' not necessarily optimal' Re: Developer statement regarding class changes

merevie

The expectation from those of us who have been subscribing to ESO for years is that a class IS optimal for a key role in pve or pvp. Pvp is competitive. Consequences for 'not being optimal' is a split second death or constant team wipes.

While the feedback and honesty regarding current combat options from Devels is appreciated, what is happening is that 'feeling' like you are on your nightblade/sorc etc is NOT enough for experienced players.

KappaKid83

merevie wrote: »

The expectation from those of us who have been subscribing to ESO for years is that a class IS optimal for a key role in pve or pvp. Pvp is competitive. Consequences for 'not being optimal' is a split second death or constant team wipes.

While the feedback and honesty regarding current combat options from Devels is appreciated, what is happening is that 'feeling' like you are on your nightblade/sorc etc is NOT enough for experienced players.

So are you saying that you think every class should be optimal in any key role? I am having a hard time understanding what you're trying to convey.

VaranisArano

"Viable, not necessarily optimal"

A. ZOS does not guarantee that your class will be invited to the hardest content by elite, optimized trial teams in a particular role.

B. ZOS does not guarantee that your class will remain optimal at whatever role it was previously optimal at, i.e. DKs will not necessarily stay the best tanks in all content, forever and ever, amen.

C. There will always be a Meta for players to follow and ZOS will keep changing that meta so the end-game scene doesnt stagnate. PVE will continue to be balanced like its a game of "King of the Hill".

D. ZOS sincerely hopes you enjoy being a Jack of All Trades, Master of None.


The above is nothing new. That's just how ZOS balances classes since One Tamriel.

Iccotak

@VaranisArano

fun fact the full saying is;
"Jack of all trades, master of none is better than being a master of one"
very true sentiment for real life but not sure it's best for a video game

This is why I have 1 character per class.
With enough resources & time I can change my character appropriately for different scenarios

My main is an Argonian Templar tank and has been great for alot of content but I am working on an alternate healer build for him to use in Vet trials

My Nord Warden has been doing DPS for overland PvE but he will be changed to a tank for dungeons

My Argonian Nightblade will be invested in nearly all the weapon skill lines for being adaptable to different scenarios and experimentation
etc.etc

KappaKid83

VaranisArano wrote: »

"Viable, not necessarily optimal"

A. ZOS does not guarantee that your class will be invited to the hardest content by elite, optimized trial teams in a particular role.

B. ZOS does not guarantee that your class will remain optimal at whatever role it was previously optimal at, i.e. DKs will not necessarily stay the best tanks in all content, forever and ever, amen.

C. There will always be a Meta for players to follow and ZOS will keep changing that meta so the end-game scene doesnt stagnate. PVE will continue to be balanced like its a game of "King of the Hill".

D. ZOS sincerely hopes you enjoy being a Jack of All Trades, Master of None.


The above is nothing new. That's just how ZOS balances classes since One Tamriel.

I believe it is like that in any game with competitive end game raiding. Every patch small changes to classes make the min/max calculations suit certain classes and also certain skills within a class(or skill lines). Like in WoW where one raid tier affliction warlocks are top and then the next they are obsolete and Hunters are best or even a different sub class of warlock, like demonology. That kind of change happens everywhere and like was mentioned, every class will never do everything optimal, it would be counter intuitive to have it that way.

Terion_Fyr

you will never balance everything perfectly because everyone perform different with a class

Starlock

Terion_Fyr wrote: »

you will never balance everything perfectly because everyone perform different with a class

An important point that is far too often overlooked. It's one of the major reasons why I never bother with "builds" for any game, regardless of type or genre. Just because something works well for one person doesn't mean it resonates with another or works well for another.

Cadbury

"Viable, not necessarily optimal"

At least they're being honest. A lot of other devs out there wouldn't say that to their audience.

"Balance" doesn't exist. And it never will.

ZonasArch

merevie wrote: »

The expectation from those of us who have been subscribing to ESO for years is that a class IS optimal for a key role in pve or pvp. Pvp is competitive. Consequences for 'not being optimal' is a split second death or constant team wipes.

While the feedback and honesty regarding current combat options from Devels is appreciated, what is happening is that 'feeling' like you are on your nightblade/sorc etc is NOT enough for experienced players.

You should get reading classes... What they said is that all classes are viable, not necessarily optimal. Key word is necessarily. They can be or not. Some will, some won't. If YOUR expectations are that all classes will be optimal for all files, you need to learn the meaning of optimal.

That's just it.

Now... Are they giving us viable options? Not yet. But as far as optimal goes, there will always be one at least, since all roles have at least 2 or 3 classes that are good for that's meaning if one gets nerfed, other will get improved, and life goes on. Don't worry.

Glurin

Cadbury wrote: »

"Viable, not necessarily optimal"

At least they're being honest. A lot of other devs out there wouldn't say that to their audience.

"Balance" doesn't exist. And it never will.

That's because we (the gaming community) have now gone full tilt in defining "balance" as "numerically identical". Believe it or not there was a time when balance meant something like "Yeah, you get more damage out of flame fist than shock lance, but shock lance has a much greater range and can pierce." These days it's all about those stupid damage meter numbers. If an attack's dps number is just 1% lower, it's completely unacceptable.

Yes, I've actually seen extremely heated arguments ensue over a frikin 1% difference that in practical terms maybe, maybe resulted in the boss dying in 23.783 seconds instead of 23.762 seconds. On a boss that doesn't even engage his first mechanic until a full two minutes have passed in the fight!

Iskiab

Glurin wrote: »

Cadbury wrote: »

"Viable, not necessarily optimal"

At least they're being honest. A lot of other devs out there wouldn't say that to their audience.

"Balance" doesn't exist. And it never will.

That's because we (the gaming community) have now gone full tilt in defining "balance" as "numerically identical". Believe it or not there was a time when balance meant something like "Yeah, you get more damage out of flame fist than shock lance, but shock lance has a much greater range and can pierce." These days it's all about those stupid damage meter numbers. If an attack's dps number is just 1% lower, it's completely unacceptable.

Yes, I've actually seen extremely heated arguments ensue over a frikin 1% difference that in practical terms maybe, maybe resulted in the boss dying in 23.783 seconds instead of 23.762 seconds. On a boss that doesn't even engage his first mechanic until a full two minutes have passed in the fight!

I agree with this, but pvp requires things to be more balanced than pve.

In pve one class per raid and everyone’s happy (or should be). In pvp you can get to weird situations where guilds try excluding classes.