How important is class identity?

tomofhyrule

Somewhat Important

Vaqual wrote: »

...
I see how that can have negative effects on PvE/PvP metas, but that is really simply a balancing issue.
...
The fact that we can customize to such a large degree is really the redeeming quality of the game and not a problem from my pespective. It somewhat drives narrower metas, but that is entirely fixeable through good and informed balancing.

This is what I'm nervous about. There are constant PTS discussions about the balance of all the classes and playstyles, and more than a few complaints about how balance is all over the place in PvE and PvP. We can already see by the number of "I play a heavy attack build because of accessibility, but I'm not allowed in any content because raiders only want Arcanists" threads that the balance is already lacking - if everything was balanced, then raids by definition wouldn't be stacked with one setup and one setup only. Trying to homogenize even more (or "add customization," as you say) is not going to help the balance issues, and by extension will only exacerbate the gatekeeping we already see in the endgame community.

I think the main issue is something else you said.

Vaqual wrote: »

The bottom line for me in this regard is: Does it matter if a raid stacks 5 generic meta DPS or 5 times the most meta DPS class? No, not really.

which is a valid feeling for one person to have, but it does essentially say "I don't consider people who raid as important because that doesn't affect me personally." It's dismissive, and is evidence of ignoring a problem since it doesn't directly affect someone.

This game is for everyone: PvErs, PvPers, casuals, hyper-sweats, and everyone in between. Thinking about something in a way as "this makes my RP better and I don't care how it affects other groups" only serves to deepen the separations between the various playerbases, and it's not healthy for any MMO if all of its players are constantly at war with one another because they think that their way of playing is the only way that matters.

AScarlato

Very Important

As a RPer, it's very important for me to classes to have identities. I have felt this way in every MMO I've played.

Even when I play Skyrim which lets you do whatever you want, I try to come up with a "class/theme" that I RP the character as.

I do love when we get mentioned for our race or class in ESO. I wish we could choose a primary diety and have faith included also but that's a bit beside this thread.

Stx

Not Important

My perspective is that the best class system for this game would be to have no classes at all. Just allow the use of all skills and skill lines.

Obviously for competitive modes, this would homogenize characters to all resemble the optimal performance build, but to be honest that already happens in the form of all classes using the same weapons for dps, there always being a best tank or healer class etc.

Min/maxing will always homogenize builds in a game with high levels of build freedom, but I think the opportunity for build flexibility is worth it and very much in line with the history and experience of Elder Scrolls.

FlameDark

Very Important

As someone playing the necromancer class, I want to feel like I'm playing a necromancer I played a sorc to test it out, and was surprised when I felt more like a sorc when playing the sorc, then a necro with my necro. It is a little disappointing tbh

Vaqual

Somewhat Important

tomofhyrule wrote: »

Vaqual wrote: »

...
I see how that can have negative effects on PvE/PvP metas, but that is really simply a balancing issue.
...
The fact that we can customize to such a large degree is really the redeeming quality of the game and not a problem from my pespective. It somewhat drives narrower metas, but that is entirely fixeable through good and informed balancing.

This is what I'm nervous about. There are constant PTS discussions about the balance of all the classes and playstyles, and more than a few complaints about how balance is all over the place in PvE and PvP. We can already see by the number of "I play a heavy attack build because of accessibility, but I'm not allowed in any content because raiders only want Arcanists" threads that the balance is already lacking - if everything was balanced, then raids by definition wouldn't be stacked with one setup and one setup only. Trying to homogenize even more (or "add customization," as you say) is not going to help the balance issues, and by extension will only exacerbate the gatekeeping we already see in the endgame community.

I think the main issue is something else you said.

Vaqual wrote: »

The bottom line for me in this regard is: Does it matter if a raid stacks 5 generic meta DPS or 5 times the most meta DPS class? No, not really.

which is a valid feeling for one person to have, but it does essentially say "I don't consider people who raid as important because that doesn't affect me personally." It's dismissive, and is evidence of ignoring a problem since it doesn't directly affect someone.

