Do you like having Racial Skills?

willjones1122

Yes, I like the racial skills

Tigerseye wrote: »

willjones1122 wrote: »

For those saying this is an mmo, not a tes game you're leaving out three letters: rpg. I come from a D&D background. Racial bonuses have always been a thing in fantasy rpg. You pick your race based on the character you want to play... If that means playing against type then you live with that choice, and it can make for some very interesting rp/head cannon. If your not about rp, just play the race that gives you the bonus you want. None of the races have a "disadvantage"(i.e. none of them have reduced stats/abilities based on race like you do in some rpgs including TES games) just different strengths based on racial evolution/disposition and lore.

The problem is that (whether they want to call it an MMO, or not) this is a multiplayer game, not a single player game, so it should be designed accordingly.

If they can perfectly balance racials and make them apply equally to all classes and builds, then fair enough, but they are not currently doing that.

Solo RPGs are very different from multiplayer RPGs, as you are (obviously) not competing against others.

While playing alone, you could select the "wrong" race for your chosen class/build, on purpose, in an attempt to make the game a bit harder once you know what you are doing, without harming your ability to compete.

So, even though I don't really like racials for other reasons, I have to admit that they might actually add to the flexibility of gameplay in a single player game.

You could achieve that same effect by allowing people to choose certain strengths, on an individual level, as opposed to on a racial level.

But still, the fact remains that racials are one way of allowing people to build for, or against, type when they are playing alone.

Whereas, you can't (or shouldn't) just leave balance to chance, in a multiplayer game, because most people will feel forced to optimise, in a way they wouldn't when playing alone.

Meaning racials typically remove choice and flexibility, more than they add to it, in a multiplayer game like ESO.

Assuming you are playing it as a multiplayer, as opposed to purely as a solo RPG, of course.

Which you have to assume most people are, as it is not marketed as a solo player game and there is a lot of group content.

I'm not seeing your point. If you're playing it for competition then you pick the race that's BiS, just like gear and skills. Your not asking for all gear and skills to be exactly the same, why ask for races? If your playing it as an rpg and not trying to push scoreboards... pick the race you want. The difference in numbers won't be a pass/fail for endgame content.

JobooAGS

No, I don’t like racial skills

Main reason why I said no is because there is some racial balancing that can happen. The idea of racials, I like. The current balancing, I don't like

Kittytravel

Yes, I like the racial skills

Yeah I like racial skills but I'd be fine if they were less combat oriented and more flavor-play style. Either works for me honestly but it could definitely be changed to simple game bonuses that don't affect balancing to take a load off the meta.

Overall I don't think the issue is actually racials imo; after all people will always chase race class meta makeup and nothing will change that aside from entirely removing the racials. Classes have a far greater effect currently on what DPS standings are VS races granting an extra 1000-2000 dps depending.

Foefaller

Other

I like the idea of racials that aren't essentially worthless/just for show, but I'm not sure I like it enough that race swaps are almost expected when you want to swap builds (which I know isn't actually true, or at least not true outside of vet trial speedruns, but the min/max is there.)

Bradyfjord

Yes, I like the racial skills

I like racial skills. It's part of the identity of the Elder Scrolls as a game world.

But I would like ESO to revisit them again someday. There are a few racial passives that carry a lot of weight, such as certain race's stat boosts or attack power boosts. There are a few racial passives that carry almost no weight such as the various resistances. I wouldn't know what the values should be, but there is definitely room for improvement.

idk

Yes, I like the racial skills

While I would expect a forum poll to favor race passives I would not have expected 76%, over 3/4s of responses to favor them with only 14% not liking them. That is fairly significant.

Those are the numbers as of this post. Just clarifying in case that changes some over time.

FierceSam

Yes, I like the racial skills

If you are going to have different races then they need to be different. And not just in a cosmetic way. At the very extreme end, this will be reflected in a race’s suitability for particular classes and roles. And that’s a good thing.

However, for almost every player any effects race choice may have will be obliterated by actual game playing skill. So a top player will be able to make any race perform well in any class or role, while an average player will find it hard to make even the most min/maxed character perform even moderately well.

UGotBenched91

No, I don’t like racial skills

FierceSam wrote: »

If you are going to have different races then they need to be different. And not just in a cosmetic way. At the very extreme end, this will be reflected in a race’s suitability for particular classes and roles. And that’s a good thing.

However, for almost every player any effects race choice may have will be obliterated by actual game playing skill. So a top player will be able to make any race perform well in any class or role, while an average player will find it hard to make even the most min/maxed character perform even moderately well.

Yeah I guess this poll was poorly worded. I don’t mind racial skills but I don’t like how they are done in this game. It would be nice if each race had different stats toward Stam and Magicka that way you would see more races like Orc being Magicka and vice versa. But, I know that’s not following lore.

BlueRaven

Other

UGotBenched91 wrote: »

FierceSam wrote: »

If you are going to have different races then they need to be different. And not just in a cosmetic way. At the very extreme end, this will be reflected in a race’s suitability for particular classes and roles. And that’s a good thing.

However, for almost every player any effects race choice may have will be obliterated by actual game playing skill. So a top player will be able to make any race perform well in any class or role, while an average player will find it hard to make even the most min/maxed character perform even moderately well.

Yeah I guess this poll was poorly worded. I don’t mind racial skills but I don’t like how they are done in this game. It would be nice if each race had different stats toward Stam and Magicka that way you would see more races like Orc being Magicka and vice versa. But, I know that’s not following lore.

I agree the poll is poorly worded, I would like passives IF there were done correctly. But if you compare the current passives to the ones in just skyrim there are so different.

Orcs went from a heavy armor wearing "tanky" race to being a medium armor dps race. And Nords went in the opposite direction.

Bosmers and Argonians now have the wrong resistances. And Bosmers are no longer stealthy?

It's just frustrating the racial passives are not correct as it seems so easy to get them right. I don't understand why more thought was not put into them.

Tigerseye

No, I don’t like racial skills

willjones1122 wrote: »

Tigerseye wrote: »

willjones1122 wrote: »

For those saying this is an mmo, not a tes game you're leaving out three letters: rpg. I come from a D&D background. Racial bonuses have always been a thing in fantasy rpg. You pick your race based on the character you want to play... If that means playing against type then you live with that choice, and it can make for some very interesting rp/head cannon. If your not about rp, just play the race that gives you the bonus you want. None of the races have a "disadvantage"(i.e. none of them have reduced stats/abilities based on race like you do in some rpgs including TES games) just different strengths based on racial evolution/disposition and lore.

