Feedback regarding response by the dev team and their apparent vision(?) of Sorcerer

Turtle_Bot

First off, I want to be very clear, that I am very appreciative of, and thankful for @ZOS_Kevin for taking the time and effort into providing communication between everyone here on the forums and the dev team. You have done an excellent job at relaying feedback from us to the team and vice-versa lately and it has been a huge breath of fresh air and a very welcome change.

---

Next, and onto the main topic of this thread, with the latest patch notes being released on the PTS and the responses regarding the feedback provided as to the state of certain classes, there are many issues/concerns/questions that I want to bring up, specifically regarding the sorcerer class, to the given developer responses posted to the official feedback thread that it would be nice to have directly clarified/addressed.

For context, here is the response given by the dev team regarding sorcerers from the official feedback for combat/classes thread here on the PTS after the release of v8.3.3 PTS patch notes.

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

Hi all, we took your feedback to the combat team regarding the state of Sorcerer. We have a few comments to share.

We know survivability has been a concern with Sorcerer, given the feedback received and some of the data. We increased Sorcerer survivability this update by giving a sizable buff to shields. We'll continue evaluating and investigating as we go live as well.

We've also seen feedback regarding Pet vs non-Pet builds. Specifically, wanting more options for non-Pet builds. While there will be no changes to this in U37, we want to acknowledge this sentiment and the team is monitoring this. We want to make sure when thinking about this and reviewing feedback, we are keeping class presentation for Pet Sorcerer in mind while also allowing for class diversity for those who want to play non-Pet Sorcerer.

Regarding Sorcerers and their lack of unique buff/debuffs, this is intentional and there are no current plans to change this. Sorcerers do have some unique abilities in their kit, like silences. However, not locking Sorcerer into having unique buffs/debuff allows for more class diversity in group environments.

Lastly, we want to reiterate the notion of classes having strengths and weaknesses. Sorcerer, like every other class, cannot be good at everything. This is part of building class identity. There are ways for players to bridge the gap through gear, consumables, etc. That does not negate us from addressing problem areas, but it does mean there will be times where elements of a class will struggle compared to others. That is okay and a part of building unique gameplay experiences.

My responses, concerns and follow up questions to the 4 points brought up in the above developer comment are as follows:

---

Regarding point 1: "We increased Sorcerer survivability this update by giving a sizable buff to shields. We'll continue evaluating and investigating as we go live as well."

I went through the specific mechanical and gameplay disadvantages regarding the comparison of shields versus heals in the following quoted post on the official feedback for combat/classes thread here on the PTS.

Turtle_Bot wrote: »

Heals:
- can be block-cast which provides a huge amount of mitigation of incoming damage
- they also draw you out of the high pressure execute threshold meaning that combined with block mitigation you can reduce and even prevent the execute bonus damage from triggering.
- can critically heal to provide much bigger healing.
- buffed by raw damage instead of max stats, which is much more efficient, so building for damage also simultaneously builds for better healing as well, thus being able to effectively utilize the latest and best sets that scale with damage to reach their full potential without any sacrifice in either offense or defense capabilities.
- Innumerable CP, named buffs and armor sets that increase healing done/healing taken and also provide many unique extra abilities/functions/bonuses when healing.
- reactive in nature, so they don't require pre-casting to be the most effective and as such tend to be much more effective at recovering from high pressure life or death situations.


Shields:
- don't gain the block mitigation, meaning that any damage that hits the shield will hit at full power.
- don't factor into the health threshold for calculating execute damage meaning that execute abilities will proc their bonus damage and very often straight up delete the shield as fast as or faster than the shield can be recast all while the other damage instances are still hitting the sorcerers health pool bringing them even closer to death.
- cannot crit to increase the size of the shield like heals can.
- scales off max magicka (and now max health), meaning that to make shields worthwhile to run, you are investing into either max magicka (which scales horribly for damage due to the changes made a while ago to how damage and healing and proc sets very efficiently scale with raw damage compared to max stats) or you're forced to build into max health which makes you tanky, but again doesn't do anything to help with damage. Simply put, the class is forced to choose, build for its defense or its offense, but not both, where as other classes can build purely for damage and at the same time increase their defenses drastically via much bigger heals.
- Very limited CP options to buff this mechanic and dedicated monster sets (infernal guardian) requires damage shields that scale off max stats to proc it, but the set itself scales off damage instead of max stats meaning it will be a very weak proc that is not worth using.
- proactive in nature, meaning they need to be pre-cast to attempt to prevent damage instead of allowing you to recover from damage making them much worse when trying to recover from those life or death situations.

I also pointed out the specific issues with the sorcerer class heals in that same comment:

Turtle_Bot wrote: »

pets
- the clannfear is a nice PVE heal for tanks as it scales off max health
- matriarch it nice in PVE as its a group heal that is very strong
- but both of these abilities are tied to pets that have their stats based on 2018 ESO combat metrics and as such both of these pets are simply a liability in PVP
- both of these abilities take up multiple bar slots to use them which heavily limits how flexible sorcerers can build if they want to utilize either (or both) of these abilities.
- both of these abilities have a 2GCD summon time which can be interrupted and when interrupted they hard lock for 3GCD leaving a sorc without a heal for up to 8GCD (1.5-2GCD for the first attempted summon, 3 GCD for the interrupt hard lock which also stuns the sorcerer, 1.5-2 GCD for the second summon attempt and another final GCD for the actual heal) so with how high and free damage has gotten over the past few years, having no heal for upwards of 8 seconds is a literal death sentence in PVP, especially with how easy to kill those pets are now and the fact that they heavily restrict build/ability flexibility when using them.

dark conversion
This leaves the class with dark conversion as its main burst/self heal for PVP which has its own issues.
- this ability and its morphs are flat heals that don't scale with anything
- they also have very low tool tips for a burst heal, due to this lack of scaling. I.e. the tooltip of this ability is the same as the actual post battle spirit heal value of other class burst heals and as such once battle spirit is taken into account on this ability they only heal for half the amount a burst heal should be healing for.
- This ability also has a cast time on it meaning it is a delayed heal and not an instant burst heal, it is also interruptible (see issue with summoning twilight and clanfear above) where if it is interrupted, it leaves the class without a burst heal for 5GCD (1 GCD for first attempted cast, 3GCD for the interrupt hard lock which again also stuns, then another 1 GCD for the second cast), this, while not quite as long as the pet summon, is still just as deadly with the current high damage available in the game.
- due to having a cast time, this ability cannot be block cast meaning that while you are trying to heal, you are vulnerable to all CC/interrupts and cannot gain the very strong block mitigation to reduce damage taken while waiting for the heal to go through.
This ability is supposed to be the class's sustain ability, but due to how terrible the pets are for PVP, the class is forced into using this ability as its main self heal.