This game is for everyone: PvErs, PvPers, casuals, hyper-sweats, and everyone in between. Thinking about something in a way as "this makes my RP better and I don't care how it affects other groups" only serves to deepen the separations between the various playerbases, and it's not healthy for any MMO if all of its players are constantly at war with one another because they think that their way of playing is the only way that matters.

Sorry you lost me on that last part. I can't really understand how you conclude this from what I wrote. It is not that I am dismissing raid balancing, but we are at a point where the balance is already in such a poor/undesirable state, that it would not matter if we move to another equally undesirable state of PvE balance, if through that we gain options for character customization.

I think you are seriously over interpreting my view on "other groups", especially since I do not position myself anywhere specifically. Whether you see yourself as raider or not, ESOs RPG qualities can be evaluated independently.

Avran_Sylt

Somewhat Unimportant

I'd say unique theming and skill (visual) designs are important. Not necessarily mechanics.

Dojohoda

Very Important

We used to fight for class identity when they started chipping away at it years ago. Many things in the game we cared about have diminished throughout the years.

flaxegg

Very Important

Honestly, though, I'm pretty much an entirely solo player, and the only thing further homogenization will is do make me even more of a solo player to enable me to play what I actually want to play, which at some point is going to be impossible, so it'll stop mattering.

Felkara

Not Important

Not important to me. Seeing how the game has evolved in to more of an Elder Scrolls game that’s online than a typical MMO, I don’t think “class identity” in the sense this is being asked is important at all. I think you should have access to all the abilities, it would bring so much diversity to play style and you could really have the character you want. Being a “sorcerer”, able to cast fire, lightning and ice magic would be amazing. You should just focus on building toward a role (Tank, Healer or DPS) but how you get there shouldn’t matter. Build your own class.

Prophet_of_Malacath

Not Important

Not important at all.

In PVE, class divisions boil down to "X class heals, Y class DPS, Z class tanks" (and everyone else is out of luck). Divisions that only punish people for a choice some of us made 10 years ago isn't really exciting.

Nor do I care narratively. I main a NB to minimize class identity - I find it silly to wear a thieves' uniform (if so, make us wear orange jumpers or pin stripes). I don't think good rogues would go around declaring loudly "I'm a scoundrel!".

I mean, consider decade-dedicated Sorcerors - unable to learn new spells - who one day see Arcanists are getting the cyan-recolors matching the Mage's Guild outfits.

WoW tried "class identity" and it sounded cool - until my amoral (Bounty) Hunter/Sniper (I liked open-world PVP & being called in to help guildies being ganked) ....until my Hunter gets grouped in a cabin with Steve Irwin, Crocodile Dundee and a squad of hippies lol. Ultimately "identity" is some dev projecting what they feel our identity might be (and if its an odd guess, it only enhances the disconnect).

Nor did I ever care for the simplification in PVP where folks glance and guess what you bring. I remember MMOs who offered no such hints, and the element of surprise can also be fun.

Sure, I'd like abilities to be worth picking up - but that doesn't need to be a class thing.

katanagirl1

Very Important

tomofhyrule wrote: »

I feel like "Class identity" is one of those things that can be taken in many different ways, but we all know that when people talk about it they mean combat ability.

This is really a point right here:

katanagirl1 wrote: »

I enjoyed playing different classes in the past, before hybridization. They all had a distinct playstyle. Now everyone is dual wield front bar and staff back bar, virtually the same skills regardless of class. They mostly wear the same gear regardless of class. Sure, you could do something different but you would sacrifice dps for it. Now stamina toons are hardly different from magicka toons.

I’ve said this before, but every class should bring something unique to the table when it comes to endgame group content. It used to be more like that but not much anymore.

Now that everyone has the same meta, it really feels like Classes don't mean anything anymore, which is sad.

This does go along with something that my trade guild GM brought to us from the Guild summit last week - they opened up for a Q&A session, even about things other than guilds, and this one one of the things mentioned:

Q: Thoughts about hybridization. A lot of the community isn't a fan of builds all being funneled in one direction.