The problem is that (whether they want to call it an MMO, or not) this is a multiplayer game, not a single player game, so it should be designed accordingly.

If they can perfectly balance racials and make them apply equally to all classes and builds, then fair enough, but they are not currently doing that.

Solo RPGs are very different from multiplayer RPGs, as you are (obviously) not competing against others.

While playing alone, you could select the "wrong" race for your chosen class/build, on purpose, in an attempt to make the game a bit harder once you know what you are doing, without harming your ability to compete.

So, even though I don't really like racials for other reasons, I have to admit that they might actually add to the flexibility of gameplay in a single player game.

You could achieve that same effect by allowing people to choose certain strengths, on an individual level, as opposed to on a racial level.

But still, the fact remains that racials are one way of allowing people to build for, or against, type when they are playing alone.

Whereas, you can't (or shouldn't) just leave balance to chance, in a multiplayer game, because most people will feel forced to optimise, in a way they wouldn't when playing alone.

Meaning racials typically remove choice and flexibility, more than they add to it, in a multiplayer game like ESO.

Assuming you are playing it as a multiplayer, as opposed to purely as a solo RPG, of course.

Which you have to assume most people are, as it is not marketed as a solo player game and there is a lot of group content.

I'm not seeing your point. If you're playing it for competition then you pick the race that's BiS, just like gear and skills. Your not asking for all gear and skills to be exactly the same, why ask for races? If your playing it as an rpg and not trying to push scoreboards... pick the race you want. The difference in numbers won't be a pass/fail for endgame content.

My point is that min/maxers will always feel obliged to choose the best race/class/build combo.

That means that they are left with only one optimal "choice" per class/build.

Maybe you don't think they need to do that, but they think they do.

You don't need to ask for all gear and skills to be exactly the same.

As, assuming they are properly balanced (and let's not get into that can of worms, here!), people can generally choose which ones they prefer, without then having another "choice" effectively decided for them, if they want to optimise.

It's really not rocket science...

Racials reduce choice, for people who like/feel obliged to optimise and therefore, make for a more boring multiplayer game for all of us.

As it is more interesting to see a wide variety of race/class/build combos, rather than the same ones almost all the time (especially at endgame).

Tigerseye

No, I don’t like racial skills

FierceSam wrote: »

If you are going to have different races then they need to be different. And not just in a cosmetic way. At the very extreme end, this will be reflected in a race’s suitability for particular classes and roles. And that’s a good thing.

However, for almost every player any effects race choice may have will be obliterated by actual game playing skill. So a top player will be able to make any race perform well in any class or role, while an average player will find it hard to make even the most min/maxed character perform even moderately well.

Yes, but a really good player, with an optimal race/class/build combo, will still perform better than an equally good player without one.

That is the point, here.

That is why people min/max.

I agree with you on a lot of things, by the way Sam, but not on this apparently.

willjones1122

Yes, I like the racial skills

Tigerseye wrote: »

willjones1122 wrote: »

Tigerseye wrote: »

willjones1122 wrote: »

For those saying this is an mmo, not a tes game you're leaving out three letters: rpg. I come from a D&D background. Racial bonuses have always been a thing in fantasy rpg. You pick your race based on the character you want to play... If that means playing against type then you live with that choice, and it can make for some very interesting rp/head cannon. If your not about rp, just play the race that gives you the bonus you want. None of the races have a "disadvantage"(i.e. none of them have reduced stats/abilities based on race like you do in some rpgs including TES games) just different strengths based on racial evolution/disposition and lore.

The problem is that (whether they want to call it an MMO, or not) this is a multiplayer game, not a single player game, so it should be designed accordingly.

If they can perfectly balance racials and make them apply equally to all classes and builds, then fair enough, but they are not currently doing that.

Solo RPGs are very different from multiplayer RPGs, as you are (obviously) not competing against others.

While playing alone, you could select the "wrong" race for your chosen class/build, on purpose, in an attempt to make the game a bit harder once you know what you are doing, without harming your ability to compete.

So, even though I don't really like racials for other reasons, I have to admit that they might actually add to the flexibility of gameplay in a single player game.

You could achieve that same effect by allowing people to choose certain strengths, on an individual level, as opposed to on a racial level.

But still, the fact remains that racials are one way of allowing people to build for, or against, type when they are playing alone.

Whereas, you can't (or shouldn't) just leave balance to chance, in a multiplayer game, because most people will feel forced to optimise, in a way they wouldn't when playing alone.

Meaning racials typically remove choice and flexibility, more than they add to it, in a multiplayer game like ESO.

Assuming you are playing it as a multiplayer, as opposed to purely as a solo RPG, of course.

Which you have to assume most people are, as it is not marketed as a solo player game and there is a lot of group content.

I'm not seeing your point. If you're playing it for competition then you pick the race that's BiS, just like gear and skills. Your not asking for all gear and skills to be exactly the same, why ask for races? If your playing it as an rpg and not trying to push scoreboards... pick the race you want. The difference in numbers won't be a pass/fail for endgame content.

My point is that min/maxers will always feel obliged to choose the best race/class/build combo.

That means that they are left with only one optimal "choice" per class/build.

Maybe you don't think they need to do that do that, but they think they do.

You don't need to ask for all gear and skills to be exactly the same.

As, assuming they are properly balanced (and let's not get into that can of worms, here!), people can generally choose which ones they prefer, without then having another "choice" effectively decided for them, if they want to optimise.

It's really not rocket science...

Racials reduce choice, for people who like/feel obliged to optimise and therefore, make for a more boring multiplayer game for all of us.

As it is more interesting to see a wide variety of race/class/build combos, rather than the same ones almost all the time (especially at endgame).