The TL//DR version of all this is:
Shields as a mechanic has been left so far behind healing when you look at it from a whole of game perspective instead of just looking at them individually in a vacuum. It's not just about the size of the shields that is the issue here, it's all the additional factors that apply when using them that has made them so obsolete as a defensive option, factors such as:
- block mitigation not applying to shield mitigation when blocking with a shield up.
- shields cannot be critically cast to get a much bigger shield value unlike heals that can critically heal for upwards of 30k+ (polar winds) in Cyrodiil.
- not being able to block cast or roll dodge cancel heals which provides significantly more mitigation over many more instances of damage than shields ever could, even if shields had something ridiculous like 50k tooltips.
- heals that can be hard locked/killed for up to 8 seconds, no other class has their healing able to be completely locked out like this.
- Heal abilities are generally about 30% cheaper to cast than shields, this is on top of their other benefits including better scaling, chance to crit, block/dodge cast, synergy with block/dodge mitigation etc.

---

Regarding point 2: "We've also seen feedback regarding Pet vs non-Pet builds. Specifically, wanting more options for non-Pet builds. While there will be no changes to this in U37, we want to acknowledge this sentiment and the team is monitoring this. We want to make sure when thinking about this and reviewing feedback, we are keeping class presentation for Pet Sorcerer in mind while also allowing for class diversity for those who want to play non-Pet Sorcerer."

I can understand it being too late to implement changes this big now with how late is has gotten in the PTS cycle, but the issue with this is that there were countless threads on the forums here posted by many sorc mains like myself and many others that have been running for months now (since U36 PTS and some even earlier) most of which provided direction to take changes that would help the class.

I am all for keeping pet sorcerer builds viable for those that enjoy using them, however the issue here is that pet sorcerer is the ONLY sorcerer build that has received any love or attention over the past 5 years that has lasted longer than 1 patch cycle. The only non-pet build that is remotely viable at the moment is the lightning staff heavy attack build that crutches on the +80% damage buff to heavy attacks from empower (usually ran with oakensoul ring to make it have reliable uptime) to bring its damage up to acceptable levels for harder content and even this build isn't exclusively pet free, with the best version of this build being a hybrid pet/heavy attack build. The issue is that outside of pets, this build is not unique to sorcerer and doesn't really make use of the sorcerer class kit that another class couldn't do better except when using the pets. Every other build of sorcerer just cannot keep up or even come remotely close to the pet builds or with the other classes and this goes completely against the "play how you want" ethos stated in your most recent developer insight.

---

Regarding point 3: "Regarding Sorcerers and their lack of unique buff/debuffs, this is intentional and there are no current plans to change this. Sorcerers do have some unique abilities in their kit, like silences. However, not locking Sorcerer into having unique buffs/debuff allows for more class diversity in group environments. "

The feedback never asked for unique buff/debuffs for the sorcerer kit. The feedback was asking for access to standard buffs such as major prophecy/savagery and major or minor breach.

For a class that is supposed to be a magicka counterpart to the NBs physical damage design, its baffling that NB has countless damage and critical modifiers (to both crit chance and crit damage), but sorcerer cannot get anything outside of minor prophecy which is meaningless with how hybridization has changed the game. This is compounded even further with hybridization making the split on these stats entirely pointless and combined with the current DK meta that we are in where DK provides major + minor brutality to the group making NBs minor savagery a much better fit for group play on top of NB being a superior class overall.

The other unique function that sorcerer had (streak) is also being given out to other classes through the rework to mist form. Changing it into the old pre-nerf Ball of Lightning ability, but with better secondary effects and passives.

With Major berserk also being handed out so freely on wrecking blow and chains, sorcs main contribution to group play (major berserk) was also made completely redundant.

So I ask you this, what is the point of bringing a sorcerer for group content anymore?
- it's unique minor prophecy buff is already covered by NB minor savagery thanks to hybridization making both of these buffs essentially the same thing.
- its unique major berserk buff is covered by chains/wrecking blow (available to every class via a skill that is on a weapon line that was already commonly back barred).
- its unique mechanic of being able to teleport to create/close distance at will while blocking projectiles is being given out to everyone via the mist form rework and the new arcanist class also getting their own teleport ability as well.
- Its remaining unique effect of Silence doesn't affect anything worthwhile in PvE (bosses and mobs with important mechanics are unaffected by/immune to silence and stuns) and silence doesn't do enough in PvP with stamina being completely unaffected by it and stamina being significantly stronger than magicka overall in PvP to warrant using it outside of niche organized group play scenarios. You are better off just slotting an AoE stun instead of a negate since a stun prevents enemies from being able to cast both magicka and stamina abilities not to mention it also prevents movement as well and with knock backs they also cause desync issues on top of everything stuns provide.

---

Regarding point 4: "we want to reiterate the notion of classes having strengths and weaknesses. Sorcerer, like every other class, cannot be good at everything. This is part of building class identity. There are ways for players to bridge the gap through gear, consumables, etc. That does not negate us from addressing problem areas, but it does mean there will be times where elements of a class will struggle compared to others. That is okay and a part of building unique gameplay experiences"

Classes are supposed to have strengths and weaknesses, that is fine and I definitely agree with you here. But I ask you, what are a sorcerers strengths?
- Mobility - Every class already runs around at the speed cap thanks to Celerity and Hasty CP, swift jewelry trait, easy access to major expedition via race against time, orc racial sprint passive and mythics such as ring of the wild hunt and every class will be getting access to what is essentially a better ball of lightning so that teleport "advantage" sorcerer has is gone now too.
- Mitigation - This is supposed to be the class's weaknesses and it certainly is a weakness with no mitigation passives and relying heavily on active forms of defense (shields and kiting) instead of the passive forms of defense that all the other classes get so freely.
- Healing - As mentioned above in my response to point 1, the class heals are outdated and far too easily punished to be reliable in PvP, where the pace of the combat has become way too fast for their outdated mechanics to keep up with.
- Utility - As mentioned above in my response to point 3, Sorcerer doesn't provide anything unique that another class cannot already easily cover. It's only remaining unique function, Silence, doesn't do anything at all in PvE and is completely outclassed by every other type of CC in PvP so a class with an AoE CC (DK standard/leap, NB soul tether, NB fear, FG turn evil, etc) will always provide much more utility than a sorcerer can outside of very specific niche use cases (an organized ball group fight against another organized ball group).
- Damage - Sorcerer is all single target damage with very minimal cleave (AoE) damage compared to other classes. Now this is fine if that is how the class is designed and when it comes to single target damage exclusively, sorcerer is fine, but this focus on single target should be taken into account when deciding how to balance the class, especially with majority of content requiring a decent amount of cleave to clear at the highest levels. The other issue with damage is how effective buffs, debuffs and status effects are at enhancing the damage done.

