Serious questions that need answers from ZOS. (The data is out, no need for "more time to bake")

FantasticFreddie

Jaimeh wrote: »

I just want to play my stamNB competitively in PvE again. I was talking about this in another thread, but it's like ZOS has completely turned a blind eye on how some specs are severely under-performing, while DKs are still reigning supreme. In the case of NBs most of the nerfs were because of PvP/PvE imbalances, but why should the players pay because ZOS can't come up with a solution to their balance issues which doesn't gut a spec entirely out of a game mode... It's one of my biggest issues with ESO in the last few years, and no matter how many posts people make with data aggregated from ESO logs on the monopoly of DKs on end game raiding, and the absence of other specs, they seem to never pay attention, and only coming up with more DK buffs. I don't even know at this point...

Nigbtblade is STILL a top tier healer, and is a top spec in pvp.

Twohothardware

Something to keep in mind is that the active player base for end-game trials isn’t massive anymore, and among that crowd of players, they know which class performs the best, so that’s what they’re always going to bring.

You would need to compare the DPS numbers of the same players playing in different classes because the best players are always going to put out noticeably higher DPS than average players, regardless of their class.

Certain classes like Necro and Warden definitely need some reworks and buffs, no doubt, but to say they need massive buffs when these classes had to be nerfed in the past due to overperforming I think would be inaccurate.

jommerryrth

This is how marketing works. When something is new it's preferred and gets buffed and ahs bonuses so everyone buys it. when something else is new that which is not new gets a degree of ignoring. When warden came out it was preferred. then necro. now arcanist.

But by all means and come to the forums waxing philosophical with outrage against the machine about how life isn't fair. Congrats on that discovery btw.

This game operates according to it's marketing practices, not according to fairness or balance. Making money and promoting the new shiny is their intent.

Cheers!

OtarTheMad

Turtle_Bot wrote: »

OtarTheMad wrote: »

Let’s not be blind to the fact that you can get all of the content done in this game on any class, even one as dead and useless as Necromancer.

Sure, at the top you might have some of the same classes but that’s only one playstyle and you only picked from 3 trials… that is not the whole game, only a small part.

I am not sure the game will ever be truly balanced but they can surely get classes to a place where all are fun, smooth and people who want to play them… can. I think a lot of people just follow meta vs playing something they find more fun.

Lets also not ignore the fact that for the latest content there is a minimum difference of 17% between the top class and the rest.

The issue with having this huge balance difference between the classes at the top is that flows down through the rest of the playerbase.

The game doesn't have to be perfectly 100% balanced, but the fact that it is that big of a gap between the top and the rest is showing a glaringly massive issue here between the classes.

Sure I could include an old trial such as AS, but considering that's the only trial in the game that doesn't have large numbers of grouped adds at any point, it is also quite an old trial with no similar content created since, including it creates a false reading in the data that is outside of the norm for how content is being designed.

Players seeking the top score are always going to seek out whatever gives them that advantage. It has been this way for a very long time if not since launch. To balance classes based on trials isn’t the way to go because you have so many other modes in the game, it just wouldn’t balance anything since dungeons, overland, other PvE, BGs, dueling, Cyrodiil etc. are not taken into consideration.

However, for argument sake let’s say ZOS does what others are asking and nerfs DKs and Arcanist, tone them down. Players seeking top scores are just going to hover to the next flavor of the month and go into trials and flood the top with that class. It’s why there is always a rotating class on top because other game modes aren’t really taken into consideration and honestly… that is frustrating.

That is more frustrating than the distance between classes because a lot of the player base doesn’t do trials. Here is an example:

When necro dropped on live servers even to this day players say it was OP because it dominated Sunspire trials (believe it was Sunspire). However, that’s not the case. I’ve heard other top players talk about it and it was Major Vulnerability that was OP… the players hated the necro class itself because it was clunky and skills didn’t work all the time but they wanted top scores. That skewed the perspective and players thought necro was OP when it was opposite.

Do some classes need help? Sure. Necro is rip and has been since about 2020. Templars and Sorcs could also use some adjustments. I feel that Warden, NB, Arcanist and DK are in a good spot. To nerfs those down to classes that need help doesn’t seem like the best decision but it always seems like that’s the path taken. How about we bring Templar, sorc and necro UP to those guys. However, like I mentioned, to make adjustments to classes based on what the top of the leaderboard players do is a bad move. You do that and in a month you’ll be typing the same thread just with different classes you’re asking to nerf.

Ren_TheRedFox

@Turtle_Bot I'll be honest with you ... I don't feel like we will get any big changes soon .... I'm a Templar main character and I was hoping for some changes to the plar when they said we would get some changes to the classes with update 39 .... "Backlash: Fixed an issue where this ability and the visual effects of morphs don't fade when the caster dies even though the effect ends" which I think was the biggest joke towards us templars. I looked at the new patch notes for the upcoming update and yes, we are getting a slight buff to Radiant Glory, which is pretty much only used in PvP, and Radiant Aura, which actually made me very happy. But other than that... the new class sets will cause a bigger imbalance in my opinion .... Besides all the other class sets, I think the dk class set needs the biggest rework. DKs are not only OP right now PvE/PvP wise, but with this set it will get worse. I mostly PvP and fighting them is already a nightmare .... so yeah, update 40 will probably cause a lot of people to switch to DKs completely because no one will be able to fight them with that set.

sarahthes

OtarTheMad wrote: »

Turtle_Bot wrote: »

OtarTheMad wrote: »

Let’s not be blind to the fact that you can get all of the content done in this game on any class, even one as dead and useless as Necromancer.

