Perspective on Class Identity and how it relates to Subclassing in Elder Scrolls Online.

Pixiepumpkin

Lots of debate happening right now about subclassing and how it affects class identity (in a negative way, as in the removal of class identity).

Wife and I were watching Secret Level last night, which has like 15 minute movie clips based on different video games.
The first episode (linked below until you tube removes it) is from Dungeons & Dragons, arguably the trendsetters for classes in fantasy RPG's (which they most likely got from Tolkein) and where Everquest, and World of Warcraft, Warhammer etc got their inspiration from.

The show illustrated the look, combat feel of different classes, which are traditionally classified as professions (not to be confused with crafting professions). These are the "jobs" our characters perform in the fantasy universe. In gaming they are important aspects of the characters identity as they communicate nonverbally to other players around them the roles they will perform in group content.


I would also like to bring attention to the different perspectives or approach players have when playing their avatar (character) in game.

• Some people see their avatar as simply a means to interect with the world inside a game. The avatar generally has no role play integration into the name or outfits they wear. These players are not really committed to the expression of their character in game. Subclassing works great for these players.

• The other group of players see their characters in game as a living breathing person inside that world. These characters are often given lore like names, their own homes which are themed to the characters profession (class), outfits for different occasions (wife has outfits for being in her home, for combat, for fishing, etc), mounts that also theme to the character along with non combat pets. This also carries over with skill colors and customized actions for portal, and harvesting tools. And these people do this for their main character and generally a ton of alts. A massive ton of effort is put into color choices for outfits, the placement of furniture when decorating homes and overall trying to flesh out the charcters expression in game. Subclassing does not work well with these players as it weakens class identity vs strenghtening it.

This is the kind of stuff we want to integrate into our video game entertainment lives. Subclassing goes in the opposite direction as it blurs what a class is in ESO. That bluring is not just about what we desire to express with our RPG characters, but also what we see in other players characters.

I am not here to debate if its good or bad or whether it should or should not be in game. ZOS choice is clear and there is nothing that can be done about this. I just want to help make it a bit more clear why many of us are so passionate about losing what little class identity is left in ESO and why ESO will have less appeal going forward.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoTlWiAwsPo

moderatelyfatman

I once said there are 2 types of players based on how they viewed their toons:
1. Characters in a living novel.
2. Sportscars in a garage.

The thing is, in both cases Class Identity is essential. I mean, who wants to drive a Ferrari that handles exactly the same as a Porsche which also handles just like a Lexus.

Pixiepumpkin

moderatelyfatman wrote: »

I once said there are 2 types of players based on how they viewed their toons:
1. Characters in a living novel.
2. Sportscars in a garage.

The thing is, in both cases Class Identity is essential. I mean, who wants to drive a Ferrari that handles exactly the same as a Porsche which also handles just like a Lexus.

That is a good way to describe the differences.

I would argue however that class identity is not as imporant to the Sportscars in a garage player base. These are often the people with non lore like names "Heybrodog1000", "kL3AnKiLleR", "mamas your face" (I just made these up, any player who has these names is a coincidence and not naming and shaming). Typically this crowd sees the avatar as nothing more than a means to interact with the playing field. They have no vested intrest in their character outide of "being edgy".

Class identity as showcased in the video is infinitely more meaningful to the RPG/lore/living novel character because the game hinges on mechanics that facilitate those desires. Without the RPG/class identity mechanics, you will not find many players under that umbrella enjoying a classless/non-profession game as much as they do an RPG with defined classes.

Vaqual

I don't think this post makes sense tbh, or at least it isn't coming from an unbiased perspective. There is no strict link between class identity and roleplay. Classes are just a way to translate certain limitations into a game format: Time spent to acquire/hone skills in a given field of expertise, natural ability, adherence to the "physical ruleset" of the world. These limitations create a fair and challenging playground to enjoy the game in, while the classes ideally leave enough opportunity to customize a character according to the players preferences (as in: who am I playing as?).
If classes are designed poorly, players may not be able to express their characters story fully, and, if the limitations are too loose, the immersion or the game balance can suffer (as in: a player has access to all spells at all time). ESO classes are not very deeply connected to the TES world lore wise, and somewhat shoehorned in. The magic that the classes use is also not fully unique, vaguely tied to aedric and daedric sources and in principle open to anyone who is willing to train or bargain for such powers. You do not need to be a DK to use fire magic (see Destruction Magic) and being a DK automatically automatically makes you an expert fire wizard even if you decide to play a non-caster character (e.g. Stamina Morphs of Spells as Noxious Breath). So the class system in ESO is pretty much failing on two fronts, by providing a pretty restrictive framework for actual roleplay while at it the same time fails to place these classes coherently inside the world (why are all Wardens bringing Vvardenfell animals?). The redeeming quality is that the player can choose to branch out into non-class lines and customize his experience. The subclassing will be basically an extension of this. The "classes" don't go away for the people who like them. The 3-class line maximum restriction is still there (so no one can learn everything at once), and although it will be a lot of work to balance the lines individually, it is doable and in some way a good opportunity to fix the weird power budgeting of the existing classes (with the status quo basically being "maximize passives of all 3 lines or delete your character, too bad if you don't like them").

