Class Identity in PvP – Defining “Optimal” Vs. “Viable”

Bullseyebudx

Class Identity in PvP – Defining “Optimal” Vs. “Viable”

Considering the developer deep dive held recently on class identity I thought it might be useful as a community to illuminate which builds, we currently consider “Optimal” vs “Viable” to help provide perspective on what we could expect for future updates. Kicking things off I feel confident asserting these three builds should be considered optimal over their alternative setups.

Templar – Healer/DPS – Magicka
Nightblade – DPS/”Support” – Stamina
Sorcerer – DPS/Tank – Magicka

Now it can be tricky to pigeonhole classes only into their; primary, secondary, and assumed tertiary roles and in most cases, you could argue certain classes can efficiently achieve different role structures which I won’t doubt now or for future updates. Here we want to just focus on the most optimal build type for each class.

Classes should be ranked based on their level of effectiveness in each role; Healer/ “Support”, Tank, and DPS. Recently we’ve seen the healing role start to embody activities which fall under this unique floating category called Support. In the past I’ve seen support activities fall under all three role types. To me Support now feels like a catch all for anything that can’t be classified; obviously, as a healing, tanking, or DPS ability.

Role classification for classes can be determined several ways, honestly most of it is opinion based, so here we might want to focus on these things; effectiveness of specific abilities & passives (power level), how many abilities & passives of each type the class has access to, how the classes abilities & passives for a specific role compare to other classes, and what abilities or passives classes specifically don’t have access too. I’ve provided a long-winded example of how I defined a class below. You could also cite health or hybrid as optimal resource pools but the focus here is for class identity in PvP. I’d suggest for this thread we try to stay away from hybrids since they’re usually enabled by specific armor set ups, used with specific classes, ect. Roles should be classified under 1 of 6 potential categories listed below with what you think the corresponding optimal resource is.
The short version ends here for those who frequently post TL;DR.

Primary/Secondary Roles
Healer or Support/DPS
Healer or Support/Tank
DPS/Healing or Support
DPS/Tank
Tank/Healer or Support
Tank/DPS

To provide an example I’ve tried classifying the Nightblade’s optimal role. Starting with their secondary role, since it’s unique as a “support” role for a couple of reasons. The Nightblade class abilities typically fall under several categories; DPS/Healing, like swallow soul, sap essence, soul assault, and previously refreshing path, raw Healing with abilities like malevolent offering and soul siphon, and Support/Healing like siphoning strikes. However, we still have other high-powered abilities left over that don’t cleanly fit into one of these categories; Shadowy Disguise, which I’d classify as a Support/Tank ability, Dark Cloak would fall under Tank/Healing (in previous updates this ability could have been considered Healing/Tank), and Merciless resolve which falls under all three (fancy livin’) DPS/Tank/Healing.

Despite all the other abilities mentioned Shadowy Disguise I think is the most defining ability the class has to offer, which is confusing; a large assortment of its other class abilities don’t directly synergize with Shadowy Disguise, or offer similar effects, which is what I think really defines it a support ability/class. What makes this ability impactful is what the ability enables the class to do. In the case of Nightblades having the ability to turn invisible potentially using their off-resource pool, while dealing high damage with their primary resource pool is what makes this ability so over the top and in fact class defining currently.

One of the reasons why I selected this class to play for my first run through of the game was for its access to healing abilities, and in fact at the time if I remember correctly I think it was actually advertised as a DPS/Healer, deal damage and heal yourself and allies, at least on the magicka side of things. Today, when you compare Stamblade, and Magblade, IMO I think Stamblades are the optimized build to utilize this class’s abilities; however, once upon a time I think DPS/Healing – Magblades were a legitimate contender for the dominate role of this class because of the power level of Shadowy Disguise.