Sure, at the top you might have some of the same classes but that’s only one playstyle and you only picked from 3 trials… that is not the whole game, only a small part.

I am not sure the game will ever be truly balanced but they can surely get classes to a place where all are fun, smooth and people who want to play them… can. I think a lot of people just follow meta vs playing something they find more fun.

Lets also not ignore the fact that for the latest content there is a minimum difference of 17% between the top class and the rest.

The issue with having this huge balance difference between the classes at the top is that flows down through the rest of the playerbase.

The game doesn't have to be perfectly 100% balanced, but the fact that it is that big of a gap between the top and the rest is showing a glaringly massive issue here between the classes.

Sure I could include an old trial such as AS, but considering that's the only trial in the game that doesn't have large numbers of grouped adds at any point, it is also quite an old trial with no similar content created since, including it creates a false reading in the data that is outside of the norm for how content is being designed.

Players seeking the top score are always going to seek out whatever gives them that advantage. It has been this way for a very long time if not since launch. To balance classes based on trials isn’t the way to go because you have so many other modes in the game, it just wouldn’t balance anything since dungeons, overland, other PvE, BGs, dueling, Cyrodiil etc. are not taken into consideration.

However, for argument sake let’s say ZOS does what others are asking and nerfs DKs and Arcanist, tone them down. Players seeking top scores are just going to hover to the next flavor of the month and go into trials and flood the top with that class. It’s why there is always a rotating class on top because other game modes aren’t really taken into consideration and honestly… that is frustrating.

That is more frustrating than the distance between classes because a lot of the player base doesn’t do trials. Here is an example:

When necro dropped on live servers even to this day players say it was OP because it dominated Sunspire trials (believe it was Sunspire). However, that’s not the case. I’ve heard other top players talk about it and it was Major Vulnerability that was OP… the players hated the necro class itself because it was clunky and skills didn’t work all the time but they wanted top scores. That skewed the perspective and players thought necro was OP when it was opposite.

Do some classes need help? Sure. Necro is rip and has been since about 2020. Templars and Sorcs could also use some adjustments. I feel that Warden, NB, Arcanist and DK are in a good spot. To nerfs those down to classes that need help doesn’t seem like the best decision but it always seems like that’s the path taken. How about we bring Templar, sorc and necro UP to those guys. However, like I mentioned, to make adjustments to classes based on what the top of the leaderboard players do is a bad move. You do that and in a month you’ll be typing the same thread just with different classes you’re asking to nerf.

This is true. You can't really look at the very top. For one thing, if you compare the leaderboard for each trial you'll notice it's often the same players in each trial dominating the leaderboards. Look at the top 100 parses in each trial and I would bet around 50% or more overlap.

kargen27

Players looking to get on the leaderboard are going to run the best race/class/build and there will always be a best race/class/build. Even if the advantage is miniscule they are still going to run the best. Looking at the top players preferences isn't going to give a good indication of how all the different classes play.
You need several individuals to hit the dummies on every class many many times and then also run each class through multiple trials with nothing in the rest of the group changing to start getting an idea of actual differences in performance. Just seeing what is most popular at the top doesn't help.

SkaraMinoc

I've said it before but data-driven combat design should be taken with a grain of salt.

Jimbru

The problem with ESO combat starts with the misguided insistence on ignoring what other MMORPGs are doing. The bare bones "Skyrim on an obsolete console" interface needs to go away. Replace light attacks with an autoattack, decrease the global cooldown to half a second, give us at least one more skill on the bar. Start taking the example of what other games are doing right to make combat exciting and stop clinging to the past.

merpins

Why is arcanist ahead? 3 reasons.

1. It's a simple class to play, so you don't need a ton of practice playing it. Getting high dps with it just requires you to know game mechanics, unlike other classes that need a lot of practice to actually master.
2. Lack of competition. The players that primarily play other classes are not here in high numbers. U35 made that worse. If we still had high pop from the old trial running groups, I guarantee it would still be dominated by DK. Arcanist would definitely be a contender, but it would be eclipsed by DK.
3. It's new. Everyone is on the hype train, so the competition when it comes to other classes isn't very fierce, especially when you consider the classes that aren't chart topping. Necro? It's bad right now. Warden? Also bad in PVE. NB? Too hard to play to get those high numbers, and with little competition, it's a no show. Templar? Nerfed. Sorc? Shows up sometimes, but it's also not in a great spot. The only two classes in a decent spot right now are DK and Arcanist.

This isn't an issue of two classes being overtuned... Maybe it is a little bit, but for the most part it's the fact that other classes keep getting the short end of the stick. Nerfs, getting ignored by good balance changes, etc. Arcanist is the new hotness and everyone is playing it, and DK is Zos' favorite child.