It makes parsing on a single trial dummy a very unreliable and biased way to determine how strong a class is. With the target trial dummy providing all of the buffs/debuffs for the parse so the only difference between the classes becomes the tooltips, the difference is not noticeable between sorcerer and the other classes, especially when parsing on a single trial dummy instead of parsing on what a typical set-up would be in a boss fight/PvP encounter where there are a lot of additional enemies that need to be dealt with.
The point of this is that while sorcerer looks fine on single target dummy parses where all buffs, debuffs and statuses are provided, when it comes to actual in game group content, it falls of significantly for most of it because the other classes have their abilities designed around the requirements (cleave) for that group content alongside actually providing all the additional buffs/debuffs and statuses that boost the damage of the other classes considerably beyond what the tooltip shows. This allows the other classes to come much closer in actual content to what they can achieve when parsing on a trial dummy, while a sorcerer will always fall off compared to its trial dummy parses unless it's part of a very specifically designed and highly organized and optimized group (think the top 0.1%).

- Sustain - This is the one area that the class does ok in compared to other classes. It is by no means a sustain king, but it is not behind the other classes either. Its sustain is also entirely selfish, while plars can help the groups sustain with shards and every class has access to necrotic orb/morphs to help group sustain.

- DKs get overloads resource restore in a passive that works with any ultimate, not even just class ultimates and it scales, allowing the class to deal a lot of damage with much stronger ultimates and still get a big burst of sustain as well as a lot of healing, on top of getting essentially infinite free stamina via ash cloud (yes the unintended interaction will be removed but it was a sustain tool the class had access to and they still have access to it as a way to sustain in the way it was intended originally).
- NBs get their own version of crit surge that is easier to proc and also provides sustain on top of healing as they weave light attacks to increase their damage/healing and power up their "delayed burst" and all of their abilities are much cheaper than sorcerers abilities with no ramping cost in sight on top of an abundance of free passives and secondary effects that help with sustain.
- Plars have a ground based AoE that gives healing over time on top of sustain that is so cheap its practically free to cast and affects all allies in that AoE. They also have a ranged instant cast damage ability that provides a burst sustain synergy for the group to help with overall group sustain.
- Wardens that have a pet that provides free sustain that only takes up 1 bar space, is free to cast, has no cast time, provides major brutality/sorcery and provides a purge on cast and every 5 seconds and provides a small heal when it ends (including when recast).
- Sorcerer gets cost reduction (not enough to counter how much everything that is important costs to use) and a burst resource restore that is tied to a cast time. I wouldn't be against this ability having a cast time if it only needed to be used as a sustain ability, but it is also the closest thing the class has to a proper burst heal for PvP where pets get targeted down because they expose the sorcerer and also pets are a major liability now with the heavy attack builds proccing tri-focus off of an empowered heavy attack hitting a pet that can easily hit nearby players for 30k+ ticks.
- Necro has possibly the worst sustain out of every class, but it does have a lot of no cost abilities and secondary effects that make this issue much less punishing than it can be for the class.

In regards to the sorcerers strengths, I once again ask Where are the class's strengths? What are the reasons to give it a slot for group content over one of the other classes?
As you can clearly see, the class barely keeps up for only 1 of the 6 main aspects of combat (sustain) and while it keeps up in that aspect, it by no means outclasses any other class in that aspect. The other aspect it supposedly keeps up in (damage) is only via a very biased and favorable test (parsing on a single trial dummy) that doesn't reflect the true nature of the actual in game content that the classes are required to account for and contribute towards overcoming/completing harder content.

---

One final point I wish to re-iterate that wasn't addressed in the dev response, Sorcerer has quite a few outdated passives that essentially make the class pay 2 skill points for what other classes get for 1 skill point (daedric protection, health and stamina recovery, and capacitor, mag recovery, take 2 passives to do what refreshing shadows, health mag and stam recovery does in 1 passive), not to mention passives that don't synergise with the class design at all (persistence, reduced cost of a non core combat ability after blocking an attack, but the only mitigation sorc has access to is major resolve on lightning form/morphs and the bound aegis morph active component, both of which require a bar slot to use that the class just does not have available without giving something else up that is just as, if not more, important so the class relies much more on avoiding damage instead of trying to reduce it.


I hope @ZOS_Kevin that you can have a read through this feedback, pass it on and take it under serious consideration and hopefully this provides some real insight into the issues facing the sorcerer class and why the responses to the proposed changes and feedback responses for U37 were the way that they were.

I want to re-iterate that the class doesn't need large buffs to its tooltip values, those are in a good spot for the most part, what it needs is a tidying up and updating of its passives and abilities so they synergize better with the entire kit and not just the pets. Alongside in class access to more staple buffs and debuffs that every class should have as standard and look into providing a proper burst heal option for pvp use that is not tied to pets that are based on 2018 combat standards or tied to an ability that is supposed to be a sustain ability and not a heal.

Note on this final point about a burst heal, I am more than happy to see (and actually encourage) one of the ward morphs be reworked into a proper reliable burst heal if you guys are overly concerned with stacking reliable heals on top of strong shields. Doing this would have multiple benefits for players
- It allows players the choice between shields and heals to suit how they want to play while also preventing sorcs defense from becoming too strong via stacking both.
- The matriarch would not be as heavily relied upon for PvE healing so less complaints about flappy birds being in everyone's faces.
- Gives Stamina/hybrid sorcerer some defense that will compliment their more in-your-face playstyle and allow them to compete better as a melee class instead of being forced into a bow build.
- Opens up options for a melee magsorc build using the vampire spammable, Eviscerate/morphs giving another way to play the class some viability.