A: Heard. Why do you feel you have to run exactly what the meta is.
(Questioner answers: "the creators show the best of the best").
Back to Rich: You don't need 120k DPS to do a trial. The meta can change. There's lots of builds that aren't necessarily "the most viable". We've watched this over the years and as soon as someone breaks a record, everyone changes their build. That's lessened past few years because we've been focused on making things consistent. Just because a creator says it's best, is it actually mandatory? I would argue it's not. ALSO, pay attention to Global Reveal in April.

While "you don't need to run the meta" is a noble concept (and let's face it, I really do like to have fun and do silly things like tank on a werewolf), people are gonna be people. The addition of hybridization and homogenization of everything has empowered people to micromanage their entire compositions, and as a result we're seeing more people shoehorned into a handful of builds.

After all, see the number of complaints that Heavy Attack builds are excluded from trials because a raid lead only wants people running the top meta. Even though those other builds can do them, the endgame PvE community never fully recovered after Account-wide Achievements and U35 so the remaining leads are a lot more selective and demanding than what we had before.
(and some would say 'not as good,' because I've seen top-level players whose requirements are just "bring whatever that has a high enough parse" while the mid-level ones are trying to get the trifecta-level compositions for a standard vet farm run because they can't comprehend that you don't need 120k to do a standard trial... or that just giving someone an Arcanist with Deadly/Rele isn't magically going to make them do 120k)

So I think that hybridization is a noble concept to try to make things easier to get people into trials... but doesn't account for the fact that a lot of the well-meaning leads have left the game and we're left with people who will just use hybridization to gatekeep. I fear that going further along the path of reducing Class identity will only make it easier for these people to gatekeep, even if the goal is to broaden it.

Ha, I was thinking last night after I posted this, that instead of calling it Hybridization I should have called it Homogenization myself. You beat me to it. That really is what it is.

alpha_synuclein

Very Important

The whole point of having alts is being able to play something that actually feels different. Generic weapon/guild skills should never outperform class ones.

I would very much like to see class skills being unique and giving unique buffs/debuffs that are not available to other classes. If each class would bring something to the group, each class would be sought after and we would see an actual diversity in group comps.

If anything will kill this game in the long term, it will be this ridiculous drive to homogenization that they call balance...

tomofhyrule

Somewhat Important

alpha_synuclein wrote: »

I would very much like to see class skills being unique and giving unique buffs/debuffs that are not available to other classes. If each class would bring something to the group, each class would be sought after and we would see an actual diversity in group comps.

I feel like there’s actually an untapped market in terms of unique things they could give to a potential “new class” that others don’t have:

• A trap fighter - really the only ‘settable’ traps are the FG and MG ones and they activate on a timer. It’d be interesting to have a trap that you set and then activate by pushing the button again. It’d be great to set something like that on a PvP chokepoint like a flag or door, and then blast it from a safe distance when people go by.
• Negate, but stamina. People will be very confused if their Vigors stop working for a bit.
• A source of Minor Timidity. That debuf is currently only found on poisons made from Dragon reagents. Not many people use poisons at all, and the Dragon stuff is too expensive and useful for heroism pots. But then if people notice their ult starts draining…

Yeah, a lot of this is PvP-esque, but honestly… you can’t say that adding a new Class isn’t technically adding PvP content. It may not be a new zone or game mode, but Arcanists popping up in Cyrodiil after Necrom did by nature change the PvP environment, so a new Class would also help to shake up PvP and make it more interesting for a time, especially if said new Class got some unique features.

Another thing I’d do to try to encourage class diversity in groups would be to rework the Undaunted Mettle passive. Currently, it increases resources based on the number of armor weights someone is wearing, but I’d change it to give buffs based on the number of unique Classes you’re grouped with. Something like:

1. Increases your health, mag, and stam by 1% for every unique Class in your group.
2. Increases your weapon/spell damage and phys/spell resist by 1% for every unique Class in your group

It would probably need a balance pass, but then you would see people be more encouraged to bring more Classes in groups to make use of the bonuses.
And of course, a balance pass on the Classes themselves. If something is way behind (like PvE NB DPS), they should be brought up, maybe by increasing their cleave capabilities since PvE is all about cleave and you have to compete with Fatecarver.

sleepy_worm

I'm Not Sure

I was thinking about it in terms of non-class skill lines recently and came up with some questions to ask myself.