Marto

kargen27 wrote: »

Players looking to get on the leaderboard are going to run the best race/class/build and there will always be a best race/class/build. Even if the advantage is miniscule they are still going to run the best. Looking at the top players preferences isn't going to give a good indication of how all the different classes play.
You need several individuals to hit the dummies on every class many many times and then also run each class through multiple trials with nothing in the rest of the group changing to start getting an idea of actual differences in performance. Just seeing what is most popular at the top doesn't help.

This is a very good point.
If every single one of the users on this list suddenly switched to Sorcerer or Necromancer instead of Arcanist or DK, we'd probably see slightly lower numbers, sure. Instead of 130k you get 110k, instead of 100k you get 90k.

What OP's data shows is primarily the popularity of different classes. And while the popularity of classes is related to their power in highly optimized scenarios, it is not so clear as to treat it as proof.

That's the other problem, too. You're looking at highly optimized scenarios. It is not the norm, and it is not the majority.

It is perfectly possible for class A to be stronger than class B when in a 4-man group with poor rotations and poor uptime on buffs, while class B is stronger than class A in optimized scenarios with every debuff and buff imaginable. You can't just say "Class A is better"

Dojohoda

To see how classes did in the past, pick one of the links OP shared. Look at the top bar where you can choose a different update. Choose a different update and see how it changes. (The trial has to have been in play during the update you select, if you want to see one from years ago, pick an older trial.)

Here is one changed to update 37. Of course, arcanist didn't exist but it is interesting to see how the classes performed in the past.
https://www.esologs.com/zone/rankings/15#boss=51&partition=16

This one is for update 35:
https://www.esologs.com/zone/rankings/15#boss=51&partition=14

Update 33:
https://www.esologs.com/zone/rankings/15#boss=51&partition=12

Ph1p

Several people have made the point that we cannot just look at the very top of every trial for insights, since this isn't how the majority of players experience these classes. However, the picture looks pretty much the same for regular veteran or normal statistics. The DPS numbers there are dominated by Arcanists and Dragonknights there as well, and not just in the top 100 but also way further down.

However, this could still be a matter of the popularity of the new class, as some rightfully pointed out. If 50% of all people use the Arcanist and the other classes are split across the other half, then of course Arcanists will take up most spots on any leaderboard.

Taking all that into account, we could look at the median damage numbers across each DPS type as a whole. This is what ESO Logs shows for veteran difficulty:

• In every single trial, Stamina Arcanists have the highest median damage across all classes
• In every single trial, the median damage of Stamina Arcanists is around 10% higher than that of the next best class
• In almost all trials, the difference between the Stamina Arcanist and 2nd place is bigger than the spread between 2nd place and the next 4-5 positions
• By the way, normal trials show a similar pattern, except that Sorcs beat out Stamina Arcanists in normal Asylum Sanctorium

I think it's pretty clear that the Arcanist performs better than other classes across the board, regardless of content, difficulty, or player experience. At least for me it's also not unexpected, because every new DLC needs something shiny and rewarding. Plus, the Arcanist doesn't seem to be way ahead for tanks or healers, and I haven't heard of any balancing issues in PVP. Looking at past classes, sets, or builds that were overtuned, it's only a matter of time until some changes are introduced.

Sources: vSE, vDSR, vRG, vKA, vSS, vCR+0, vAS+0, vHoF, vMoL, vSO, vHRC, vAA

Zodiarkslayer

Thy_Game_Is_Over wrote: »

This is how marketing works. When something is new it's preferred and gets buffed and ahs bonuses so everyone buys it. when something else is new that which is not new gets a degree of ignoring. When warden came out it was preferred. then necro. now arcanist.

But by all means and come to the forums waxing philosophical with outrage against the machine about how life isn't fair. Congrats on that discovery btw.

This game operates according to it's marketing practices, not according to fairness or balance. Making money and promoting the new shiny is their intent.

Cheers!

Yes, DK is new and shiny... 🤦‍♂️

LesserCircle

Eh just play the class you enjoy, well unless they change the looks for worse like nightblade and templar.

Lykeion

I'm glad someone finally brought this up to zos (and gave such detailed data), hats off to you.
I used to be a NB main. The only NB in the top 100 of the RG rankings is Wavenumber, who is the best NB player in the world that I know. Now, however, you can see on the rankings that his first time playing Arcanist surpassed his NB which had been practicing for over two years by 20k+.
How is that fair?

FantasticFreddie

This is literally just damage done in PVE trials. It's a good set of data, but it's just not enough to make widespread conclusions.

I'd like to see a lot of data points from PVP logs. Obviously that will be more complicated to aquire, but not impossible.

The ones I have access to show nightblade and warden consistently dealing the most damage, and with nightblade, warden and sorc as the most consistent healers. For all the talk of how busted DK is, it isn't showing up on either list.