My assumption for this distinct class shift, clearly towards a dominate stamina class, not that it wasn’t already very good, is purely because they needed more “Optimal” stamina classes. The problem with this type of shift, in fact, is because of the power level of Shadowy Disguise or just 1 ability. If both magicka and stamina characters can use the ability effectively than how do you make one dominate over the other? Can’t really nerf the DPS for several reasons especially since they’re using base lines for all the skills among other reasons, so they focused on the healing abilities which some may have noticed.

Now this is purely my opinion and it's just how I’m currently looking at the subject; however, if you’d like to contribute to the conversation roles should be classified under 1 of 6 potential categories already mentioned with their optimal resource. I’ve put together my best guess for class roles below, at least based on what I’m currently seeing, AND assuming stamina and magicka both need to have an equal number of optimal classes available. Since a lot of the class identity changes are still in progress, you’ll notice some classes don’t necessarily embody their roles just yet or at least might not comparably. I’ve played a few of these classes extensively and others not as much, so if you think a certain class fits more appropriately in another category or over another class say so but please use specific abilities and or passives as reasoning for why you think this might be the case, especially since it’s very possible for these abilities to change significantly in the near future.

Healer/DPS – Mag - Templar
Healer or Support/Tank – Mag -Necro
DPS/ Support or Healer – Stam – Nightblade
DPS/Tank – Mag - Sorcerer
Tank/Support or Healer – Stam - Dragonknight
Tank/DPS – Stam - Warden

Sahidom

Roles is very subjective term. The trinity of roles e.g. tank, healer, and damage were the predecessor's game designers model and guide to help players define specific expectations to complete content dungeons/raid challenges; but this triad by its own definition contradicts the Developer's Deep Dive statement about, "Play as you want," dogma. This doesn't mean these roles are not important, as someone will need to handle the primary brunt of the dungeon/raid bosses and someone (or everyone) needs to heal through dungeon/raid damaging content and attacks. HOWEVER, the classes themselves should not be overly stereotyped into one NOR compromised of their "power fantasy" because the triad dictates this is the must-do-to-succeed.

I have a vet dungeon/trial tank, and its a Dragon Knight by choice. The class kit skills more often used revolve around self-healing (sometimes the healer needs to focus on other players or avoid a damaging mechanic) and lastly, the taunting skills i.e. pierce armor and inner fire. My character by default is at resistance cap without any +resistance cap. Magic recovery is the sole important recovery for tanking through long or high damage mechanics. On all existing tanks, Magic is their lifeline when everything goes south, and the healers/surviving DPS have to res people during vet/HM trails.

This type of tanking durability doesn't come from the class kit; although the self-healing and the choice to use the classes' damage shield or the s/b stance damage shield. Resource recovery is another important factor; The Dragon Knights have the Ultimate passive (very strong), Sorcerers have Dark Deal (-stamina/magic for +health & stamina/magic), Nightblades have Siphoning Morphs (stamina/magic) to refresh their Stamina pool. I don't play enough Templars to cite their skill.

The point being. Most of the classes, in one shape or another, have a self-healing and resource recovery skill. Everything else about tanking is based on your heavy armor set configuration and monster helm. That's it.

You will definitely come across guilds that want tanks to buff the damage roles to reduce the encounter by 30-45 seconds. It's an okay and reasonable request; but tanks that cannot hold up while being overly focused will lead to a vet/HM trail wipe. The actual class, itself on what's better or worse is subjective too. Some classes will have better passives than others, it's just reality not all classes will be able to fulfill two of the three triad roles.

It's that simple. The triad and "play as you want" are completely opposite; BUT the developers (and to an extent players) will try to cram a circle into a square hole anyways.

Bullseyebudx

Sahidom wrote: »

Roles is very subjective term. The trinity of roles e.g. tank, healer, and damage were the predecessor's game designers model and guide to help players define specific expectations to complete content dungeons/raid challenges; but this triad by its own definition contradicts the Developer's Deep Dive statement about, "Play as you want," dogma. This doesn't mean these roles are not important, as someone will need to handle the primary brunt of the dungeon/raid bosses and someone (or everyone) needs to heal through dungeon/raid damaging content and attacks. HOWEVER, the classes themselves should not be overly stereotyped into one NOR compromised of their "power fantasy" because the triad dictates this is the must-do-to-succeed.

