadowKyuubi wrote: »

Tannus15 wrote: »

I agree in principle, but on the other hand in my progression groups it's usually "bring whatever you do the most dps on" not "NB or GTFO"

I'm doing vCR with some mag sorcs, some mag blades, 1 magplar as dps.
The bigger issue to be me is the lack of melee class representation.

I know people who used to the race change token to change their main from stam to mag simply because range is so important. You're never going to see mDK in trials, not because the tank can run engulfing, but because they are melee. Hell, I love having a mDK in the group as a tank because I have 1 less thing to worry about.

Make all setups good for the content and we'll see variety, but the trials themselves punish us for bringing diversity.

On a side note, I don't know anyone who is running a mag warden dps.
No one.

The ban on stamina based melee is leader specific. You can do any trial on vet, and HM, as a stamina dps. It requires a lot more practice however. People aren't patient enough to wait for a good stamina player to learn how to survive the mechanics. Now, certain mechanics, like the cloudrest orbs, are inherently harder for stamina, but they can still get it done, if done properly with the right setup.

Not really, it's trial specific. Stamina are leaning hard on relequen right now and switching targets to orbs means dropping your stacks on the boss for example. This makes stam a lot less effective in real terms. In my experience when we start a trial in a progression group like vCR the first 2 runs you'll get a couple of people stubbornly sticking to their stam setup, and then reluctantly change over to their lower dps mag character because it's much easier.

The death counter and group dps % from cmx usually tells the tale all by itself.

MLGProPlayer

Case 2: Diversity throug restricted Group Utility

Tannus15 wrote: »

On a side note, I don't know anyone who is running a mag warden dps.
No one.

Magden has the lowest DPS in the game and no utility. They also have one of the toughest rotations. I'm not sure what ZOS was thinking when they designed the class (it doesn't seem they were thinking).

Ysbriel

Case 3: Class Stacking

Let people do whatever they feel like doing, you out NB as an example but if a whole guild feels like stacking either 12 wardens, templars, dragonknights or sorcerers, well let them do so. Class diversity should be left as a matter if personal choice not about if anybody feels there are too many of X class in use. I have a Character of each class and since i’ve been building them up every time i’ve finished building one there is a damm nerf or a damm change in the game because someone felt like X factor should be changed. Instead of nerfing and restricting they should fix and boost things to help out. But what have they done? create a new class and now focus on that new class.

cpuScientist

Case 3: Class Stacking

1. Is obviously the best answer, but 3 should be taken into account.

If we Keep everyone's DPS potential fairly similar. And have certain smart changes to certain skills like noxious giving extra poison damage, so either a mag or Stam DK should probably be dps if it's mixed group, just as an example. We keep dps potential similar and it will allow for everyone to play their favorite classes with their actual group of friends and not be penalized for picking said class. And let's face it this kind of group or even the more serious mid to high tier groups won't lose much by allowing any class basically. But if we also get buffs for the perfect team comp score runs when play what you want isn't a thing but also is only done by very few will then take the perfect team comp more seriously.

Option 1 will lead to the same thing if DPS is not kept similar between all classes. As there will be a minimum diversity found and then just stack the good DPS class and be done with it. But if everyone is fairly simlar in dps then we get all the buffs and won't really matter much to 90% of the population (number pulled from buttocks) who comes on what.

Joxer61

"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. "

AMEN! Play the game, don't chase the numbers......

bol

Case 2: Diversity throug restricted Group Utility

Although I voted for option 2, I do not quite agree with the description but more with the idea.

ESO is one of the most skill based MMOs, where player skill actually matters, and we all love it for that. But that openes a big divide between the top players and the average and then the not-so-good players. So on one end you have people screaming content is too hard and needs a nerf, while on the other end the top players are screaming its all too easy and needs to be made more difficult. So whatever changes are done to provide for greater group diversity should not create an even bigger divide between the average and the top (i leave out the 'bad' players as they simply will not complete the content in any case unless carried).

Normally groups consisting of PUGs or more casual players will have much greater class diversity than groups of top end players. Simply because more causal players are more inclined to the play what you like idea, and also don't have a toon of every class combo to bring when required.