Now these are only the guilds organized group logs. I can't post them because I know that they would not want me to, but I do think there needs to be more logs of PVP that CAN be shown

luchtt

check ST damage perhaps rather than aoe. obviously arcanist and dk is going to win easily with aoe parses. You're also only checking final boss. You can also not mention/ignore dummy parses entirely. These are very unrealistic due to the different needs that aren't being met from the buffs like igneous and the existence of ancient sustain sets on it. Not to mention the standing still scenario without additional group damage shifts the damage quite a lot toward certain classes (sorc, and nerfs plar).

The meta as it currently stands is mostly arcanist. DK, templar, sorc are all pretty much similair strength wise in terms of dps, with necro warden and nightblade falling behind a lot further. That is the main issue.

I think it's fine that the newest class is ''OP'', but I do think all other classes should eventually actually be buffed up to ~around the level arc is right now, maybe a bit lower or higher. I have the second highest ST parse on vDSR first boss HM as a templar (log invalid :skull: and recently barely beaten 1st on the sidebosses aswell (150k+ single target)). Both of those parses were beaten by an arcanist with less than 1k dps above me. These are not ''miles ahead'' of other classes. They're just not going to inflate their esologs parse as hard as arc/dk due to lack of aoe dmg. That isn't saying that aoe damage isnt important. It is. but there is often a limit to how much you need on most fights, so ST classes like plar and sorc do have their place, although usually only one, at best 2 of them which imo is fine for now.

You'll still see arc and dk on top a lot, but it will be a decent bit more balanced. regardless you aren't actually going after the root issue: The reason why classes are picked in a comp in the first place.

1. Class buffs/debuffs. All classes offer something unique that they need to be there for, however depending on the nature of this buff or debuff it may put them in a support role more efficiently than a dps role.
You need igneous, minor brutality, stagger and engulfing from DK
You need minor toughness from warden
You need minor prophecy/savagery from either a sorc or NB
You need minor sorcery/ritual synergy from templar
You need colo from necro.
You need minor evasion/sheer damage from arcanist.

First of all, in optimal play, the only classes that will guaranteed be put on tank and guaranteed be put on healer are DK for tank, and warden for healer just due to how their debufs/buffs are applied and their requirements of skill slots/proc condition which would lower their damage quite a lot. Warden especially is so insanely bad at dps in raid right now that it has 0 chance at being slotted unless it's dps literally goes up by 20k.

Second, Necro and Templar barely have any reason to be slotted at all. Ritual synergy is entirely needed only for the Alkosh user. As soon as there's a new way to get armor shred or pen, templar relies only on its sheer damage to even be slotted anywhere.

Necro already is being phased out. Colosus got updated to be longer which you might think is a buff but it is actually a nerf, because now you at best only need 1 necro. Necromancer's damage is extremely low, even in full parse setup you could probably outparse it on a semi-support DD in WM or something on arc/plar/dk. Archdruid, TT and Nazaray's existence already make Colo quite rarely needed especially in shorter fights or phase based fights. It's only current reason for being slotted really is for the ease of aoe vuln, and ease of having high EC uptimes on it. but other classes can do EC aswell, and in more organized groups, these 2 reasons are gone.

Sorc and Nightblade have a similar issue: they suck at doing dps in trials. Nightblade is a great healer though due to its high ulti gen for nazaray/pillager, so in most endgame comps I'd probably slot one aside from the very top for specific content.
Sorc however gained a recent buff in major berserk atro, which puts it over NB, and since the ulti gen can be made up for by changes in comp, NB does not get slotted most of the time. It has very high ST dps which compliments arcanist/dk's high AOE/ST. It also works well with MK.

DK is just high dps, but it is basically a weaker version of Arcanist in almost every way atm, aside from in vSE where the way it deals damage is much easier than arc in execute especially on Ansuul, so it does get situationally easier/higher possibly than arc for most people. Regardless, this still puts it in a similar situation as templar, where it gets slotted mainly as a support dps in zenkosh/encratis/spaulder etc. Since all of it's unique buffs are met by an almost required DK tank your reasons for being slotted are much less obvious as DK, so while it does have high ST, the fact that its still in logs a lot is only because arc has only recently been released.

Arcanist just has the highest dmg in the game. It gets slotted for damage and their unique buff literally procs on anything they cast so it can basically be treated as always active. It's also extremely tanky so in prog content its great, also due to the way it deals damage, its setups are much more universal (less gearswapping required) making it absolutely the play for console groups. The difference here is way bigger on console I'd say due to lack of gearswap possibilities.


2. Requirements of the content. This is quite rare, only really in dsr/rockgrove and se due to their damage/dmg mitigation requirement. DK is the only tank that can easily tank reef guardian HM while stacking them and keeping them still for higher dps. Rockgrove, particularly bahsei HM requires high dot mitigation on both OT/MT so the choice is often necro/dk, or arc/dk.
This isn't as prevalent of an issue in earlier trials though as i said.

3. Specific strats (like needing streak or arcanist portal, or building up a *** ton of execute dmg with templar/nb stack for example on fights with difficult executes like taleria HM or ansuul HM. Very rare, only really in prog groups.