P.S. Sorry for the long post, but the issues with sorcerer are numerous and complex and due to not being simple numbers buffs, require a lengthy post to properly cover everything with enough detail to ensure a good direction is taken when designing fixes to ensure a better outcome for the class, but not one that will make it OP without risking it becoming much worse 1 patch later.

Turtle_Bot

For those curious about the named buff/debuff access a class has, here's a chart showing all the different named buffs that each class has in their class kits. Sorcerer is right there down the bottom only barely beating out necro, but the difference between sorc and necro is that necro has a bunch of small unnamed buffs attached to all of their skills and also provide 1 of the rarer buffs major vulnerability (still the only class to provide this).

Glantir

Turtle_Bot wrote: »

For those curious about the named buff/debuff access a class has, here's a chart showing all the different named buffs that each class has in their class kits. Sorcerer is right there down the bottom only barely beating out necro, but the difference between sorc and necro is that necro has a bunch of small unnamed buffs attached to all of their skills and also provide 1 of the rarer buffs major vulnerability (still the only class to provide this).

This graphic is a bit misleading, e.g. Major Berserk, you cant trigger it yourself, it is even possible that you didnt get the buff yourself.
Major/Minor Expedition is the same skills but other Morphs and some buffs are on Skills no one uses (vitality is on the ground root right?

Turtle_Bot

Glantir wrote: »

Turtle_Bot wrote: »

For those curious about the named buff/debuff access a class has, here's a chart showing all the different named buffs that each class has in their class kits. Sorcerer is right there down the bottom only barely beating out necro, but the difference between sorc and necro is that necro has a bunch of small unnamed buffs attached to all of their skills and also provide 1 of the rarer buffs major vulnerability (still the only class to provide this).

This graphic is a bit misleading, e.g. Major Berserk, you cant trigger it yourself, it is even possible that you didnt get the buff yourself.
Major/Minor Expedition is the same skills but other Morphs and some buffs are on Skills no one uses (vitality is on the ground root right?

You are correct, I also brought this up when this graphic first surfaced too, but the class does technically have access to these buffs, even if they aren't reliably accessible (requires ally to use synergy and even then may not get it) or are on skills that are not worth slotting.

AdamLAD

We have all stated this numerous times unfortunately. The thing that I don't understand is that the reason sorcerer has no access to buffs and debuffs, so other classes can provide them for you. So immediately as a solo or a person who plays small scale in PvP we are at a disadvantage as we don't have any access to buffs and need someone to give them too us. Also what happens if your in a large group and no one is providing those buffs we lack ? What ? We just still immediately going to be at a disadvantage? Alongside everything that's already terrible with the class. We have silences ? It's literally tied to an ultimate that's a ground based aoe when sorcerer is single target primarily, not just this it literally only effects magicka players. People can rolldoge out of our ultimate (negate). In essence the reasons for the dev team to not allow us to have access to buffs and debuffs is not good enough. Especially when we are lacking is all areas quite literally.

Looks like I will have to wait till the next pts to see anything for sorcerer. Close to 6 years. I shall be patient however if we do not receive anything in the next pts/update after this one. It's clear they do not share our same concerns or play PvP on the class

The_Titan_Tim

In a normal RPG, yes, your casters would have little mitigation and decent healing but as far as ESO is concerned, it’s been vice-versa.

Ever since launch, ZOS has been making each class feel closer in similarity, gradually shifting from being identified for what they have, to instead what they don’t, it’s undeniable how far along they have come in regards to balancing this game. We went from viewing classes as broken for providing two of the major four balance key areas as the majority of classes were only really strong in one area, to now achieve “broken” status, the class has to be performing great in all four.

Each class should have to wear sets, slot potions or specific weapons to supplement in the areas they are missing, examples being;

Sets like Wretched Vitality on a Dragonknight or Warden, Pariah on a Nightblade, New Moon Acolyte on Templar or Necromancer, and Mara’s Balm on a Sorcerer.

If each class needed to wear sets to provide for their need areas, we wouldn’t have every player running around in Mara’s Balm, only Sorcerer’s that want a well rounded experience.

The_Titan_Tim wrote: »

Also, for anyone who doesn’t know what @ZOS_Kevin meant by each class has its drawbacks, here is my interpretation of each of their benefits…

• Dragonknight: Damage, Mitigation, Healing
• Warden: Damage, Mitigation, Healing
• Nightblade: Damage, Healing, Sustain
• Templar: Mitigation, Healing, Sustain
• Necromancer: Mitigation, Healing, Sustain
• Sorcerer: Damage, Mitigation, Sustain

I have reason to believe Arcanist will land itself similar to either Nightblade or Sorcerer.

While classes do not need to wear sets or use specific potions or weapons to address their need areas, they are in a clear state of imbalance.

Our only offenders are Dragonknight, Warden, and Nightblade.

Templar, Necromancer, and Sorcerer are in a great spot in regard to the developers vision shown to us from @ZOS_Kevin.

AdamLAD

So why do they keep buffing NB, Warden and DK ? IF templar, sorcerer and necro are what they envisaged for balance per class then why on EARTH do they keep buffing classes that are just simply better ?

ESO_Nightingale

AdamLAD wrote: »

So why do they keep buffing NB, Warden and DK ? IF templar, sorcerer and necro are what they envisaged for balance per class then why on EARTH do they keep buffing classes that are just simply better ?

Warden dps in pve is the lowest currently so that's pretty misleading. All classes need buffs and nerfs in necessary areas not just 2 or 3.

Glantir

ESO_Nightingale wrote: »

AdamLAD wrote: »

So why do they keep buffing NB, Warden and DK ? IF templar, sorcerer and necro are what they envisaged for balance per class then why on EARTH do they keep buffing classes that are just simply better ?

Warden dps in pve is the lowest currently so that's pretty misleading. All classes need buffs and nerfs in necessary areas not just 2 or 3.

But the thing is Warden ist popular as Heal and Tank, cant talk much about DPS because i have no Idea but i think AoE of Warden is decent?
Sorc isnt a good Tank or Healer. As DPS Sorc only shines at single target but its most of the time negligible because of the missing AoE

axi

Glantir wrote: »

ESO_Nightingale wrote: »

AdamLAD wrote: »

So why do they keep buffing NB, Warden and DK ? IF templar, sorcerer and necro are what they envisaged for balance per class then why on EARTH do they keep buffing classes that are just simply better ?

Warden dps in pve is the lowest currently so that's pretty misleading. All classes need buffs and nerfs in necessary areas not just 2 or 3.