Do weapon skill lines make the game better?
Most of my early ESO play was a Sorc who used Force Pulse or Crushing Shock as their main spammable. I actually preferred it to many other class spammables until I learned to play those other classes better. I also loved using Carve, especially later on with the Master's 2-hander. My early moments in the game were made better by having access to weapon skills. This leans toward class identity not mattering.

Would the game be better without scribing?
Here's a trickier nut to crack. I have grown to love scribed skills despite ZOS doing their best to make the experience miserable. But I'm only a casual in Cyrodiil. I love the zone, but I can't tell you why ball groups are so strong. I've read that scribing has contributed to this, especially with shielding. And using some of those kinds of scribed skills in a more limited way, I can see how that's true. But another thing I love is thematic builds. I adore off-meta-but-effective theorycrafting in PVE, and scribing enables that to a huge extent. This leans again toward class identity mattering less.

Would the game benefit from a more extensive soul skill line?
I made my Tanlorin a tank because all my companions are tanks, but I was oh so tempted to make a damage dealer with them because I loved the idea of incorporating soul magic into a character. They've kind of done this with scribing, and you know my feelings on that. I don't relish the idea of doing the soul-shriven quest over and over again, but it's something I would do for one or two of my themed characters if the skill line weren't so boring (and small). So another coin in the bucket for not caring about class identity.

Are vampire and werewolf skills interesting?
I've tried and failed to make fun vamps and WWs. Someday, I hope I can say "yes" to this question, but for now, I'm just not there. This one's a wash.

So as much as I think ESO's classes are unique and engaging, I probably lean on the "Somewhat Unimportant" side. That said, I don't really play veteran trials often and, as much as I enjoy Cyrodiil, I'm pretty bad at PVP. The idea of class identity doesn't matter as much to someone who is making themed characters that strive to push at the boundaries of the class because, "Well, I wanted to make a bug build," or, "This orc thinks he is a robot created by the divines."

ghastley

I would prefer that classes be removed.

There is a case for having skill sets that are mutually exclusive, so you can't use one from set A if you also use one from set B, but the whole thing of choosing via the class permanently at character creation is a problem. By all means make Heavy Armor incompatible with Destruction staff, make us choose a single 'element' - i.e fire, frost, lightning, poison, etc. - and any other rules that make sense, but let us drop one set of skills, and pick up another. Conversely skill lines could have dependencies, if that simplifies the rules. E.g staves require Light Armor, bows require Medium.

That removes the clamour for a class change token, but probably needs safeguards to prevent in-action swapping. A 24 hour cooldown might be appropriate.

The Armoury Station was a hint in that direction, but it was introduced into a fixed-class system, so the potential was not met.

Franchise408

Not Important

In ESO I find it to be pretty unimportant. Despite the game having 7 classes, there are actually only effectively 3: tank, DPS, and healer. 4 if you split DPS into magicka DPS and stamina DPS.

This is because despite each class being able to play each role, regardless of class you always end up with the same things anyways. If you're a tank, you're expected to have the same sets, the exact same tank skills, and then whatever version of the same effects you can get (Major Resolve, Maim, Vulnerability, etc.) so outside of very minor differences, a Necro tank, a Warden tank, a Nightblade tank, a Sorcerer tank, etc. all play the same way.

The same applies to DPS and healers as well who all end up wearing the same sets and having the same abilities. There's not much diversity across builds, despite there being numerous class and role combinations.

Zodiarkslayer

Very Important

Class Identity and combat balance are inherently liked. And the game needs more of both.
The devs are in my mind too cautious to let go of concepts that have been disproven as ineffective. Like the corpse mechanic, for example.