I have a vet dungeon/trial tank, and its a Dragon Knight by choice. The class kit skills more often used revolve around self-healing (sometimes the healer needs to focus on other players or avoid a damaging mechanic) and lastly, the taunting skills i.e. pierce armor and inner fire. My character by default is at resistance cap without any +resistance cap. Magic recovery is the sole important recovery for tanking through long or high damage mechanics. On all existing tanks, Magic is their lifeline when everything goes south, and the healers/surviving DPS have to res people during vet/HM trails.

This type of tanking durability doesn't come from the class kit; although the self-healing and the choice to use the classes' damage shield or the s/b stance damage shield. Resource recovery is another important factor; The Dragon Knights have the Ultimate passive (very strong), Sorcerers have Dark Deal (-stamina/magic for +health & stamina/magic), Nightblades have Siphoning Morphs (stamina/magic) to refresh their Stamina pool. I don't play enough Templars to cite their skill.

The point being. Most of the classes, in one shape or another, have a self-healing and resource recovery skill. Everything else about tanking is based on your heavy armor set configuration and monster helm. That's it.

You will definitely come across guilds that want tanks to buff the damage roles to reduce the encounter by 30-45 seconds. It's an okay and reasonable request; but tanks that cannot hold up while being overly focused will lead to a vet/HM trail wipe. The actual class, itself on what's better or worse is subjective too. Some classes will have better passives than others, it's just reality not all classes will be able to fulfill two of the three triad roles.

It's that simple. The triad and "play as you want" are completely opposite; BUT the developers (and to an extent players) will try to cram a circle into a square hole anyways.

This line of thought isn't intended as a frame work for PvE & PvP, I really just want to focus of the PvP aspect here. I did mention that in my OP but I should've made it more noticeable. Roles for PvE are a lot more rigid because their requirements are often already defined and thus the requirements are usually more universally understood and accessible.
For PvP it's a whole different kettle of fish, it's "Play as you want", and there's several ways to approach character builds, but using the Combat Triangle is probably the only way we'll be able to categorizing EVERYONE's build fundamentally across the board.

You could relabel it and call roles in PvP; survivability, support, and DPS but the objective is to get everyone on the same page, not introduce new information which i wanted to avoid because the post would get too long probably and no one would do it.

Every character fundamentally has the same goal, almost; a method for surviving combat interactions; most important rule don't die. This can be achieved several ways; how someone achieves this largely depends on how they specifically customize their character but these slight differences in customization should all fall under the combat triangle.

Sahidom

@Bullseyebudx You are right. PVP is a whole different beast, and its perhaps the closest "play as you want" than you'll ever receive from vet/HM trial groups for PVE content. When talking about class identity and "play as you want," then everyone needs to compartmentalize the discussion. Their two different topics but also closely related.

I still have trouble conceiving why it's important for role classification in the strictest sense. Step back here, and really think about this... When the game first launched, the developers created classes around this combat triangle: character creation then labeled their triangle role. After the first year being launched, players started using the classes outside the developer's combat triangle preconceptions.

This fresh concept, "I don't have to be a (role) playing a (class)," was taking root and the player base leaned towards item sets and non-class skills to create specialized or diverse (survivalist) type builds and styles of play. As the player base moved the class away from the combat triangle designation, the developers then reciprocated: Classes received some changes to meet the demand to play any role in the combat triangle.

At some point, the developer's reciprocation dismantled what their calling class identity.

You may think I'm talking about PVE; but I'm not. I'm encompassing both ends. The developers and, to the same extent, the players need to understand the combat triangle based on roles is obsolete. The OP does have a valid point for classifying character builds. Builds, not roles.