But the thing is Warden ist popular as Heal and Tank, cant talk much about DPS because i have no Idea but i think AoE of Warden is decent?
Sorc isnt a good Tank or Healer. As DPS Sorc only shines at single target but its most of the time negligible because of the missing AoE

Sorc is actually pretty decent tank and healer in PvE. Same goes for DPS and AoE dmg. Not being the best doesn't mean something suddenly is not good. In PvE sorc is more like a jack of all trades master of none. Warden on the other hand works well as tank or healer but stays behind in DPS area unless it's a one bar heavy attack setup when it's a top choice alongside sorc. Similar thing is happening for example to a DK, it's a top choice for tank and DD but nobody would use it unironically as a healer.

AdamLAD

Sorcerer has dps in PvE but it offers nothing else. Tank no. Healing no. Buffs and debuffs no. It's not even the best at dps whilst simultaneously not being able to do anything else remotely aswell

katorga

The_Titan_Tim wrote: »

In a normal RPG, yes, your casters would have little mitigation and decent healing but as far as ESO is concerned, it’s been vice-versa.

Ever since launch, ZOS has been making each class feel closer in similarity, gradually shifting from being identified for what they have, to instead what they don’t, it’s undeniable how far along they have come in regards to balancing this game. We went from viewing classes as broken for providing two of the major four balance key areas as the majority of classes were only really strong in one area, to now achieve “broken” status, the class has to be performing great in all four.

Each class should have to wear sets, slot potions or specific weapons to supplement in the areas they are missing, examples being;

Sets like Wretched Vitality on a Dragonknight or Warden, Pariah on a Nightblade, New Moon Acolyte on Templar or Necromancer, and Mara’s Balm on a Sorcerer.

If each class needed to wear sets to provide for their need areas, we wouldn’t have every player running around in Mara’s Balm, only Sorcerer’s that want a well rounded experience.

The_Titan_Tim wrote: »

Also, for anyone who doesn’t know what @ZOS_Kevin meant by each class has its drawbacks, here is my interpretation of each of their benefits…

• Dragonknight: Damage, Mitigation, Healing
• Warden: Damage, Mitigation, Healing
• Nightblade: Damage, Healing, Sustain
• Templar: Mitigation, Healing, Sustain
• Necromancer: Mitigation, Healing, Sustain
• Sorcerer: Damage, Mitigation, Sustain

I have reason to believe Arcanist will land itself similar to either Nightblade or Sorcerer.

While classes do not need to wear sets or use specific potions or weapons to address their need areas, they are in a clear state of imbalance.
.

That is rather huge. On my NB and to some extent, DK, have zero dependencies on sets, weapon lines, potions or any other contraints on my build. I am free to use best in slot whatever that may be at any time.

In addition to the imbalance in the number of major/minor buff/debuff numbers between classes, there is a major imbalance between the releative value of those. A few classes have the best, the rest have less valuable.

Secondary effects on skills are completely out of balance as well. Compare two spammables, three lava whips boosts damage by 60%, while the third cast of venom skull boosts damage only 20%. That is the difference between a spammable serving two purposes (spammable + delayed burst) and a garbage spammable.

Consider concealed weapon....alone passive minor expedition or 10% damage would either be unbalanced on a spammable, yet ZOS put BOTH on a single spammable for a single class.

At least for pvp, you are handicapping yourself playing anything other than NB or DK.

Remains to be seen what Arcanist will look like, but my guess is it will as overloaded as NB or DK, and be nerfed down to the other classes 6 mos later. Similar to what happened with Necro.

acastanza_ESO

@ZOS_Kevin
This thread here contains all the information you and the team need to know exactly why their comments on sorcerer were so insulting. The combat team needs to take a step back and reconsider their seriously ill-conceived and incorrect position on the current state of sorcerer. And not in some nebulous future update, now.
There appears to be some serious myopia in the combat team where they will not consider any outside views, and any suggestions, and the mere idea that they aren't looking at the bigger picture is taken as an insult and results in heels being dug in. That is the public perception that the combat team is creating about themselves based on their decisions and comments.

The comments on DK's buff in particular really underscored this. They seem to be entirely focused on the minutia of individual skills being used or not with absolutely no consideration for what is actually over or underperforming as a whole. This can not go on like this.

Zabagad

katorga wrote: »

At least for pvp, you are handicapping yourself playing anything other than NB or DK.

To back up this statement a bit with numbers:
I've been evaluating the top 100 from the CP 30-day campaigns on EU and NA for the last 5 months.

NB 457
DK 406
Templar 347
Sorc 327
Warden 283 (still not free to play)
Necro 180

---

(4 campaigns per month * 5 months * 100 = 2000)

Aces-High-82

Zabagad wrote: »

katorga wrote: »

At least for pvp, you are handicapping yourself playing anything other than NB or DK.

To back up this statement a bit with numbers:
I've been evaluating the top 100 from the CP 30-day campaigns on EU and NA for the last 5 months.

NB 457
DK 406
Templar 347
Sorc 327
Warden 283 (still not free to play)
Necro 180

---

(4 campaigns per month * 5 months * 100 = 2000)

?? Can't take earned AP as a measure of class performance.

acastanza_ESO

Aces-High-82 wrote: »

Zabagad wrote: »

katorga wrote: »

At least for pvp, you are handicapping yourself playing anything other than NB or DK.

To back up this statement a bit with numbers:
I've been evaluating the top 100 from the CP 30-day campaigns on EU and NA for the last 5 months.

NB 457
DK 406
Templar 347
Sorc 327
Warden 283 (still not free to play)
Necro 180

---

(4 campaigns per month * 5 months * 100 = 2000)

?? Can't take earned AP as a measure of class performance.

I agree, this is a pretty poor measure of class performance, but what it is, is a measure of what classes people are playing on the most. Which is clearly NB and DK by a significant margin. That is an indication that those classes might be overperforming in that play mode, and that is, in fact, the case. DK and NB, are overperforming by a large margin. But what this doesn't capture is the overperformance of Warden in PVP because it is paywalled, and because it is paywalled, fewer people overall play it.

Zabagad

acastanza_ESO wrote: »

Aces-High-82 wrote: »

Zabagad wrote: »

katorga wrote: »

At least for pvp, you are handicapping yourself playing anything other than NB or DK.

To back up this statement a bit with numbers:
I've been evaluating the top 100 from the CP 30-day campaigns on EU and NA for the last 5 months.