4. Comfort. I just like templar, I want to play it (not that i dont like arcanist or anything) Most of the time, this choice is preferential/skill based. For example i suck at cro dps, but if cro were to be even more op than arc right now all other things being equal, i'd still be able to do more dps on plar probably. I'd say most comp choices are actually built off this choice which is fine.
_________________________________

Anyway. Here we have a brief overview of why certain classes are picked in endgame. Please don't use this as a end-all-be-all guide if you're newer to the game or are in mid-tier groups. I would only follow this logic if I were scorepushing, or going for the fastest/safest trifectas possible for sheer efficiency. These differences are exaggerated when talked about in this way, but you are really not going to notice the difference much if you are not already playing at the highest level or near it. Aside from the outliers like warden which will underperform even in lower skilled groups (but not as much as higher groups) and NB/Templar tank, which i didn't really go over but these desperately need tanking related buffs they're so bad outside of even the class related requirements (which already put them at a disatvantage in terms of being picked)

also, for any pvper about to jump on me telling me warden/nb etc is op. This is entirely PVE focused. don't bother.

luchtt

I forgot how to edit a post, idk even if its possible but i forgot to add one important part: Survivability buffs are also often dropped in older trials. This makes warden rely on its major resolve/minor toughness a LOT. (major resolve aoe is the biggest reason why its slotted btw, i forgot to mention this too idk theres a lot to go over haha) This can shift the class slotted requirement even more toward high damage classes like arcanist. It also exposes the fact that warden isn't actually a very high utility healer, its just got 1/2 buffs that make it a very reliable/safe choice to go with. But as soon as there's an alternatvie way to obtain group major resolve from a set or different skill, you will likely see that Warden gets dropped entirely from raid comps as it has bad damage, meh tanking and meh healing aside from it's unique buffs.

The entire ''metagame'' of ESO is often ignored though which is fine as the game is quite easy compared to the tools you're given to beat it. you don't need to optimizie this hard unless you're giga scorepushing xD. So these things are very high endgame focused as I said at the end of the first part. you likely won't actually see these tiny things reflected very well in data collection like esologs, or just by looking at gameplay. Although sometimes very specific strats do trickle down and get put in raid comps by people who dont understand why they're using them which often lowers damage and heightens complexity which is unfortunate.

Jack-0

As someone who played from beta (and who has mained a DK for almost all that time outside of a brief flirt with templars) I would like to point out that DKs spent years in the gutter with their dps, so it's very nice to have them in a good spot now.

I therefore commend OP for not calling for nerfs to my favourite class through thick and thin, but instead for buffing those lagging behind.

Sadly, I have no faith in ZOS at all and anticipate my favourite class being harshly nerfed eventually

OtarTheMad

Lykeion wrote: »

I'm glad someone finally brought this up to zos (and gave such detailed data), hats off to you.
I used to be a NB main. The only NB in the top 100 of the RG rankings is Wavenumber, who is the best NB player in the world that I know. Now, however, you can see on the rankings that his first time playing Arcanist surpassed his NB which had been practicing for over two years by 20k+.
How is that fair?

Looking at those numbers, they are very high but you don’t even need half of that to finish all content in the game. Even with its flaws Arcanist is just an easier class. Arcanist has gotten me the highest numbers I’ve gotten… no where near those but enough to do all the content I want and it’s not even my main. You really only need probably about 30k-40k dps for everything in the game, not a trials dummy parse but either a parse on a Robust skeleton which is equal to a Vet dungeon boss or in an actual fight. After that all you’re doing is getting stuff done faster.

I get that certain classes need adjustments, some minor and some major. As I said though, players seeking top numbers will always use whatever class gives them that… even if they hate the class but need its buffs or debuffs.

Dr_Con

Lykeion wrote: »

I'm glad someone finally brought this up to zos (and gave such detailed data), hats off to you.
I used to be a NB main. The only NB in the top 100 of the RG rankings is Wavenumber, who is the best NB player in the world that I know. Now, however, you can see on the rankings that his first time playing Arcanist surpassed his NB which had been practicing for over two years by 20k+.
How is that fair?

since 8k is such a massive difference to start calling for nerfs.

anyone who has done this fight knows that Xalvakka needs to be pushed and a bulk of the adds can be ignored or accounted for with AOEs, both arcanist and DK kits have a lot of AOE damage while mainly ignoring the adds.



If you all want to complain about the extra damage they are doing to adds, go ahead, but the quoted person was doing more damage to Xalvakka on his NB than his arcanist in a group that did more damage per second to Xalvakka overall than the DPS-padding group that you are all quoting as being a better fight, that did less damage per second to Xalvakka but more damage to adds.

I will say it again, this thread is cherry picked data and presented in a misleading way. Arcanist and DK are great and "easy to play (this is subjective)," but if I'm a DPS in a trial I know that the way to pad my DPS numbers is to aim my beam at the adds while hitting the boss, as opposed to just hitting the boss.

ZOS can change this by decreasing damage done to non-boss targets the more that are hit, but they could have done the same with tri focus and chose not to. The results at the top also don't translate/apply well to all groups at all experience levels, players should look at data from points earned at their own level to see what people are doing at their level, and then work their way up.