The current combat triangle can be summarized to have the following angles:

• Durability
• Support/Healing
• Damage

Moving along with the OP discussion. In theory, you could take the fifteen (15) class skills and categorize each skill based on their placement on the triangle above, and by association, receive a "role" classification. This skill categorization could then be the basis to define the classes' "role" classification. This methodology would only scrutinizes and categorizes the class's skills without external consideration, such as non-class skills and item sets.

This type of "role" classification should be held with a grain assault. By this I mean, this methodology shouldn't be taken as means to stereotype or over emphasis classes into roles; EVEN more so with the developers brain working on how they'll reestablish class identity. It would be detrimental to the PVP players; for example, Dragon Knights suddenly have all their damage stifled but their tank-related skills buffed because developers wanted to reestablish the class, as the tanking class. Same goes for other classes that receive dramatic shifts.

Sorry about going off-topic; but I feel its related to say: "role" classification and role triad (or the current combat triangle angles) should not influence class identity. Class identity is another compartmentalized discussion entirely where their power fantasy should take front stage then pattern play; and let the players decide what angles they'll build into.

JumpmanLane

I unno. I don’t pvp in groups with defined roles. I just kill people. MagDk!

Bullseyebudx

Sahidom wrote: »

@Bullseyebudx You are right. PVP is a whole different beast, and its perhaps the closest "play as you want" than you'll ever receive from vet/HM trial groups for PVE content. When talking about class identity and "play as you want," then everyone needs to compartmentalize the discussion. Their two different topics but also closely related.

I still have trouble conceiving why it's important for role classification in the strictest sense. Step back here, and really think about this... When the game first launched, the developers created classes around this combat triangle: character creation then labeled their triangle role. After the first year being launched, players started using the classes outside the developer's combat triangle preconceptions.

This fresh concept, "I don't have to be a (role) playing a (class)," was taking root and the player base leaned towards item sets and non-class skills to create specialized or diverse (survivalist) type builds and styles of play. As the player base moved the class away from the combat triangle designation, the developers then reciprocated: Classes received some changes to meet the demand to play any role in the combat triangle.

At some point, the developer's reciprocation dismantled what their calling class identity.

You may think I'm talking about PVE; but I'm not. I'm encompassing both ends. The developers and, to the same extent, the players need to understand the combat triangle based on roles is obsolete. The OP does have a valid point for classifying character builds. Builds, not roles.

The current combat triangle can be summarized to have the following angles:

• Durability
• Support/Healing
• Damage

Moving along with the OP discussion. In theory, you could take the fifteen (15) class skills and categorize each skill based on their placement on the triangle above, and by association, receive a "role" classification. This skill categorization could then be the basis to define the classes' "role" classification. This methodology would only scrutinizes and categorizes the class's skills without external consideration, such as non-class skills and item sets.

This type of "role" classification should be held with a grain assault. By this I mean, this methodology shouldn't be taken as means to stereotype or over emphasis classes into roles; EVEN more so with the developers brain working on how they'll reestablish class identity. It would be detrimental to the PVP players; for example, Dragon Knights suddenly have all their damage stifled but their tank-related skills buffed because developers wanted to reestablish the class, as the tanking class. Same goes for other classes that receive dramatic shifts.

Sorry about going off-topic; but I feel its related to say: "role" classification and role triad (or the current combat triangle angles) should not influence class identity. Class identity is another compartmentalized discussion entirely where their power fantasy should take front stage then pattern play; and let the players decide what angles they'll build into.

It sounds like you understand what I’m aiming for with this post. This is purely intended as a method of categorization, not for justifying any 1 specific build type. I like your suggestion about categorizing class skills! I think it’s a great place to start, I’ll probably slowly start chipping away at labeling a few classes. The end goal is essentially to create a playability matrix for the classes. It’s not all that groundbreaking, it’s just to provide perspective; if someone said in game “I want to build a stamina healer” players probably wouldn’t, or shouldn’t, recommend building a Sorcerer for example.