NB 457
DK 406
Templar 347
Sorc 327
Warden 283 (still not free to play)
Necro 180

---

(4 campaigns per month * 5 months * 100 = 2000)

?? Can't take earned AP as a measure of class performance.

I agree, this is a pretty poor measure of class performance, but what it is, is a measure of what classes people are playing on the most. Which is clearly NB and DK by a significant margin. That is an indication that those classes might be overperforming in that play mode (which is, in fact, the case).

exactly + ty

SeaUnicorn

- Healing - As mentioned above in my response to point 1, the class heals are outdated and far too easily punished to be reliable in PvP, where the pace of the combat has become way too fast for their outdated mechanics to keep up with.
To support this from PVE POV Sorc class healing kit is not that great either:
- their class HOT it has lowest frequency among all class HOTs and can not be placed where Sorc desires it to be, making them a bad option for Kite jobs, where they should be exceling because of their class mobility.
- Their burst heal requires 2 bar slots and supports are always tight on bar slots.
- Their minor intellect/endurance buff is tied to a shield, skill that does not add anything to the group. When in comparison Warden and Blade have it tied to a useful heal.

Turtle_Bot

SeaUnicorn wrote: »

- Healing - As mentioned above in my response to point 1, the class heals are outdated and far too easily punished to be reliable in PvP, where the pace of the combat has become way too fast for their outdated mechanics to keep up with.
To support this from PVE POV Sorc class healing kit is not that great either:
- their class HOT it has lowest frequency among all class HOTs and can not be placed where Sorc desires it to be, making them a bad option for Kite jobs, where they should be exceling because of their class mobility.
- Their burst heal requires 2 bar slots and supports are always tight on bar slots.
- Their minor intellect/endurance buff is tied to a shield, skill that does not add anything to the group. When in comparison Warden and Blade have it tied to a useful heal.

Thanks for including a PvE perspective here (PvE healer specifically). I mainly focus on PvP so it's nice to see perspectives from the PvE side of things too.

Jsmalls

"Regarding Sorcerers and their lack of unique buff/debuffs, this is intentional and there are no current plans to change this. Sorcerers do have some unique abilities in their kit, like silences. However, not locking Sorcerer into having unique buffs/debuff allows for more class diversity in group environments.

Lastly, we want to reiterate the notion of classes having strengths and weaknesses. Sorcerer, like every other class, cannot be good at everything. This is part of building class identity. There are ways for players to bridge the gap through gear, consumables, etc. That does not negate us from addressing problem areas, but it does mean there will be times where elements of a class will struggle compared to others. That is okay and a part of building unique gameplay experiences."

I think it's extremely ignorant of the balance team to state survivability is a problem, we're buffing shield size. While completely ignoring the fact that the only way to make that active defense semi viable is to stack a stat that is significantly behind in scaling compared to it's counterpart spell damage. Then have the class passives tied to percent increases to SPELL damage making stacking stats even less viable for the class (compared to a nightblade that gets the 8% increased Magicka in a passive versus a SKILL tied to poor active ability that compliments blocking when damage shields receive no benefit from blocking). It's all just so backwards....

Then to top it all off we have no in class access to healing buffs or breach or savagery....

So despite being forced into item sets to make our one defense usable. We're negatively effected because we can't use those sets to try and get back some of those missing buffs/debuffs...

Even more comical our in class heal is tired to crit. Which we have no in class access to the savagery passive, or increased crit damage or skill buffs to synergize with this.

I'd love to see Zos's vision on what are a Sorc's "strengths". Mobility? Everyone is fast now, especially now that vamp skill line has streak lite, and with major and minor expedition given out like candy.
It's not damage with the way we're forced to play, combined with the tank meta that plagues this game.
It's definitely not survivability.
It's definitely not tankiness.
It's definitely not AoE.

I'm asking for clear communication in what a Sorc's strengths are.

Passives need to be reevaluated to better synergize the class. And if the class is suppose to be a burst class, give them tools to be a burst class.... Minor breach, major breach, crit damage, crit %, vulnerability, etc etc. All these are tied to burst damage with zero in class access to these tools.

There is so much more not touched on in this rant... Listen to your community, they give so much information. Debate with your community that's how we learn your intentions and your perception. Otherwise we just assume you don't know / don't care.

ForumBully

ZoS already laughably listed "silences" as their strength, in case anyone was still wondering just how out of touch they are.
Every time I've got some DK dswinging me with every major and minor they can stack, I'm so thankful for my powerful and many "silences".

jaws343

ForumBully wrote: »

ZoS already laughably listed "silences" as their strength, in case anyone was still wondering just how out of touch they are.
Every time I've got some DK dswinging me with every major and minor they can stack, I'm so thankful for my powerful and many "silences".

Such a hard decision to make. Do I drop the restro ult, that more often than not saves me in dangerous situations, for Negate, which is only useful to dump on flags in keep fights, or flags in BGs.

It's the equivalent of removing breath of life but saying it's okay because templars have access to a great healing ultimate.

axi

acastanza_ESO wrote: »

Aces-High-82 wrote: »

Zabagad wrote: »

katorga wrote: »

At least for pvp, you are handicapping yourself playing anything other than NB or DK.

To back up this statement a bit with numbers:
I've been evaluating the top 100 from the CP 30-day campaigns on EU and NA for the last 5 months.

NB 457
DK 406
Templar 347
Sorc 327
Warden 283 (still not free to play)
Necro 180

---

(4 campaigns per month * 5 months * 100 = 2000)

?? Can't take earned AP as a measure of class performance.

I agree, this is a pretty poor measure of class performance, but what it is, is a measure of what classes people are playing on the most. Which is clearly NB and DK by a significant margin. That is an indication that those classes might be overperforming in that play mode, and that is, in fact, the case. DK and NB, are overperforming by a large margin. But what this doesn't capture is the overperformance of Warden in PVP because it is paywalled, and because it is paywalled, fewer people overall play it.

It's not even a measure of what classes are people playing the most since it's limited to 100 people per alliance. Only information it provides is what classes are people playing the most among top 100 AP gains among all allliances for people who have said campaign marked as home one. Pretty unreliable data source to make any statements serving more as a confirmation bias rather than any data to work with.

Turtle_Bot

axi wrote: »

acastanza_ESO wrote: »

Aces-High-82 wrote: »

Zabagad wrote: »

katorga wrote: »

At least for pvp, you are handicapping yourself playing anything other than NB or DK.