The first thing would be that for BiS you would need to have at least one of each class in your party. That does not mean that missing one or several classes would make it impossible to clear content. It would simply be non-optimal in a way that maybe such group would miss a couple of percent of DPS. So basically by changing this, you will ensure that your average PUG gets stronger, since at the moment you will not likely get a PUG with 8 nb DDs. It would also force top end groups to reorganize and force some players to play the classes, but that is not changing the current state at all where everyone is forced to play a class (and build) anyway.

The second thing is that there should be no more effort needed to reap the benefits of multiple classes as it is when just playing normally. Again for the purpose of keeping the skill divide in control.

So my suggestion is to add some sort of class based synergies where each class should have several, but each would be unable to synergize with itself. So a skill1 of class A makes a field or debuff to the enemy, that class B or class C can utilize to increase their DPS. And a skill2 of class A makes a field or debuff to the enemy that class D and class E can utilize. then class B have skill which class A and class E can utilize to raise their DPS, etc...

The increase should be subtle, but would only work if classes are more balanced in the first place. ZoS need to correctly understand why trial groups are running 8 stamblade DDs as from the changes they are making they do not seem to. I think that the nb meta is there mostly due to execute damage. And even though you could say that is just 25% it is actually where the fight is the hardest, as in every trial and dungeon, execute is usually where you will get the deaths and the wipes. I think execute damage should be re-evaluated and balanced properly to non-execute damage. My belief is that during a long fight, the class that does the most damage during execute should actually have the lowest overall damage done during the entire fight. The ratio can only be determined by trial & error, as it is the people in the end that decide how much damage overall they are willing to drop to get through that execute phase faster.

Varana

Case 3: Class Stacking

Voted to keep everything as it is, mainly because of two reasons:

a) I don't trust ZOS to pull off large-scale changes like 1) and 2) in a sensible manner. Focus your feedback on smaller things that have a minuscule chance of being implemented, and don't require everyone to change their playstyle and/or class.

b) The problem is mostly an imaginary one, as several others have pointed out. It affects a tiny minority of the player base - yes, they're the endgame leaders, but they are a small minority. The problem isn't even true for all endgame players and guilds - decisions like "no stamDDs in AS or CR" are a thing, "only bring stamblades" is not.
Stamblades are cool, and they're known to have the potential (!) of good DPS. So players play them, and get good with them. Most players don't have characters for all roles and with all specs to switch at random, or want to use change tokens every time something changes. As long as they're good with a certain character, they'll bring them to trials. And they will be accepted as long as they're performing their role.

And I find it really quite infuriating to hear that the Elsweyr NB changes were caused by this perceived "problem". If you're looking for opportunities to provide even more (ignored) feedback to ZOS, maybe this:

It's not a problem for the vast majority of the player base, and "fixing" it will affect that large majority infinitely more while most probably not fixing anything for the few who are affected by the "problem".

usmcjdking

This is a large scale endeavor @Masel and I wish you luck. However, let me be blunt and just outline that the largest problem is still the 12 man raid cap. More often than not, a successful raid is determined on the overall damage output instead of adherance to mechanics and application of appropriate damage. If you allow raids to beef up to 24, then DPS really is no longer an issue - survivability and mechanical adherence are far more important.

Hell, lock achievements behind a 12 man run - but lift the 12 man limitation. You'll see a lot less class stacking in runs, albeit this doesn't really solve 12 man score pushing - which IMO doesn't matter nearly as much in regards to diversity.

usmcjdking

MMOing has really come a long way. We've gone from 100 man Plane of Hate raids in 2000 to 12 man raids in 2019.

Iskiab

Other (Provide another case)

The easiest solution is this, change the class group buff to specialize along magicka and stamina so one of each would be required. Make them stronger.

Bam - 6 classes, one magicka and one stam of each class. Figure out a way so the tanks can choose which buff they provide.

This is how almost all other MMOs have handled this, but because of stamina and magicka roles this is the missing piece of the puzzle for ESO.

You’re NEVER going to have exactly the same dps on each class, it’s just not possible.

jypcy

As far as diversity in support roles goes, I think game changing debuffs (a la Engulfing Flames) that scale based on offensive stats is necessary. If you want to see more diverse tanks in end game, engulfing flames can’t be worth the bar space on a typical tank build.

But I do think dps should at least be comparable among classes (e.g., the 81-83-85 example, as opposed to something like 41-47-55).