Lykeion

Dr_Con wrote: »

I will say it again, this thread is cherry picked data and presented in a misleading way. Arcanist and DK are great and "easy to play (this is subjective)," but if I'm a DPS in a trial I know that the way to pad my DPS numbers is to aim my beam at the adds while hitting the boss, as opposed to just hitting the boss.

I disagree with your argument about cherrypick. This thread counts the top 100 ranking's classes for each trial as a source of statistical data on well-performing classes. So far in U39, most of the HM trials have less than 500 records (this includes healers and tanks). Exactly how many stats do you need to make you think it's not cherry-picked data?

Regarding the other part of your argument, I'd say that AOE damage is meaningful; damage against adds is meaningful. It's not what you called 'pad DPS'. Not killing frogs fast enough in Oaxiltso or wraiths in Bahsei can be a serious threat to healers or DDs, not to mention watchings in Xalvakka. Let alone the fact that in many cases Arcanist is superior to other classes even in terms of single-target damage without adds. Xalvakka's top tier Arcanist's damage to bosses is much higher than the first non-Arcanist or DK's class's damage to bosses




Additionally, esolog provides Damage To Bosses Ranking, and using RG as an example, I've tallied up the non-Arcanist and DK classes in the top 100 for you since you insist on damage to bosses being so meaningful

Oaxiltso
https://www.esologs.com/zone/rankings/15#boss=49&class=DPS&metric=bossdps
2 Blades
2 Temps
0 Others

Flame-Herald Bahsei
https://www.esologs.com/zone/rankings/15#boss=50&class=DPS&metric=bossdps
2 Blades
2 Temps
2 Necros
0 Others

Xalvakka
https://www.esologs.com/zone/rankings/15#boss=51&class=DPS&metric=bossdps
2 Blades
2 Temps
2 Sorcs
0 Others

For the rest of the trials, check it out for yourself.

LittlePinkDot

Turtle_Bot wrote: »

@ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_Kevin @ZOS_BrianWheeler @ZOS_Gilliam

There are some extremely serious balance issues between the classes in the game currently.
We have over a years worth of data now since the Update 35 combat reworks, which is showing that 5 of the 7 classes are currently significantly lagging behind of the top 2 and are in dire need of huge direct reworks that buff them massively to catch up to within a reasonable level of the current top 2 classes for actual in game content.

Here are the ESOLOGS for the overall (across all classes) top 100 DPS for the 3 most recent trials in ESO:

RockGrove (RG):
https://www.esologs.com/zone/rankings/15#boss=51

Dreadsail Reef (DSR):
https://www.esologs.com/zone/rankings/16#boss=54

Sanity's Edge (SE):
https://www.esologs.com/zone/rankings/17#boss=57


As I'm sure many of us know, DK has been the strongest class for both PvE and PvP content for well over a year now and that the other classes are just too far behind it. With Arcanist being the new class, it is naturally going to be strong, but it is clearly even stronger still than DK to the point that the other 5 classes are almost not worth playing at all. We have the hard data and it has been available for a long time now via logs such as these.
Lets look at the data shall we?

You have the Arcanist in the top spot (1st place) with IN CONTENT peak DPS in these 3 trials of:
- 132k in RG
- 159k in DSR
- and lastly, a whopping 171k DPS (for 7 minutes duration) in SE.

The other class that is consistently at the top (2nd place) for IN CONTENT DPS in these 3 trials is the DK with:
- 109k in RG
- 141k in DSR
- and again a whopping 169k DPS (for 7 minutes duration) in SE.

Top 100 performances of the other 5 classes for each of these trials shall we?

RG:
2 Templars, highest rank 77th with DPS of 98.5k
0 Necros
0 Sorcerers
2 NBs, highest rank 64th with DPS of barely over 100k
0 Wardens

DSR:
6 Templars, highest rank is 30th with DPS of 133k
7 Necros, highest rank 47th with DPS of 121k
3 Sorcerers (all stamina + pet builds), highest rank 57th with DPS of just under 119k
0 NBs
0 Wardens

SE:
10 Templars, highest rank is 37th with DPS of 121k
12 Necros, highest rank 43rd with DPS of 117k
3 Sorcerers (all stamina + pet builds), highest rank 82nd with DPS of 99k
0 NBs
0 Wardens

Compare these to the highest DPS of DK and Arcanist for each of these trials we can see the following results for the best performances of each of the other 5 classes:

RG:
NB is 25% behind Arcanist and 9% behind DK.
Templar is 26% behind Arcanist and 10% behind DK.
Sorc, Necro and warden just don't exist in the top 100 for this trial at all. They are that far behind.

DSR:
Templar is 17% behind Arcanist and 6% behind DK.
Necro is 24% behind Arcanist and 14% behind DK.
Stam-(Pet)-Sorcerer is 25% behind Arcanist and 16% behind DK.
NB and Warden just don't exist in the top 100 for this trial at all. They are that far behind.

SE:
Templar is 30% behind Arcanist and 29% behind DK.
Necro is 32% behind Arcanist and 31% behind DK.
Stam-(Pet)-Sorcerer is a whopping 42% behind Arcanist and 41% behind DK.
Again, NB and Warden just don't exist in the top 100 for this trial at all. They are that far behind.