To back up this statement a bit with numbers:
I've been evaluating the top 100 from the CP 30-day campaigns on EU and NA for the last 5 months.

NB 457
DK 406
Templar 347
Sorc 327
Warden 283 (still not free to play)
Necro 180

---

(4 campaigns per month * 5 months * 100 = 2000)

?? Can't take earned AP as a measure of class performance.

I agree, this is a pretty poor measure of class performance, but what it is, is a measure of what classes people are playing on the most. Which is clearly NB and DK by a significant margin. That is an indication that those classes might be overperforming in that play mode, and that is, in fact, the case. DK and NB, are overperforming by a large margin. But what this doesn't capture is the overperformance of Warden in PVP because it is paywalled, and because it is paywalled, fewer people overall play it.

It's not even a measure of what classes are people playing the most since it's limited to 100 people per alliance. Only information it provides is what classes are people playing the most among top 100 AP gains among all allliances for people who have said campaign marked as home one. Pretty unreliable data source to make any statements serving more as a confirmation bias rather than any data to work with.

It's about as reliable of information as basing all balancing on the results of single target trial dummy parses and spreadsheets, in fact its even more reliable than that because it takes into account actual content being played under actual in game conditions.

Zabagad

axi wrote: »

It's not even a measure of what classes are people playing the most since it's limited to 100 people per alliance. Only information it provides is what classes are people playing the most among top 100 AP gains among all allliances for people who have said campaign marked as home one. Pretty unreliable data source to make any statements serving more as a confirmation bias rather than any data to work with.

Sorry at the beginning - 1) for derailing and 2) I'm not an english native speaker - I hope you can understand my points.

1) It's not "limited to 100 people per alliance" - It's limited to 100 ppl per campaign
I did this for Top100 per alliance before and the results were so close, that I desided not to do this extra effort any longer.
With the Top100 per alliance you get in some campaigns, sometimes some players with less then 50K and I don't want these ppl count as "regulars". I try to see what class the ppl play, which spent a lot of time in cyro and not the Tier1-3 or a bit more ppl.

2) There is a lot of variance in the monthly results and sure there are a lot of factors which could change the results a bit.
But your example "no home campaign" should not have any significant change of the counts, because
a) I believe there are not many "regular" players playing so much outside of their home campaign to reach the Top100 if they were counted.
So the numbers are small compared to the ppl which play a lot and play in their home campaign.
b) Even if there would be a lot playing in the "not my home" campaign - I have no reasons to belive that their distribution would differ compared to the distributation I count. For example: Why should more sorcs play outside of their home campaign then DKs?

3) "confirmation bias"
I have a clear rule, which ppl I count.
I have no reason to believe, that the distribution shouldn't be even (and it was much more even in the past) - except warden/necro ofc.
I see no reason to believe, that there is one class in favour to reach the top100 more then the others. (maybe it would so, if one had better passives at siege play or something like that) Do you see any reason?
From my point of view, it is a fair sample from the population of the regular cyro players.
And over 5 month the samplesize is now big enough. There was no month where the order was not DK/NB > Temp/Sorc, but you can easily find one campaign for one month where the order is not like that.
So the samplesize was very important - otherwise you could make biased pictures

And as already said - I don't see good reasons why other taken samples (however they would be defined) should differ much.

I cannot say anything about class performance - maybe NB is just more fun to play?
I cannot say anything about a special campaign because I don't count all players.
I cannot say anything about consoles.
I can't say anything about duel/bg because I don't get any data. Maybe the samples from these groups would differ strongly to the Cyro distribution - that is quite possible.
I can only say something about "people which played a lot in PC CP-Cyro in the last 5 month"

But sure you can still think it's not an accurate measure and the data are unreliable, but it's the best I could find and I see no better way to get information about which class is played by "regulars" the most.
If you know something better - please let me know.

Pelanora

2018, people. 2018. 5 years later, same discussion.

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/437928/looking-for-table-that-shows-all-major-minor-buffs-each-class-has-access-to

Oreyn_Bearclaw wrote: »

Just in case anyone needed a reference that demonstrates why NBs are on top and sorcs are simply an outdated class in the current meta...

axi

Turtle_Bot wrote: »

axi wrote: »

acastanza_ESO wrote: »

Aces-High-82 wrote: »

Zabagad wrote: »

katorga wrote: »

At least for pvp, you are handicapping yourself playing anything other than NB or DK.

To back up this statement a bit with numbers:
I've been evaluating the top 100 from the CP 30-day campaigns on EU and NA for the last 5 months.

NB 457
DK 406
Templar 347
Sorc 327
Warden 283 (still not free to play)
Necro 180

---

(4 campaigns per month * 5 months * 100 = 2000)

?? Can't take earned AP as a measure of class performance.

I agree, this is a pretty poor measure of class performance, but what it is, is a measure of what classes people are playing on the most. Which is clearly NB and DK by a significant margin. That is an indication that those classes might be overperforming in that play mode, and that is, in fact, the case. DK and NB, are overperforming by a large margin. But what this doesn't capture is the overperformance of Warden in PVP because it is paywalled, and because it is paywalled, fewer people overall play it.

It's not even a measure of what classes are people playing the most since it's limited to 100 people per alliance. Only information it provides is what classes are people playing the most among top 100 AP gains among all allliances for people who have said campaign marked as home one. Pretty unreliable data source to make any statements serving more as a confirmation bias rather than any data to work with.

It's about as reliable of information as basing all balancing on the results of single target trial dummy parses and spreadsheets, in fact its even more reliable than that because it takes into account actual content being played under actual in game conditions.

Any reliable data source saying that dummy parses are base for balance changes?

PhoenixGrey

The most comical part

“we want to reiterate the notion of classes having strengths and weaknesses. Sorcerer, like every other class, cannot be good at everything”

What exactly is sorcerer good at ?

There are classes which are good at everything !

Does anyone from zos combat team even play sorc

Turtle_Bot

axi wrote: »

Turtle_Bot wrote: »

axi wrote: »

acastanza_ESO wrote: »

Aces-High-82 wrote: »

Zabagad wrote: »

katorga wrote: »

At least for pvp, you are handicapping yourself playing anything other than NB or DK.

To back up this statement a bit with numbers:
I've been evaluating the top 100 from the CP 30-day campaigns on EU and NA for the last 5 months.