Ok let's try this a different way...
1. Remove all racial passives and everybody plays what ever race they think is pretty/interesting/whatever. So now the only diversity is appearance? The same dps builds will be the exact same at the competitive level with BiS gear/skills. The only difference is now you get to look like a cat instead of a lizard. That's not build diversity, that's a skin.
2. If we pick our passives as suggested then you get the same problem -people will pick the best passives for their build. They will be the same 3 or 4 skills for a stam build, the same 3 or 4 skills for mag build and then slap whatever skin of a race they want on the character. No diversity other than appearance.
3. Non combat racials only. This one is tricky... What's non combat? Orc movement bonus could be considered an advantage in pvp, so it'd have to go. Stealth is obviously combat related so it's gone. Ditto with stealth detection and any resistances. Can't improve alchemy/potions/poisons use. Food/drink buffs are gone. Could maybe get away with extra crafting xp, swim speed, and skill line xp since these don't directly affect combat but that's about it.

My point is: the only build diversity you are going to get are from players like myself who don't care what the meta is as long as they can complete content on a character we find interesting/fun. Because endgame competitors are going to min/max no matter what. They're looking for the best math possible. Nothing wrong with that, but that choice has consequences just like playing an orc magicka char. If we can live with our choice of having a "suboptimal" build for an interesting character shouldn't they be able to live with a "suboptimal" appearance for an optimal build?

UGotBenched91

No, I don’t like racial skills

BlueRaven wrote: »

UGotBenched91 wrote: »

FierceSam wrote: »

If you are going to have different races then they need to be different. And not just in a cosmetic way. At the very extreme end, this will be reflected in a race’s suitability for particular classes and roles. And that’s a good thing.

However, for almost every player any effects race choice may have will be obliterated by actual game playing skill. So a top player will be able to make any race perform well in any class or role, while an average player will find it hard to make even the most min/maxed character perform even moderately well.

Yeah I guess this poll was poorly worded. I don’t mind racial skills but I don’t like how they are done in this game. It would be nice if each race had different stats toward Stam and Magicka that way you would see more races like Orc being Magicka and vice versa. But, I know that’s not following lore.

I agree the poll is poorly worded, I would like passives IF there were done correctly. But if you compare the current passives to the ones in just skyrim there are so different.

Orcs went from a heavy armor wearing "tanky" race to being a medium armor dps race. And Nords went in the opposite direction.

Bosmers and Argonians now have the wrong resistances. And Bosmers are no longer stealthy?

It's just frustrating the racial passives are not correct as it seems so easy to get them right. I don't understand why more thought was not put into them.

Love your polls too buddy 😘..

BlueRaven

Other

UGotBenched91 wrote: »

BlueRaven wrote: »

UGotBenched91 wrote: »

FierceSam wrote: »

If you are going to have different races then they need to be different. And not just in a cosmetic way. At the very extreme end, this will be reflected in a race’s suitability for particular classes and roles. And that’s a good thing.

However, for almost every player any effects race choice may have will be obliterated by actual game playing skill. So a top player will be able to make any race perform well in any class or role, while an average player will find it hard to make even the most min/maxed character perform even moderately well.

Yeah I guess this poll was poorly worded. I don’t mind racial skills but I don’t like how they are done in this game. It would be nice if each race had different stats toward Stam and Magicka that way you would see more races like Orc being Magicka and vice versa. But, I know that’s not following lore.

I agree the poll is poorly worded, I would like passives IF there were done correctly. But if you compare the current passives to the ones in just skyrim there are so different.

Orcs went from a heavy armor wearing "tanky" race to being a medium armor dps race. And Nords went in the opposite direction.

Bosmers and Argonians now have the wrong resistances. And Bosmers are no longer stealthy?

It's just frustrating the racial passives are not correct as it seems so easy to get them right. I don't understand why more thought was not put into them.

Love your polls too buddy 😘..

??

Here are all the polls I have posted.

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/512400/how-many-champion-points-do-you-have/p1

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/463681/so-what-race-is-your-main-now/p1

Yup, just two. And they are fairly unambiguous.

Perhaps you have me confused with someone else?

Edit: Oh! I am sorry. I did not realize...

josh.lackey_ESO

They should add polymorphs that let you change your appearance to another race, so you aren't locked into a cosmetic choice.

idk

Yes, I like the racial skills

Tigerseye wrote: »

idk wrote: »

Tigerseye wrote: »

AlnilamE wrote: »

Racial passives, but yes.

I love the swim speed on my argonians.

That means that you like swimming fast, not that you like racials.

It does seem they were saying they like that particular racial passive.

I enjoy that the TES race has a purpose. Elves are known for their magical prowess and it is nice that is this is reflected in the game with passive that benefit Magicka ability with several Elven races. So many of us that like the race passives have reasons that are actually meaningful. Besides, the changes made last year do minimize the benefit of most of the passives making the choice less polarizing, less about being OP.

We all have our own opinions. I do suggest in this thread we be respectful of each other's opinions and not dismiss differing viewpoints on this subject.

Edit: The last paragraph is not a dig at the person I quoted. Just a general suggestion for all of us on such a subject.

If someone makes sense, I will respect their opinion, even if I disagree with it.

If they do not, I will challenge it.

As someone who irrationally challenged everything I said, throughout an entire thread of mine on tiger mounts, I don't really feel you are in a strong position to give advice re. being respectful of other people's viewpoints.

They did make sense. They merely stated one of the aspects of racial passives they liked as support for why they liked racial passives. It made a lot of sense. This does seem more of a difference of opinion.

BlueRaven

Other

willjones1122 wrote: »

Tigerseye wrote: »

willjones1122 wrote: »

Tigerseye wrote: »

willjones1122 wrote: »

For those saying this is an mmo, not a tes game you're leaving out three letters: rpg. I come from a D&D background. Racial bonuses have always been a thing in fantasy rpg. You pick your race based on the character you want to play... If that means playing against type then you live with that choice, and it can make for some very interesting rp/head cannon. If your not about rp, just play the race that gives you the bonus you want. None of the races have a "disadvantage"(i.e. none of them have reduced stats/abilities based on race like you do in some rpgs including TES games) just different strengths based on racial evolution/disposition and lore.

The problem is that (whether they want to call it an MMO, or not) this is a multiplayer game, not a single player game, so it should be designed accordingly.

If they can perfectly balance racials and make them apply equally to all classes and builds, then fair enough, but they are not currently doing that.

Solo RPGs are very different from multiplayer RPGs, as you are (obviously) not competing against others.

While playing alone, you could select the "wrong" race for your chosen class/build, on purpose, in an attempt to make the game a bit harder once you know what you are doing, without harming your ability to compete.

So, even though I don't really like racials for other reasons, I have to admit that they might actually add to the flexibility of gameplay in a single player game.