It is abundantly clear that there are 2 classes that are miles ahead of the other 5 classes for IN CONTENT DPS values which is completely contradicting what the trial dummy parses are telling us. Even the most diverse spread of classes among these 3 trials (in Sanity's Edge) had 75% of the top 100 DPS fairly evenly split between Arcanist and DK and its not even close for the remaining 5 classes, with the next best class (Templar) being effectively 30% behind both Arcanist and DK.
Across all 3 of these trials, DK and Arcanist combined account for an average of 85% of the top 100 DPS spots (96%, 84% and 75% from RG, DSR and SE respectively). If the classes were even remotely balanced for actual in game content that number should be closer to 28% of the top 100 slots for those 2 classes combined.

What can we learn from this data?

1. Arcanist is bare minimum 17% ahead of every class bar DK
2. DK is minimum 6% ahead of the next best class (Templar)
3. The third best class for clearing end game content (Templar) is on average 24% behind the best class.
4. The remaining 4 classes cannot be averaged to see how far behind they are on average because they don't exist for 1 (or more) of the top 100 for these trials.
5. NB, Stamina pet Sorcerer and Necro are barely hanging on as DPS, but only for specific trials/scenarios.
6. Warden is just not a viable DPS option at all, neither is Magicka/no-pet sorcerer.
7. Trying to balance the game based on the results of trial dummy parses is just not working because a trial dummy parse is not representative in any way shape or form of actual in game content.

So my questions to the ZOS team (combat and balance team in particular) that need to be addressed are as follows:

1. How much longer do we need to gather data for? We have a years worth of data, testing, feedback, etc. by now (more actually, since U35 was June last year (2022) and we are currently near the end of September this year (2023)) and clearly nothing has changed even with the few changes to class balance that were made over the past 5 patches.
2. How long does this data "need to bake for" until it is baked enough for the team to realise that something drastic needs to be done to bring the other 5 classes up to a level near enough to the top 2 classes?
3. When will we see a shift in how classes are balanced to be based on actual in game content design instead of based on dummy parses and spreadsheets that clearly do not represent the current state of content design and its design philosophy?
4. Why are the 2 traditional DPS classes (NB and Sorcerer) so far behind what is traditionally supposed to be the tank class (DK)?
5. Relating these balance issues to the new class sets, why does DK get what is supposed to be 2 extremely rare buffs (major + minor heroism) that have been known to cause huge balance issues with the class as recently as 1 year ago, on a set that has a laughably trivial proc requirement that essentially has a 100% up time when the class is clearly already performing well above all the other classes except Arcanist, meanwhile the other classes get either:
- A generic proc set, but worse (Sorcerer)
- A set that is strong but awkward to use (NB)
- A set that has a huge downside (Templar)
- Or sets that don't do anything to help or make the class unique in some way? (Necro/Warden).


There's a lot that needs answering/explaining here and I worry that leaving these issues unanswered and not addressed until maybe next patch will only serve to severely harm the game at a point where it may just end up being too late to save it, especially since there are plenty of amazing games being released currently/near future.

At the very least a guide (that is actually adhered to and followed) on what the team plans to do for their next round of balance changes to bring the classes closer together in power and address these concerns would help. By proposing changes early to get early feedback while they are still in the design stage, where things can be easily changed or completely redesigned if needed, will help to remove a lot of the current animosity, anger and fear surrounding new patches. It would also serve to generate a lot of hype since it gets the community involved in helping to potentially shape (or at least know) the direction of their favourite class.

It's funny that Arcanist sucks so much in PvP, but does so much damage in PVE.

DK is still top in PvP.

belial5221_ESO

Problem with that data is,Arcanist is new,that loads of players are using it.It is powerful,but most jsut move to newer thing for a while.If they nerf fatecarver,and possibly tentacles skill,the class would die.Also,if people keep saying how OP a class is,newer people will continue playing it,not knowing other classes are almost on par with em.So the community is part to blame by making everyone want to play certain classes,race,gear sets.

OtarTheMad

Look Arcanist is strong no doubt but it is also what I call a kiss-curse class. This class has a lot of buts example: fatecarver is strong BUT you need things to line up and be in the beam… that’s not easy even in PvE, in PvP it’s double hard. Ranged abilities like runeblades and tentacle are good, smooth BUT they only have a range of 22m which makes Arcanist mostly a mid-range class. Impervious Ward is a good shield and heal BUT it is based all on Max Health and heal requires crux. Even Crux was already changed/nerfed so it had to be constantly regenerated or it’ll go away in 30 seconds. Also because the power of the class is reliant on crux it means that using other skills on your bar other than class ones will cost you power so you’re kind of forced to use class abilities.

If Fatecarver is nerfed, the way ZOS nerfs things, the class will be done for.

OtarTheMad

Lykeion wrote: »

Dr_Con wrote: »

I will say it again, this thread is cherry picked data and presented in a misleading way. Arcanist and DK are great and "easy to play (this is subjective)," but if I'm a DPS in a trial I know that the way to pad my DPS numbers is to aim my beam at the adds while hitting the boss, as opposed to just hitting the boss.