I think the most important piece of information to keep in mind is the difference between segments for example; DPS/Tank or Durability/Heal & Support and Tank or Durability/DPS/Heal & Support might not be very significant or even noticeable in terms of power level. Likewise, the difference between Primary “role” and secondary “role” may also be insignificant, players might attempt to utilize “roles” as equally as possible, but we should be able to identify one or the other as a primary based on skill predisposition for classes. Conversely, the difference between the top “Optimal” build and the bottom “Viable” build will probably be distinct.

Start internally with each class’s skills and abilities and then progressively work out to external factors like universal skills, other class comparisons, and armors to help solidify a final “Playability” Matrix. The way the classes are designed I think this probably already exists it's just not that easy to determine because most of the time classes are pretty reasonably balanced.

JumpmanLane wrote: »

I unno. I don’t pvp in groups with defined roles. I just kill people. MagDk!

Hey, good for you bud!
What else did you do in Cyrodiil today?

susmitds

In PvP, there are nothing called truly optimal.

JumpmanLane

Bullseyebudx wrote: »

Sahidom wrote: »

@Bullseyebudx You are right. PVP is a whole different beast, and its perhaps the closest "play as you want" than you'll ever receive from vet/HM trial groups for PVE content. When talking about class identity and "play as you want," then everyone needs to compartmentalize the discussion. Their two different topics but also closely related.

I still have trouble conceiving why it's important for role classification in the strictest sense. Step back here, and really think about this... When the game first launched, the developers created classes around this combat triangle: character creation then labeled their triangle role. After the first year being launched, players started using the classes outside the developer's combat triangle preconceptions.

This fresh concept, "I don't have to be a (role) playing a (class)," was taking root and the player base leaned towards item sets and non-class skills to create specialized or diverse (survivalist) type builds and styles of play. As the player base moved the class away from the combat triangle designation, the developers then reciprocated: Classes received some changes to meet the demand to play any role in the combat triangle.

At some point, the developer's reciprocation dismantled what their calling class identity.

You may think I'm talking about PVE; but I'm not. I'm encompassing both ends. The developers and, to the same extent, the players need to understand the combat triangle based on roles is obsolete. The OP does have a valid point for classifying character builds. Builds, not roles.

The current combat triangle can be summarized to have the following angles:

• Durability
• Support/Healing
• Damage

Moving along with the OP discussion. In theory, you could take the fifteen (15) class skills and categorize each skill based on their placement on the triangle above, and by association, receive a "role" classification. This skill categorization could then be the basis to define the classes' "role" classification. This methodology would only scrutinizes and categorizes the class's skills without external consideration, such as non-class skills and item sets.

This type of "role" classification should be held with a grain assault. By this I mean, this methodology shouldn't be taken as means to stereotype or over emphasis classes into roles; EVEN more so with the developers brain working on how they'll reestablish class identity. It would be detrimental to the PVP players; for example, Dragon Knights suddenly have all their damage stifled but their tank-related skills buffed because developers wanted to reestablish the class, as the tanking class. Same goes for other classes that receive dramatic shifts.

Sorry about going off-topic; but I feel its related to say: "role" classification and role triad (or the current combat triangle angles) should not influence class identity. Class identity is another compartmentalized discussion entirely where their power fantasy should take front stage then pattern play; and let the players decide what angles they'll build into.

It sounds like you understand what I’m aiming for with this post. This is purely intended as a method of categorization, not for justifying any 1 specific build type. I like your suggestion about categorizing class skills! I think it’s a great place to start, I’ll probably slowly start chipping away at labeling a few classes. The end goal is essentially to create a playability matrix for the classes. It’s not all that groundbreaking, it’s just to provide perspective; if someone said in game “I want to build a stamina healer” players probably wouldn’t, or shouldn’t, recommend building a Sorcerer for example.