You could achieve that same effect by allowing people to choose certain strengths, on an individual level, as opposed to on a racial level.

But still, the fact remains that racials are one way of allowing people to build for, or against, type when they are playing alone.

Whereas, you can't (or shouldn't) just leave balance to chance, in a multiplayer game, because most people will feel forced to optimise, in a way they wouldn't when playing alone.

Meaning racials typically remove choice and flexibility, more than they add to it, in a multiplayer game like ESO.

Assuming you are playing it as a multiplayer, as opposed to purely as a solo RPG, of course.

Which you have to assume most people are, as it is not marketed as a solo player game and there is a lot of group content.

I'm not seeing your point. If you're playing it for competition then you pick the race that's BiS, just like gear and skills. Your not asking for all gear and skills to be exactly the same, why ask for races? If your playing it as an rpg and not trying to push scoreboards... pick the race you want. The difference in numbers won't be a pass/fail for endgame content.

My point is that min/maxers will always feel obliged to choose the best race/class/build combo.

That means that they are left with only one optimal "choice" per class/build.

Maybe you don't think they need to do that do that, but they think they do.

You don't need to ask for all gear and skills to be exactly the same.

As, assuming they are properly balanced (and let's not get into that can of worms, here!), people can generally choose which ones they prefer, without then having another "choice" effectively decided for them, if they want to optimise.

It's really not rocket science...

Racials reduce choice, for people who like/feel obliged to optimise and therefore, make for a more boring multiplayer game for all of us.

As it is more interesting to see a wide variety of race/class/build combos, rather than the same ones almost all the time (especially at endgame).

Ok let's try this a different way...
1. Remove all racial passives and everybody plays what ever race they think is pretty/interesting/whatever. So now the only diversity is appearance? The same dps builds will be the exact same at the competitive level with BiS gear/skills. The only difference is now you get to look like a cat instead of a lizard. That's not build diversity, that's a skin.
2. If we pick our passives as suggested then you get the same problem -people will pick the best passives for their build. They will be the same 3 or 4 skills for a stam build, the same 3 or 4 skills for mag build and then slap whatever skin of a race they want on the character. No diversity other than appearance.
3. Non combat racials only. This one is tricky... What's non combat? Orc movement bonus could be considered an advantage in pvp, so it'd have to go. Stealth is obviously combat related so it's gone. Ditto with stealth detection and any resistances. Can't improve alchemy/potions/poisons use. Food/drink buffs are gone. Could maybe get away with extra crafting xp, swim speed, and skill line xp since these don't directly affect combat but that's about it.

My point is: the only build diversity you are going to get are from players like myself who don't care what the meta is as long as they can complete content on a character we find interesting/fun. Because endgame competitors are going to min/max no matter what. They're looking for the best math possible. Nothing wrong with that, but that choice has consequences just like playing an orc magicka char. If we can live with our choice of having a "suboptimal" build for an interesting character shouldn't they be able to live with a "suboptimal" appearance for an optimal build?

I think they mean by non combat related skills, they mean skills that are not directly used in combat. In other words, by combat related they mean abilities used to either tank a boss, dps a boss, or heal.

Swim speed, stealth, run speed (which does not make a lot of sense on an orc, but whatever) etc, can technically be used in battle but they don’t directly effect mitigation, damage or heals.

Increase in stam, or mag, or regen during combat are directly combat related.
Fall damage reduction, while useful in some fights, is not.

When parsers figure out best dps class/race combos, they generally are standing still in front of a test dummy, so all those movement abilities are not a factor neither are resistances (which the combat team got wrong too, but again, whatever).

I think in general people want to play the race/class combo they want without “feeling” like they got penalized. If someone wants to tank on a high elf or bosmer, they should feel just as effective as any other race. Right now the passives are not doing that.

Many players are coming from standard ES games where race did not matter, here It kinda does and that does not sit well.

Uryel

Other

Racial passives are a part of ESO history, I don't mind them.

But historicaly, they were made to reflect the race's historical strength and weaknesses, not to hinder gameplay. And well, they were actually pretty decent.

Here, we have "Bosmers are great guards, they can spot hiding thinghs that don't even exist in PvE" instead of their normal stealth, Argonians everywhere in the world telling you how good they are at resisting poison while not having any poison resistance whatsoever, and Altmer mages regenerating stamina.

If we are to have such completely botched racial passives, might as well not have any.

willjones1122

Yes, I like the racial skills

BlueRaven wrote: »

willjones1122 wrote: »

Tigerseye wrote: »

willjones1122 wrote: »

Tigerseye wrote: »

willjones1122 wrote: »

For those saying this is an mmo, not a tes game you're leaving out three letters: rpg. I come from a D&D background. Racial bonuses have always been a thing in fantasy rpg. You pick your race based on the character you want to play... If that means playing against type then you live with that choice, and it can make for some very interesting rp/head cannon. If your not about rp, just play the race that gives you the bonus you want. None of the races have a "disadvantage"(i.e. none of them have reduced stats/abilities based on race like you do in some rpgs including TES games) just different strengths based on racial evolution/disposition and lore.

The problem is that (whether they want to call it an MMO, or not) this is a multiplayer game, not a single player game, so it should be designed accordingly.

If they can perfectly balance racials and make them apply equally to all classes and builds, then fair enough, but they are not currently doing that.

Solo RPGs are very different from multiplayer RPGs, as you are (obviously) not competing against others.

While playing alone, you could select the "wrong" race for your chosen class/build, on purpose, in an attempt to make the game a bit harder once you know what you are doing, without harming your ability to compete.

So, even though I don't really like racials for other reasons, I have to admit that they might actually add to the flexibility of gameplay in a single player game.

You could achieve that same effect by allowing people to choose certain strengths, on an individual level, as opposed to on a racial level.

But still, the fact remains that racials are one way of allowing people to build for, or against, type when they are playing alone.

Whereas, you can't (or shouldn't) just leave balance to chance, in a multiplayer game, because most people will feel forced to optimise, in a way they wouldn't when playing alone.

Meaning racials typically remove choice and flexibility, more than they add to it, in a multiplayer game like ESO.

Assuming you are playing it as a multiplayer, as opposed to purely as a solo RPG, of course.

Which you have to assume most people are, as it is not marketed as a solo player game and there is a lot of group content.