Avran_Sylt

Somewhat Unimportant

alpha_synuclein wrote: »

The whole point of having alts is being able to play something that actually feels different. Generic weapon/guild skills should never outperform class ones.

I would very much like to see class skills being unique and giving unique buffs/debuffs that are not available to other classes. If each class would bring something to the group, each class would be sought after and we would see an actual diversity in group comps.

If anything will kill this game in the long term, it will be this ridiculous drive to homogenization that they call balance...

The shoes in the box may seem distinct, but the box is more or less going to be the same. Tank, DPS, Healer, sets and skills aligned for maximum DPS.

Strict ability enforcement per class may make it easier to slot into a group, but reduces depth towards any individual character's long-term progression.

I suppose the question boils down to: which players put more money into the game and participate the most with group activities, altaholics, or players that typically stick to playing one character?

alpha_synuclein

Very Important

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

The shoes in the box may seem distinct, but the box is more or less going to be the same. Tank, DPS, Healer, sets and skills aligned for maximum DPS.

Strict ability enforcement per class may make it easier to slot into a group, but reduces depth towards any individual character's long-term progression.

The fact that roles exist doesn't mean that classes cannot be distinct. Class specific sets was an interesting move, but they ended up mostly underwhelming. Especially the ones made for support classes. Wasted opportunity imo. Strong class sets would had the potential to shake the meta. The healing one in particular could use a refresh.

Personally, I am not really interested in character progression in the rp sense, I'd rather see myself progressing as a player by venturing into different classes and roles. Alts are means to do that.

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

I suppose the question boils down to: which players put more money into the game and participate the most with group activities, altaholics, or players that typically stick to playing one character?

Yeah. But we won't know.

Vulkunne

Very Important

It seems to me that the term "Class Identity" is like a code-word for saying that things intended to represent different aspects should be identifiable in a manner that's fitting and notable to the thing itself.

I answered very Important. What makes it so important. I'll put it this way, let's say you have a movie with two different types of battle droids. They look cool and all, but both get totally destroyed by the dumbest thing. These two things look differently but are completely insignificant and utterly useless towards the overall plot of the story. In short, they could just not be added to the film, and it wouldn't make any difference.

So then, when you have people who choose a class, that class becomes a character in the story too. In other words, if I have a server full of players in PvP and their characters are killed by the lightest thing, then what is the point in having them choose a class (or be there at all)? They could have died just as fast and not chosen a class.

But if you have like an Ice Warden freezing people and forcing them to bend to the cold elements, if I have Necros mass rezzing players and DKs fighting like Balrogs then it's like wow I want to play that character from that class. That character's part in the game now has purpose and meaning because it comes from something other than itself. Classes are meant to be different, it's not meant to be the same or to be diminished solely because of how we feel about it at the time.

alpha_synuclein

Very Important

Vulkunne wrote: »

It seems to me that the term "Class Identity" is like a code-word for saying that things intended to represent different aspects should be identifiable in a manner that's fitting and notable to the thing itself.

I answered very Important. What makes it so important. I'll put it this way, let's say you have a movie with two different types of battle droids. They look cool and all, but both get totally destroyed by the dumbest thing. These two things look differently but are completely insignificant and utterly useless towards the overall plot of the story. In short, they could just not be added to the film, and it wouldn't make any difference.

So then, when you have people who choose a class, that class becomes a character in the story too. In other words, if I have a server full of players in PvP and their characters are killed by the lightest thing, then what is the point in having them choose a class (or be there at all)? They could have died just as fast and not chosen a class.

But if you have like an Ice Warden freezing people and forcing them to bend to the cold elements, if I have Necros mass rezzing players and DKs fighting like Balrogs then it's like wow I want to play that character from that class. That character's part in the game now has purpose and meaning because it comes from something other than itself. Classes are meant to be different, it's not meant to be the same or to be diminished solely because of how we feel about it at the time.

This. I'd rather have classes with strong archetypes (that I can vibe with or not) than all the choices that ultimately don't matter.