I think the most important piece of information to keep in mind is the difference between segments for example; DPS/Tank or Durability/Heal & Support and Tank or Durability/DPS/Heal & Support might not be very significant or even noticeable in terms of power level. Likewise, the difference between Primary “role” and secondary “role” may also be insignificant, players might attempt to utilize “roles” as equally as possible, but we should be able to identify one or the other as a primary based on skill predisposition for classes. Conversely, the difference between the top “Optimal” build and the bottom “Viable” build will probably be distinct.

Start internally with each class’s skills and abilities and then progressively work out to external factors like universal skills, other class comparisons, and armors to help solidify a final “Playability” Matrix. The way the classes are designed I think this probably already exists it's just not that easy to determine because most of the time classes are pretty reasonably balanced.

JumpmanLane wrote: »

I unno. I don’t pvp in groups with defined roles. I just kill people. MagDk!

Hey, good for you bud!
What else did you do in Cyrodiil today?

Clipped the guy wielding the hammer. Dropped 2 Mil AP for the replica. Chased down a streamer who was 1vXing, clipped him. Tbagged some folks I don’t like.

Dueled some snotty fools in a field. Read some hate tells. Robbed some fools of some telvar in ic. Tbagged them. Read some more hate tells. Modeled a few outfits. I unno the usual...DROPPING FOOLS!

leepalmer95

Templars can literally be everything at the same time.

On my magplar I can tank, passive protection, armour etc...

Do a huge amount of aoe healing via purify + breath of life + redemption. Like purify is hitting everyone for like near 3k crits sometimes, the heal on the skill is stupid.

Do lots of utility, templar purify synergies is the strongest purify in the game as it deals with everything, massive snares, templar purify also acts as a aoe 30% snare and I get immob via living dark (soon to be 60% snare), passive heals obviously, 70% snare via sweeps, easy access to off balance, easy ranged snares, lots of aoe dmg via sweeps + purify morph + bats or so.

And have lots of dmg via purifying light, dots, jabs, best instant ult in the game, great ranged execute, most of my dmg is undodgeable.

So yeah optimal pvp setup would be to stack as many templars as possible. I've done it with like 4 magplars, its just so stupid.


Imagine zos nerfing vigor because of it's 'OP aoe heals' while simultaniuosly allowing a skill like templar purify to exist which seems to do like 15 different effects including a massive aoe heal stronger than anything vigor every did.

Sahidom

susmitds wrote: »

In PvP, there are nothing called truly optimal.

Fact.

leepalmer95 wrote: »

Templars can literally be everything at the same time.

Maybe in PVP but elsewhere no. Their class skills are simply mediocre except the select skills the developers buffed to give them stronger than the average bear niche skills. Otherwise, their an over-glorified second-class Dragon Knight.

Psijic42

Please stop nerfing pvp Magden.

After the changes to destructive reach (the range version no longer procs stun/cc), and with the upcomming nerfs to screaming cliff racer (10% damage nerf with no buffs on the mag side, while stam gets a bleed) this means that magica wardens are going to be hurting for a spammable. I understand that swarm will now proc minor vulnerability, which is very nice yes, however in PvP direct damage > dots.

Also, in PvP Arctic Blast is not "akward" at all. It is a wonderful skill!! I am very disappointing that you are going to take my really strong stun/heal and turn it into a really weak aoe dot... with a tiny 6 meter range...

Please, please, stop nerfing magica warden. It is a wonderful class to play, and my favorite pvp class, also in terms of lore the idea of a warden as in touch with the magic of the wild is completely valid. There is no reason to nerf magden. If anything they need a slight buff to keep up with magplars.

Please zos, I love you. Please, buff magden pvp. Or at least stop the nerf train.

Thank you
Psijic42

Zacuel

Is there a tldr for the tldr?