I disagree with your argument about cherrypick. This thread counts the top 100 ranking's classes for each trial as a source of statistical data on well-performing classes. So far in U39, most of the HM trials have less than 500 records (this includes healers and tanks). Exactly how many stats do you need to make you think it's not cherry-picked data?

Regarding the other part of your argument, I'd say that AOE damage is meaningful; damage against adds is meaningful. It's not what you called 'pad DPS'. Not killing frogs fast enough in Oaxiltso or wraiths in Bahsei can be a serious threat to healers or DDs, not to mention watchings in Xalvakka. Let alone the fact that in many cases Arcanist is superior to other classes even in terms of single-target damage without adds. Xalvakka's top tier Arcanist's damage to bosses is much higher than the first non-Arcanist or DK's class's damage to bosses




Additionally, esolog provides Damage To Bosses Ranking, and using RG as an example, I've tallied up the non-Arcanist and DK classes in the top 100 for you since you insist on damage to bosses being so meaingful

Oaxiltso
https://www.esologs.com/zone/rankings/15#boss=49&class=DPS&metric=bossdps
2 Blades
2 Temps
0 Others

Flame-Herald Bahsei
https://www.esologs.com/zone/rankings/15#boss=50&class=DPS&metric=bossdps
2 Blades
2 Temps
2 Necros
0 Others

Xalvakka
https://www.esologs.com/zone/rankings/15#boss=51&class=DPS&metric=bossdps
2 Blades
2 Temps
2 Sorcs
0 Others

For the rest of the trials, check it out for yourself.

But it is cherry picked because it’s only based on trials and trials is only a small part of the game. I would hope that the devs don’t make any sort of balance changes based on trials data from esologs. You know how many players avoid trials?

I think Arcanist and DK work and are popular because you can look at their skills and think of builds whether it’s healing, tanking, dps or a combo of those and use those skills. They are the classes where you’ll hear “that ability is trash” not often if at all. That’s the goal I’d say. Other classes should be in the same position.

Here the thing though, even if all the skills on all the classes and everywhere else were perfect and awesome. I think you’d still have a logjam at the top of leaderboards because people who do content for leaderboard purposes will always seek the advantage, even if it’s slight.

Lykeion

OtarTheMad wrote: »

But it is cherry picked because it’s only based on trials and trials is only a small part of the game. I would hope that the devs don’t make any sort of balance changes based on trials data from esologs. You know how many players avoid trials?

Esolog also contains data from Arena and Dungeons. Although the sample size is smaller compared to Trials, you can notice that Arcanist still has an overwhelming advantage. Out of all 33 Dungeons which have logs Arcanists occupy the first place in DPS in 30 of them.
https://www.esologs.com/zone/rankings/10#metric=dps

I called esolog data because it provides the most comprehensive and detailed class data we have access to. If you can provide more comprehensive data source, please link. That could be pretty helpful to this topic.

Dojohoda

Anytime I have a arcanist in my dungeon group and I am the tank, I do my best to pile up those baddies so the arcanist can melt them down. I like seeing that happen, fun for me, fun for the arcanist.

On topic though, some classes need some adjustments to improve dps, whether it's better skill mechanics or something else. I'm not sure what the pros have in mind for these classes, but some customers aren't happy with their favorite class. I know I am not happy with nightblade for dps.

OtarTheMad

Lykeion wrote: »

OtarTheMad wrote: »

But it is cherry picked because it’s only based on trials and trials is only a small part of the game. I would hope that the devs don’t make any sort of balance changes based on trials data from esologs. You know how many players avoid trials?

Esolog also contains data from Arena and Dungeons. Although the sample size is smaller compared to Trials, you can notice that Arcanist still has an overwhelming advantage. Out of all 33 Dungeons which have logs Arcanists occupy the first place in DPS in 30 of them.
https://www.esologs.com/zone/rankings/10#metric=dps

I called esolog data because it provides the most comprehensive and detailed class data we have access to. If you can provide more comprehensive data source, please link. That could be pretty helpful to this topic.

This may be unpopular for me to say but I don’t think classes should be balanced around dps numbers. They should be based on functionality and feel of any skill line class or otherwise, basically are all the skills useful in situations that they should be and you can complete anything in the game.

If you can look at a class, or any skill line and never say “that skill is trash” or anything like that then I think that’s a win. You just want to get skills to a point where if you’re dps, you can fit any dps skill on your bar that fits your purpose/playstyle/build. I say that because in truth you don’t need 120k dps to do content in this game. It’s probably more like 30-40k, even 20-25 is good. Sure you’ll need higher dps to do the absolute harder stuff in the game but I don’t think the game should be balanced on numbers elite players can do. And just to clarify, when I say 120k dps that is under ideal conditions in a coordinated trials group with all buffs and the 20-30k dps is just regular dps situations where you may have a buff or you might not… like in a veteran dungeon let’s say.

Devs should, hopefully, be able to look at a class or a skill line or an ability and be like “okay, no many people use this.. Why?” And then they find out through various places like here, Reddit, internal people etc. and just make the ability worth slotting and fun.