I'm not seeing your point. If you're playing it for competition then you pick the race that's BiS, just like gear and skills. Your not asking for all gear and skills to be exactly the same, why ask for races? If your playing it as an rpg and not trying to push scoreboards... pick the race you want. The difference in numbers won't be a pass/fail for endgame content.

My point is that min/maxers will always feel obliged to choose the best race/class/build combo.

That means that they are left with only one optimal "choice" per class/build.

Maybe you don't think they need to do that do that, but they think they do.

You don't need to ask for all gear and skills to be exactly the same.

As, assuming they are properly balanced (and let's not get into that can of worms, here!), people can generally choose which ones they prefer, without then having another "choice" effectively decided for them, if they want to optimise.

It's really not rocket science...

Racials reduce choice, for people who like/feel obliged to optimise and therefore, make for a more boring multiplayer game for all of us.

As it is more interesting to see a wide variety of race/class/build combos, rather than the same ones almost all the time (especially at endgame).

Ok let's try this a different way...
1. Remove all racial passives and everybody plays what ever race they think is pretty/interesting/whatever. So now the only diversity is appearance? The same dps builds will be the exact same at the competitive level with BiS gear/skills. The only difference is now you get to look like a cat instead of a lizard. That's not build diversity, that's a skin.
2. If we pick our passives as suggested then you get the same problem -people will pick the best passives for their build. They will be the same 3 or 4 skills for a stam build, the same 3 or 4 skills for mag build and then slap whatever skin of a race they want on the character. No diversity other than appearance.
3. Non combat racials only. This one is tricky... What's non combat? Orc movement bonus could be considered an advantage in pvp, so it'd have to go. Stealth is obviously combat related so it's gone. Ditto with stealth detection and any resistances. Can't improve alchemy/potions/poisons use. Food/drink buffs are gone. Could maybe get away with extra crafting xp, swim speed, and skill line xp since these don't directly affect combat but that's about it.

My point is: the only build diversity you are going to get are from players like myself who don't care what the meta is as long as they can complete content on a character we find interesting/fun. Because endgame competitors are going to min/max no matter what. They're looking for the best math possible. Nothing wrong with that, but that choice has consequences just like playing an orc magicka char. If we can live with our choice of having a "suboptimal" build for an interesting character shouldn't they be able to live with a "suboptimal" appearance for an optimal build?

I think they mean by non combat related skills, they mean skills that are not directly used in combat. In other words, by combat related they mean abilities used to either tank a boss, dps a boss, or heal.

Swim speed, stealth, run speed (which does not make a lot of sense on an orc, but whatever) etc, can technically be used in battle but they don’t directly effect mitigation, damage or heals.

Increase in stam, or mag, or regen during combat are directly combat related.
Fall damage reduction, while useful in some fights, is not.

When parsers figure out best dps class/race combos, they generally are standing still in front of a test dummy, so all those movement abilities are not a factor neither are resistances (which the combat team got wrong too, but again, whatever).

I think in general people want to play the race/class combo they want without “feeling” like they got penalized. If someone wants to tank on a high elf or bosmer, they should feel just as effective as any other race. Right now the passives are not doing that.

Many players are coming from standard ES games where race did not matter, here It kinda does and that does not sit well.

I understand but respectfully disagree.
For movement based racials they are directly related to combat in PVP. we are talking competitive endgame so it's ALL competitive endgame or none.
Plus if the only racial that could affect pve scoreboards is speed all other things being equal (which it does, because if you can get to the mobs faster you can down them faster and thus improve your time) i guarantee that would be the new meta.
Also "feeling" penalized isn't the same as being penalized. They are bonuses. Heck Elves in d&d (for example) got a bonus dex but took a hit to their constitution. That's a penalty. Thus you are actually being penalized.
You can be an effective tank/dps/healer as a bosmer (or whatever race). Effective doesn't have to mean top of the charts. You want to be the best at tanking in a video game?
Then play super meta tank, crunch numbers, then buy a skin if you don't want tusks. But removal/homogenization of racial passives doesn't encourage build diversity and saying that it does is a complete fallacy. It's not a build if it doesn't have an effect on the game. My non combat pet is not a part of my build, my race should be.

My point still stands: min/maxers are going to min/max no matter what the meta is. Your only chance for build diversity (which is what tiger was saying they wanted) comes from players who don't chase the meta but can still clear content.

Oh and ps. Race absolutely mattered in TES games. Bonuses and active skills made the game harder/easier and race (and class) could actually affect outcomes of certain dialogues and quests.

Thannazzar

Yes, I like the racial skills

TBH if ZOS reintroduced soft caps for stats this would be less of an issue and increase build variety.

goatlyonesub17_ESO

Yes, I like the racial skills

Yes, it makes the game more realistic!

kellax

Yes, I like the racial skills

Racial skills are what make the race skills worthwhile. Without race skills, you're left with homogeneous characters with different skins. No thanks.

Lotus781

Yes, I like the racial skills

Get woke go broke.

Lotus781

Yes, I like the racial skills

UGotBenched91 wrote: »

Do you like having Racial Skills? Why or why not?

I’m not a big fan as I think it hinders the diversity of the game. Yes, you can play what you want but sometimes it puts you at a disadvantage. I’m running a Orc Magicka Necro and while it still works it is at an disadvantage when you look at the Min and Max.

Diversity the state or fact of being diverse; difference; unlikeness.

So what your saying is you dont want diversity you want everyone to be the same.I find that incredibly boring and gray.

BlueRaven

Other

willjones1122 wrote: »

BlueRaven wrote: »

willjones1122 wrote: »

Tigerseye wrote: »

willjones1122 wrote: »

Tigerseye wrote: »

willjones1122 wrote: »

For those saying this is an mmo, not a tes game you're leaving out three letters: rpg. I come from a D&D background. Racial bonuses have always been a thing in fantasy rpg. You pick your race based on the character you want to play... If that means playing against type then you live with that choice, and it can make for some very interesting rp/head cannon. If your not about rp, just play the race that gives you the bonus you want. None of the races have a "disadvantage"(i.e. none of them have reduced stats/abilities based on race like you do in some rpgs including TES games) just different strengths based on racial evolution/disposition and lore.

The problem is that (whether they want to call it an MMO, or not) this is a multiplayer game, not a single player game, so it should be designed accordingly.