NB 457
DK 406
Templar 347
Sorc 327
Warden 283 (still not free to play)
Necro 180

---

(4 campaigns per month * 5 months * 100 = 2000)

?? Can't take earned AP as a measure of class performance.

I agree, this is a pretty poor measure of class performance, but what it is, is a measure of what classes people are playing on the most. Which is clearly NB and DK by a significant margin. That is an indication that those classes might be overperforming in that play mode, and that is, in fact, the case. DK and NB, are overperforming by a large margin. But what this doesn't capture is the overperformance of Warden in PVP because it is paywalled, and because it is paywalled, fewer people overall play it.

It's not even a measure of what classes are people playing the most since it's limited to 100 people per alliance. Only information it provides is what classes are people playing the most among top 100 AP gains among all allliances for people who have said campaign marked as home one. Pretty unreliable data source to make any statements serving more as a confirmation bias rather than any data to work with.

It's about as reliable of information as basing all balancing on the results of single target trial dummy parses and spreadsheets, in fact its even more reliable than that because it takes into account actual content being played under actual in game conditions.

Any reliable data source saying that dummy parses are base for balance changes?

Zos claims that sorcerer is fine and not in need of any buffs/fixes. The only place a sorcerer performs even remotely close to the other classes is when parsing on a single trial dummy.

Not that hard to put 2 and 2 together and see that this is very likely how the testing for balancing is being done.

Unless there is hard evidence to prove otherwise, this is the only logical conclusion for their responses regarding the sorcerer class and where they think the class is at.

Also note that parsing on a trial dummy doesn't require any sustain or defensive options (see heals/mitigation), so once again, sorcerer seems plenty fine when balancing the class based on single target trial dummy parses since it doesn't have to use its healing and it doesn't need to cleave down multiple targets at the same time (required for most end game content) and as such it looks perfectly balanced in that 1 niche scenario.

Turtle_Bot

Pelanora wrote: »

2018, people. 2018. 5 years later, same discussion.

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/437928/looking-for-table-that-shows-all-major-minor-buffs-each-class-has-access-to

Oreyn_Bearclaw wrote: »

Just in case anyone needed a reference that demonstrates why NBs are on top and sorcs are simply an outdated class in the current meta...

Very telling, that's insane that it's been 5 years of power creep and reworks to the entire game and sorcerer still can't catch a break and get an update.
for reference, here's the table from that 2018 thread

axi

Zabagad wrote: »

axi wrote: »

It's not even a measure of what classes are people playing the most since it's limited to 100 people per alliance. Only information it provides is what classes are people playing the most among top 100 AP gains among all allliances for people who have said campaign marked as home one. Pretty unreliable data source to make any statements serving more as a confirmation bias rather than any data to work with.

Sorry at the beginning - 1) for derailing and 2) I'm not an english native speaker - I hope you can understand my points.

1) It's not "limited to 100 people per alliance" - It's limited to 100 ppl per campaign
I did this for Top100 per alliance before and the results were so close, that I desided not to do this extra effort any longer.
With the Top100 per alliance you get in some campaigns, sometimes some players with less then 50K and I don't want these ppl count as "regulars". I try to see what class the ppl play, which spent a lot of time in cyro and not the Tier1-3 or a bit more ppl.

2) There is a lot of variance in the monthly results and sure there are a lot of factors which could change the results a bit.
But your example "no home campaign" should not have any significant change of the counts, because
a) I believe there are not many "regular" players playing so much outside of their home campaign to reach the Top100 if they were counted.
So the numbers are small compared to the ppl which play a lot and play in their home campaign.
b) Even if there would be a lot playing in the "not my home" campaign - I have no reasons to belive that their distribution would differ compared to the distributation I count. For example: Why should more sorcs play outside of their home campaign then DKs?

3) "confirmation bias"
I have a clear rule, which ppl I count.
I have no reason to believe, that the distribution shouldn't be even (and it was much more even in the past) - except warden/necro ofc.
I see no reason to believe, that there is one class in favour to reach the top100 more then the others. (maybe it would so, if one had better passives at siege play or something like that) Do you see any reason?
From my point of view, it is a fair sample from the population of the regular cyro players.
And over 5 month the samplesize is now big enough. There was no month where the order was not DK/NB > Temp/Sorc, but you can easily find one campaign for one month where the order is not like that.
So the samplesize was very important - otherwise you could make biased pictures

And as already said - I don't see good reasons why other taken samples (however they would be defined) should differ much.

I cannot say anything about class performance - maybe NB is just more fun to play?
I cannot say anything about a special campaign because I don't count all players.
I cannot say anything about consoles.
I can't say anything about duel/bg because I don't get any data. Maybe the samples from these groups would differ strongly to the Cyro distribution - that is quite possible.
I can only say something about "people which played a lot in PC CP-Cyro in the last 5 month"

But sure you can still think it's not an accurate measure and the data are unreliable, but it's the best I could find and I see no better way to get information about which class is played by "regulars" the most.
If you know something better - please let me know.

1. To be more clear I meant 100 per alliance per campaign. Since You were talking about campaigns in Your initial post I thought adding this bit wasn't needed. Also I am really suspicious about results being close in the past. I remember times when leaderboards were dominated by nbs and sorcs so I don't know how far in the past Your data reaches. Especially nightblades seem to disprove connection between class balance and class popularity because even during times when they were struggling in PvP they still had one of the highest if not the highest representation on leaderboards.
2. Any variable have an impact on final result. Sometimes smaller, sometimes bigger. As long as we don't have acces to data source we can't tell which is and which isn't impactfull.
a)there are people who play on different campaing because their main one is either too crowded or too empty at a time. As an anegdote I can give my example where lately i play my home campaign just for reward and rest of the time I play on different one.
b) fact that You don't see a reason for something to happen or You don't have a reason to belive that doesn't mean suddenly things will have constant predictable values.
3. Well if You have no reason to belive distribution shouldn't be even than You clearly havn't worked with numbers and statistics long enough. Even distributions especially when it comes to people choices are very unlikely to happen. Why is that? Because people preferences are not spread equally across the population. And people preferences are very important factor to take into consideration. For example isn't that suprising that even during the times when nightblades were not so strong they still had high representation? If class distribution would be tied just to a balance than during that time period number of nbs should drop drastically but it didn't. There is plenty of importnant factors to take under consideration that will decide about class spread other than class balance and this is why end of campaign leaderboard scores are not the best data source to judge class baalnce.