And also, unfortunately I think chasing the best setup is just too prevalent in this culture. I mean, a typical raid consists of 8 dps. With 6 classes and 2 ways to dps with each class, some builds are likely to be commonly excluded because they’ve been shown to not perform as well as others, even if it’s marginally.

Davadin

can i get more stam morph for stamDK?

Skullstachio

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.

I can agree there, Score chasing is one problem that demotes Class diversity.

@Masel
Something to bring to the table, Since there is the problem with the power creep from the Champion System, maybe there could be a way to mould Class diversity with the Champion System, like say make certain aspects of the current system appeal to each class Differently, maybe even have some champion passives appeal exclusively to certain classes while also promoting class diversity by making certain builds feel important by having champion Passives which improve certain class Passives based on where points are spent.

Runefang

Case 2: Diversity throug restricted Group Utility

Varana wrote: »

Voted to keep everything as it is, mainly because of two reasons:

a) I don't trust ZOS to pull off large-scale changes like 1) and 2) in a sensible manner. Focus your feedback on smaller things that have a minuscule chance of being implemented, and don't require everyone to change their playstyle and/or class.

b) The problem is mostly an imaginary one, as several others have pointed out. It affects a tiny minority of the player base - yes, they're the endgame leaders, but they are a small minority. The problem isn't even true for all endgame players and guilds - decisions like "no stamDDs in AS or CR" are a thing, "only bring stamblades" is not.
Stamblades are cool, and they're known to have the potential (!) of good DPS. So players play them, and get good with them. Most players don't have characters for all roles and with all specs to switch at random, or want to use change tokens every time something changes. As long as they're good with a certain character, they'll bring them to trials. And they will be accepted as long as they're performing their role.

And I find it really quite infuriating to hear that the Elsweyr NB changes were caused by this perceived "problem". If you're looking for opportunities to provide even more (ignored) feedback to ZOS, maybe this:

It's not a problem for the vast majority of the player base, and "fixing" it will affect that large majority infinitely more while most probably not fixing anything for the few who are affected by the "problem".

There was a good interview the Overwatch game director on balance once and he said one of the biggest problems with balancing was dealing with people's perception. He said they'd nerf or buff things just to change perception, despite the reality.

This perception of balance is generally developed by players who are setting the 'meta'. The majority then follow the meta without challenging it or considering what works for those meta players won't always work best for them. This creates the illusion of a balance 'gulf' rather than a small gap. This perception will change over time, but only slowly as some players attempt to challenge it.

I know I personally can hit higher DPS on my Magden than my Magplar which shouldn't be possible if you listen to the cries of how weak Magden's are. There is more to the game than DPS of course, which is partly what this thread is about.

Elwendryll

Case 1: Diversity through a lot of Group Utility

I think we need more unique buffs/debuffs and synergies. Each member should bring utility. I would for example love to wear Alkosh as a stam DD. I would love to use trapping webs. Nightblades should have a high solo dps, but, for exemple, other classes should have a lower dps but bring more to the group dps.
I'd just like to see more interactions between DDs. And a stamsorc identity

Ranger209

I would look at probably the best end game raiding game out there for answers which would be EQ and EQ2. Those games are made for end game raiding and the only reason that they are still being played after all of these years. First off the grouping system is very different in those games. There are segregated groups within the raid. Many of the buffs and heals are group only. There are some that are for the entire raid as well, but the group only buffs and heals only allow small subsets of the entire raid to benefit from them. They also had classes like the bard for example whose buffs were unique and stacked with virtually every other buff in the game.

So this is a totally different game design approach for raiding and forming raids from what ESO is where you have groups and large groups, yes. If a raid in ESO consisted of 3 X 4 man groups instead of 1 X 12 man group the first thing this would do is require a 3rd healer. If classes had unique buffs outside of the major/minor system that stacked with each other and the major/minor system that were required for maximum raid dps this is something that would make alternate dps classes attractive. Same thing with cleansing debuffs. The purges in this game are all powerful. If there were specific purges that removed specific debuff types, i.e. poison, fire, etc. that were class specific this is another way that dps class diversity could become more relevant by needing specific classes to remove specific debuffs.

There are probably a lot of other things that could be looked at in how those games pull off end game raiding and why it has stood the test of time, but those jump out at me.