If they can perfectly balance racials and make them apply equally to all classes and builds, then fair enough, but they are not currently doing that.

Solo RPGs are very different from multiplayer RPGs, as you are (obviously) not competing against others.

While playing alone, you could select the "wrong" race for your chosen class/build, on purpose, in an attempt to make the game a bit harder once you know what you are doing, without harming your ability to compete.

So, even though I don't really like racials for other reasons, I have to admit that they might actually add to the flexibility of gameplay in a single player game.

You could achieve that same effect by allowing people to choose certain strengths, on an individual level, as opposed to on a racial level.

But still, the fact remains that racials are one way of allowing people to build for, or against, type when they are playing alone.

Whereas, you can't (or shouldn't) just leave balance to chance, in a multiplayer game, because most people will feel forced to optimise, in a way they wouldn't when playing alone.

Meaning racials typically remove choice and flexibility, more than they add to it, in a multiplayer game like ESO.

Assuming you are playing it as a multiplayer, as opposed to purely as a solo RPG, of course.

Which you have to assume most people are, as it is not marketed as a solo player game and there is a lot of group content.

I'm not seeing your point. If you're playing it for competition then you pick the race that's BiS, just like gear and skills. Your not asking for all gear and skills to be exactly the same, why ask for races? If your playing it as an rpg and not trying to push scoreboards... pick the race you want. The difference in numbers won't be a pass/fail for endgame content.

My point is that min/maxers will always feel obliged to choose the best race/class/build combo.

That means that they are left with only one optimal "choice" per class/build.

Maybe you don't think they need to do that do that, but they think they do.

You don't need to ask for all gear and skills to be exactly the same.

As, assuming they are properly balanced (and let's not get into that can of worms, here!), people can generally choose which ones they prefer, without then having another "choice" effectively decided for them, if they want to optimise.

It's really not rocket science...

Racials reduce choice, for people who like/feel obliged to optimise and therefore, make for a more boring multiplayer game for all of us.

As it is more interesting to see a wide variety of race/class/build combos, rather than the same ones almost all the time (especially at endgame).

Ok let's try this a different way...
1. Remove all racial passives and everybody plays what ever race they think is pretty/interesting/whatever. So now the only diversity is appearance? The same dps builds will be the exact same at the competitive level with BiS gear/skills. The only difference is now you get to look like a cat instead of a lizard. That's not build diversity, that's a skin.
2. If we pick our passives as suggested then you get the same problem -people will pick the best passives for their build. They will be the same 3 or 4 skills for a stam build, the same 3 or 4 skills for mag build and then slap whatever skin of a race they want on the character. No diversity other than appearance.
3. Non combat racials only. This one is tricky... What's non combat? Orc movement bonus could be considered an advantage in pvp, so it'd have to go. Stealth is obviously combat related so it's gone. Ditto with stealth detection and any resistances. Can't improve alchemy/potions/poisons use. Food/drink buffs are gone. Could maybe get away with extra crafting xp, swim speed, and skill line xp since these don't directly affect combat but that's about it.

My point is: the only build diversity you are going to get are from players like myself who don't care what the meta is as long as they can complete content on a character we find interesting/fun. Because endgame competitors are going to min/max no matter what. They're looking for the best math possible. Nothing wrong with that, but that choice has consequences just like playing an orc magicka char. If we can live with our choice of having a "suboptimal" build for an interesting character shouldn't they be able to live with a "suboptimal" appearance for an optimal build?

I think they mean by non combat related skills, they mean skills that are not directly used in combat. In other words, by combat related they mean abilities used to either tank a boss, dps a boss, or heal.

Swim speed, stealth, run speed (which does not make a lot of sense on an orc, but whatever) etc, can technically be used in battle but they don’t directly effect mitigation, damage or heals.

Increase in stam, or mag, or regen during combat are directly combat related.
Fall damage reduction, while useful in some fights, is not.

When parsers figure out best dps class/race combos, they generally are standing still in front of a test dummy, so all those movement abilities are not a factor neither are resistances (which the combat team got wrong too, but again, whatever).

I think in general people want to play the race/class combo they want without “feeling” like they got penalized. If someone wants to tank on a high elf or bosmer, they should feel just as effective as any other race. Right now the passives are not doing that.

Many players are coming from standard ES games where race did not matter, here It kinda does and that does not sit well.

I understand but respectfully disagree.
For movement based racials they are directly related to combat in PVP. we are talking competitive endgame so it's ALL competitive endgame or none.
Plus if the only racial that could affect pve scoreboards is speed all other things being equal (which it does, because if you can get to the mobs faster you can down them faster and thus improve your time) i guarantee that would be the new meta.
Also "feeling" penalized isn't the same as being penalized. They are bonuses. Heck Elves in d&d (for example) got a bonus dex but took a hit to their constitution. That's a penalty. Thus you are actually being penalized.
You can be an effective tank/dps/healer as a bosmer (or whatever race). Effective doesn't have to mean top of the charts. You want to be the best at tanking in a video game?
Then play super meta tank, crunch numbers, then buy a skin if you don't want tusks. But removal/homogenization of racial passives doesn't encourage build diversity and saying that it does is a complete fallacy. It's not a build if it doesn't have an effect on the game. My non combat pet is not a part of my build, my race should be.

My point still stands: min/maxers are going to min/max no matter what the meta is. Your only chance for build diversity (which is what tiger was saying they wanted) comes from players who don't chase the meta but can still clear content.

Oh and ps. Race absolutely mattered in TES games. Bonuses and active skills made the game harder/easier and race (and class) could actually affect outcomes of certain dialogues and quests.

Where do I begin...

If I wanted to play a stealthy bow sniper High elf in Skyrim (for example) the racials only mattered in the beginning. Later on in the game it did not matter what race I was, I could become just as adept at a bow, and be as stealthy as any kahjit or bosmer.

In ESO, not so much. High elves will never be as stealthy as kahjit. In fact there is one stealth race now, one. If you want to play a stealthy character you have the choice of a single race. (“But you can add armor pieces that have stealth!” Given the same load outs, kahjits will now always be best in stealth, because the racials are done poorly.)

And this holds true for everything else. Want to play an orc spell caster in Skyrim? No problem, eventually you can become just as good as any other race. Again in ESO, not so much.

Now D&D is hardly a good comparison as 1) it is a pen and paper rpg and 2) don’t races have class restrictions? Or can orcs become paladins now? (It’s been a while.)

A better comparison would be with warriors in WoW. In WoW (I believe) any race can be a warrior. And in WoW they have racials, but if it be Tauren, Blood Elf, Gnome or Human, basically none of them are bad choices for a warrior, yet all of them have individual racial passives. A player who wants to play an effective warrior can choose any race that is available and do the hardest content.
In ESO, basically no one is bringing a high elf (or any other non meta) tank to do vet trials, and with good reason.

An orc healer should be just as good a healer as a Breton with the same load outs. Any race class combo should be just as effective as any other race class combo in endgame. Period.

Lastly pvp and pve should get equal weight in passives. There should not be passives that are designed for one type of gameplay only (like bosmers stealth detect). If a race is more effective in pvp then pve (or vice versa) because of passives, that is truly poor racial balancing.

Tigerseye

No, I don’t like racial skills

willjones1122 wrote: »

Tigerseye wrote: »

willjones1122 wrote: »

Tigerseye wrote: »

willjones1122 wrote: »

For those saying this is an mmo, not a tes game you're leaving out three letters: rpg. I come from a D&D background. Racial bonuses have always been a thing in fantasy rpg. You pick your race based on the character you want to play... If that means playing against type then you live with that choice, and it can make for some very interesting rp/head cannon. If your not about rp, just play the race that gives you the bonus you want. None of the races have a "disadvantage"(i.e. none of them have reduced stats/abilities based on race like you do in some rpgs including TES games) just different strengths based on racial evolution/disposition and lore.

The problem is that (whether they want to call it an MMO, or not) this is a multiplayer game, not a single player game, so it should be designed accordingly.

If they can perfectly balance racials and make them apply equally to all classes and builds, then fair enough, but they are not currently doing that.

Solo RPGs are very different from multiplayer RPGs, as you are (obviously) not competing against others.

While playing alone, you could select the "wrong" race for your chosen class/build, on purpose, in an attempt to make the game a bit harder once you know what you are doing, without harming your ability to compete.

So, even though I don't really like racials for other reasons, I have to admit that they might actually add to the flexibility of gameplay in a single player game.

You could achieve that same effect by allowing people to choose certain strengths, on an individual level, as opposed to on a racial level.

But still, the fact remains that racials are one way of allowing people to build for, or against, type when they are playing alone.

Whereas, you can't (or shouldn't) just leave balance to chance, in a multiplayer game, because most people will feel forced to optimise, in a way they wouldn't when playing alone.

Meaning racials typically remove choice and flexibility, more than they add to it, in a multiplayer game like ESO.

Assuming you are playing it as a multiplayer, as opposed to purely as a solo RPG, of course.

Which you have to assume most people are, as it is not marketed as a solo player game and there is a lot of group content.

I'm not seeing your point. If you're playing it for competition then you pick the race that's BiS, just like gear and skills. Your not asking for all gear and skills to be exactly the same, why ask for races? If your playing it as an rpg and not trying to push scoreboards... pick the race you want. The difference in numbers won't be a pass/fail for endgame content.

My point is that min/maxers will always feel obliged to choose the best race/class/build combo.

That means that they are left with only one optimal "choice" per class/build.

Maybe you don't think they need to do that do that, but they think they do.

You don't need to ask for all gear and skills to be exactly the same.

As, assuming they are properly balanced (and let's not get into that can of worms, here!), people can generally choose which ones they prefer, without then having another "choice" effectively decided for them, if they want to optimise.

It's really not rocket science...

Racials reduce choice, for people who like/feel obliged to optimise and therefore, make for a more boring multiplayer game for all of us.

As it is more interesting to see a wide variety of race/class/build combos, rather than the same ones almost all the time (especially at endgame).

Ok let's try this a different way...
1. Remove all racial passives and everybody plays what ever race they think is pretty/interesting/whatever. So now the only diversity is appearance? The same dps builds will be the exact same at the competitive level with BiS gear/skills. The only difference is now you get to look like a cat instead of a lizard. That's not build diversity, that's a skin.
2. If we pick our passives as suggested then you get the same problem -people will pick the best passives for their build. They will be the same 3 or 4 skills for a stam build, the same 3 or 4 skills for mag build and then slap whatever skin of a race they want on the character. No diversity other than appearance.
3. Non combat racials only. This one is tricky... What's non combat? Orc movement bonus could be considered an advantage in pvp, so it'd have to go. Stealth is obviously combat related so it's gone. Ditto with stealth detection and any resistances. Can't improve alchemy/potions/poisons use. Food/drink buffs are gone. Could maybe get away with extra crafting xp, swim speed, and skill line xp since these don't directly affect combat but that's about it.

My point is: the only build diversity you are going to get are from players like myself who don't care what the meta is as long as they can complete content on a character we find interesting/fun. Because endgame competitors are going to min/max no matter what. They're looking for the best math possible. Nothing wrong with that, but that choice has consequences just like playing an orc magicka char. If we can live with our choice of having a "suboptimal" build for an interesting character shouldn't they be able to live with a "suboptimal" appearance for an optimal build?

1. Well, appearance, lore and predominant racial/special personality.

Not "just" appearance.

Even though it would not be the only factor, physical appearance is indeed a large part of the reason people pick (or would like to be able to pick, if they were truly free to!) a race, when they play a game like this.

If it wasn't, there wouldn't be an extensive (although, not quite extensive enough...) character creation process and there wouldn't be Appearance Change Tokens.

Call that a "skin", if it makes you happy to do so, but the way their character looks still matters to people.

Otherwise, people wouldn't be getting upset about the broken jaw bug.

2. I couldn't care less if people pick the best passives.

Of course they will, as that is what most do for class, build and (often) via race, already, anyway.

This will, at least, mean people can choose the race they like the look of, or have an affinity for in whatever other way, rather than merely the one that matches their class/build choice.

...and my point is, why should anyone have to live with a suboptimal appearance (and/or affinity), or build, if they don't have to?

BlueRaven

Other

Uryel wrote: »

Racial passives are a part of ESO history, I don't mind them.

But historicaly, they were made to reflect the race's historical strength and weaknesses, not to hinder gameplay. And well, they were actually pretty decent.