Bradyfjord

Other (Provide another case)

As new classes and skill lines are added, it may be wise to change the buff/debuff system. Right now we have majors and minors, and of course the same major and minor cannot stack. Perhaps adding new categories of buffs and debuffs like abilities that give new choices proprietary to each class?

Ragnaroek93

Case 1: Diversity through a lot of Group Utility

Maybe solve the issue by not overnerfing classes for other content than endgame PvE? Nb loses nothing in raid setups and yet I'm getting nerfed to meme tier for PvP and solo content because of dumb PvE content in which people just stack one stat (dmg) and almost ignore anything else. Heck, some people even macro their rotations in PvE, how the hell do you justify these Nb nerfs for the 99,9% who aren't playing vet hm trials?

EpicRekkoning

Case 2: Diversity throug restricted Group Utility

Runefang wrote: »

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.

I agree with synergies. I think this could be a very effective way to increase diversity.

SupremeRissole

Case 2: Diversity throug restricted Group Utility

Bring back the playstyle we had where stam dps had multiple group utility sets in their bank (NMG, Sunderflame,War Machine, Powerful Assault). Dont necesarily bring back penetration, but design sets that each class performs best on e.g War Machine has high uptime and lower dps loss with higher group dps gain on stamblade. Sunderflame used to be best on stam dk due their rotation, flame damage passives etc, stamsorc had lots of aoe so and crit so NMG was great on it. Was hands down the most fun meta phase we went through IMO both for 12 man and 4 man content.

ATreeGnome

My feelings are somewhere between 1 and 2.

Obviously having every class offer the damage and utility potential is ideal but it also simply not possible.

I think a solution that could work is for each class to provide an offensive and a defensive buff that scales with offensive or defensive stats respectively.

So instead of DKs providing minor brutality and boosting everyone's weapon damage by 5% they could provide a buff equal to the group's weapon damage equal to 5% of their own weapon or spell damage (which ever is higher).

Similarly, minor toughness from wardens could provide a buff of 5% of the health of whoever is providing the buff. So a tank in typical gear might provide everyone a 2k bonus but a dps would only provide around 800.

Then maybe healers could provide sustain or healing taken buffs that scale off of their highest regen value or something along those lines.

So every role could provide all the buffs for a given class but could only provide the full potential of one at a time. That way a group of 12 gets the most benefit from each support playing a unique class and having at least 1 DPS from each class but would still get a diminished offensive benefit if a support is the only role using a particular class.

Obviously you don't want to punish a group too much if they are just missing 1 class but missing 3 classes should be a significant drop in group DPS.

Iskiab

Other (Provide another case)

Ranger209 wrote: »

I would look at probably the best end game raiding game out there for answers which would be EQ and EQ2. Those games are made for end game raiding and the only reason that they are still being played after all of these years. First off the grouping system is very different in those games. There are segregated groups within the raid. Many of the buffs and heals are group only. There are some that are for the entire raid as well, but the group only buffs and heals only allow small subsets of the entire raid to benefit from them. They also had classes like the bard for example whose buffs were unique and stacked with virtually every other buff in the game.

So this is a totally different game design approach for raiding and forming raids from what ESO is where you have groups and large groups, yes. If a raid in ESO consisted of 3 X 4 man groups instead of 1 X 12 man group the first thing this would do is require a 3rd healer. If classes had unique buffs outside of the major/minor system that stacked with each other and the major/minor system that were required for maximum raid dps this is something that would make alternate dps classes attractive. Same thing with cleansing debuffs. The purges in this game are all powerful. If there were specific purges that removed specific debuff types, i.e. poison, fire, etc. that were class specific this is another way that dps class diversity could become more relevant by needing specific classes to remove specific debuffs.

There are probably a lot of other things that could be looked at in how those games pull off end game raiding and why it has stood the test of time, but those jump out at me.

I wouldn’t say EQ2 was one of the best raiding games, EQ yes.

Basicly WoW brought in all the top raiding guilds from EQ (Triton, FoH) etc... to consult on WOW raiding, which led to vanilla wow being considered one of the best.

I’d say the best were EQ, vanilla WoW, and I’m partial to Rift during hammerfell too... except the gating bosses with broken/unbeatable mechanics part.

Tasear

Other (Provide another case)

Added the section for this to community concerns in that unoffical community discord

Here's direct link

https://discord.gg/Z2hy5s