Here, we have "Bosmers are great guards, they can spot hiding thinghs that don't even exist in PvE" instead of their normal stealth, Argonians everywhere in the world telling you how good they are at resisting poison while not having any poison resistance whatsoever, and Altmer mages regenerating stamina.

If we are to have such completely botched racial passives, might as well not have any.

Pretty much this.

Many passives don’t relate to how the races were portrayed in the ES games, and some are not even true to the lore ESO itself portrays.

Racials should provide lore appropriate flavor, but not guide build choices.

Liccao

No, I don’t like racial skills

No I dont like it. Its fine i a RPG like Skyrim. But in an MMO its not.

Also one of the reasons that im not that active ingame anymore. I simply like that why WoW do there passives better then ESO.

Also the passives that we are talking about is inspired by Skyrim. like if I remember right for some youtube videoes I have seen Argonian should be a Thief class back in Elder Scrolls 3. Morrowind. But in ESO what are they hmm......

Tanks? Healers? why

The reason is that in Skyrim they where made more tanky and Ebonheart should have a healer race before one tamriel.

As I say the idea is fine and works on the paper but in practice I cant see the success in not let people play what they wanna play in end content but only let them play a few of there 10 races. some races are even useless when we talk PvE cuz there counterparts is too strong.

Its fine by me if it wasen't so huge advatage being the right race for the role you play. Skyrim have always been building up like you take a race and play in that why you liked it so there you where not lost if you choose an Orc Mage or perhaps but for other reasons (Mages in Skyrim isen't that strong).

You can do the same in ESO but then you have to take the desadvatage by doing so. And that include being sortet when forming a group cuz your race isen't the right for the job

Racials in ESO is okay when we talk people there do not play the game for there toon. But Collectors in ESO there wanna do all content on one toon. they have to be god damn sure about what they wanna play before they start there first toon. And who have every done that? I am an Achievement hunter when I startet my Lizard there is my main today. I choose a Argonian Warden cuz Lizard man is nice and I was thinking what would make a Warden most fun. Nature, Animals its lore fits best to be an Argonian so I choose that. And then I found out after 20 ingame hours that he was a bad choise. Racials wasen't good. Warden in Morrowind was not good at all like they are now. So I started my main as a miss race(that means that he do not fit his role cuz racial passives) but continued played him cuz I liked him.

Today he have enoguh skillpoints be be multispec with crafter beside. And he is a mag DPS as main spec and if i someday started focus on end game content like vet no death trials achievements to collect there I have to use my off spec as healer main reason I do not care about end game in ESO is cuz Racials I have to be a Healer or tank why, cuz he im an Argonian. And even there some people still want to sort him for better races like Breton for healer or Nord for tank some also wanna ask me to race change. And there I will say no he is gonna continully being my Lizard

In my opinion they are removing the Race selection part of an MMORPG with the way ESO have handled Racial Passives.....

Dr_Ganknstein

Yes, I like the racial skills

I like racial passives however I wish they each had a stamina side and magica side. Or at least two or more. Sort of like champ points but where you can lean more heavily toward the physical conditioning aspects as a Breton (for example). How it is now is if you play magica you are race X unless you want to play on hardmode and choose race Y which only has stamina passives.

Temeraire507

Other

I picked other because for me it is very hard to decide.

I generally like them very much, but only in theory. They are an important RPG aspect. They increase build diversity and eventually may make you think about the choice instead of choosing purely on a cosmetic basis. They flesh out and support the lore and represent it to less lore interested players. They make it more realistic.

That is all great however ESO is currently doing a poor job at delivering good racial passives.

For one the racial passives are only lore friendly to an extend and even go against it in some cases.

Secondly I do disagree that they should lean toward certain playstyles. I get that racial passives are meant to represent the characters origin and attributes what they make of it. Yes there should be a race that is flat out the best choice for a certain very specific build with a certain objective, however any race should offer something of interest to all but the most niche builds for all but the most niche roles. The choice should be made based on what the player values the most or what matches best. Most traits a character is born with could technically be used to their advantage in some way whatever they are doing if done correctly, and ESO is representing this in the lore and story, but ESO is not adequately representing this in the choices available to the player. A character inherently having a connection to magic that wants to use more direct combat could technically use what they have to enhance and overcome what they lack by enchanting their bodies or armors and I do not mean the profession of binding a spell with the power of runes and/or souls in a glyph applying the spell, I mean casting a spell on them which uses some of that unused power to enhance the needed one. Also it would be good if one race wasn't dominating an entire field of builds but only some of those builds and if all of the races were BIS in some builds. That one last thought is probably too hard to acomplish though.

Thirdly it is focused too much on flat and unflexable ressource buffs. If it is done in this way it is practically impossible to fulfill the first two points and it is not much better to balance than when they were percentage based imo, unless these passives were uninfluenced by all additional buffs a character has which would of course also reduce the interaction with builds quite a bit. While Hunters Eye and Spell Recharge are absolutely terrible and cripple their respective races imo, passives like them could have been a creative way of fleshing out the races lore without just being boring stat buffs if executed correctly.

Lastly they should be useful to anyone (mainly looking at you stealth detection) not necessarily in any situation but at least in any given type of content.

Additionally as I as a player who only sees the outcome understands what I have seen they should be planned out with more caution and consideration of other aspects of the game. Working at intertwined sections of basically anything seperately simply does not work, as nice as that would be. Even when you are reworking lets say a machine or a building you may be able to work one at a time, but you have to have your goal with all linked parts in mind (at least) when you start working on one of them or they wont fit together after you are done. This point mainly goes against the racial rebalancing as it imo at that time did a better job than it does now showing that it was probably not planned as well as it should have been. It should have made more sense going into the future and not less.

To adress a few other things I have read real short: 1) I believe that they should be important in combat, as you are left with nothing meaningful if they don't. 2) Movement is extremely important in combat and should also be treated as such, as it lets you control the pacing to some extend and is a key aspect to both being offensive (hindering an opponent from escaping or reching a certain position, ambushing an opponent) and being defensive (dodging, kiting, escaping pressure or esaping in general, being harder to target).

In conclusion I have to say I really really hope for a proper racial rebalancing in the near future although my expectations are quite low, sadly.

TL,DR: I support them but I can't really bring myself to like their current representation in the game. And if something is done in a bad way it might cause more harm than good, so I am having trouble to make a definitive decision on this particular topic.