A class doesn't have to be a "job", and not even people who practice the same profession are identical. Nothing says someone couldn't have chosen a different path, and for example have spent a few years learning Warden frost magic. That players DK abilities may have suffered a bit for it (losing 1 skill line), but that it what really makes for organic character building. Viewing a preset job as the defining feature of a character is pretty much the opposite of what I consider good RPG. That really only works if these jobs/classes offer enough depth, and non-changeable 4 passives per skill line and 6 morphable abilities that change the skill ever so sligthly isn't real depth.

I think breaking up the class system is pretty much the coolest thing they could have possibly done with the game.

Pixiepumpkin

Vaqual wrote: »

I don't think this post makes sense tbh, or at least it isn't coming from an unbiased perspective. There is no strict link between class identity and roleplay. Classes are just a way to translate certain limitations into a game format: Time spent to acquire/hone skills in a given field of expertise, natural ability, adherence to the "physical ruleset" of the world. These limitations create a fair and challenging playground to enjoy the game in, while the classes ideally leave enough opportunity to customize a character according to the players preferences (as in: who am I playing as?).
If classes are designed poorly, players may not be able to express their characters story fully, and, if the limitations are too loose, the immersion or the game balance can suffer (as in: a player has access to all spells at all time). ESO classes are not very deeply connected to the TES world lore wise, and somewhat shoehorned in. The magic that the classes use is also not fully unique, vaguely tied to aedric and daedric sources and in principle open to anyone who is willing to train or bargain for such powers. You do not need to be a DK to use fire magic (see Destruction Magic) and being a DK automatically automatically makes you an expert fire wizard even if you decide to play a non-caster character (e.g. Stamina Morphs of Spells as Noxious Breath). So the class system in ESO is pretty much failing on two fronts, by providing a pretty restrictive framework for actual roleplay while at it the same time fails to place these classes coherently inside the world (why are all Wardens bringing Vvardenfell animals?). The redeeming quality is that the player can choose to branch out into non-class lines and customize his experience. The subclassing will be basically an extension of this. The "classes" don't go away for the people who like them. The 3-class line maximum restriction is still there (so no one can learn everything at once), and although it will be a lot of work to balance the lines individually, it is doable and in some way a good opportunity to fix the weird power budgeting of the existing classes (with the status quo basically being "maximize passives of all 3 lines or delete your character, too bad if you don't like them").

A class doesn't have to be a "job", and not even people who practice the same profession are identical. Nothing says someone couldn't have chosen a different path, and for example have spent a few years learning Warden frost magic. That players DK abilities may have suffered a bit for it (losing 1 skill line), but that it what really makes for organic character building. Viewing a preset job as the defining feature of a character is pretty much the opposite of what I consider good RPG. That really only works if these jobs/classes offer enough depth, and non-changeable 4 passives per skill line and 6 morphable abilities that change the skill ever so sligthly isn't real depth.

I think breaking up the class system is pretty much the coolest thing they could have possibly done with the game.

You are not understanding anything I said. Did you even watch the video?

It is impossible to have a classless design and at the same time express your class. RPG players want to express their class. This is well documented over the 50 years RPGS have existed. Even back in table top days of Dungeons and Dragons players would dress up as their character. [snip]

[edited for inappropriate content]

sans-culottes

Vaqual wrote: »

I don't think this post makes sense tbh, or at least it isn't coming from an unbiased perspective. There is no strict link between class identity and roleplay. Classes are just a way to translate certain limitations into a game format: Time spent to acquire/hone skills in a given field of expertise, natural ability, adherence to the "physical ruleset" of the world. These limitations create a fair and challenging playground to enjoy the game in, while the classes ideally leave enough opportunity to customize a character according to the players preferences (as in: who am I playing as?).
If classes are designed poorly, players may not be able to express their characters story fully, and, if the limitations are too loose, the immersion or the game balance can suffer (as in: a player has access to all spells at all time). ESO classes are not very deeply connected to the TES world lore wise, and somewhat shoehorned in. The magic that the classes use is also not fully unique, vaguely tied to aedric and daedric sources and in principle open to anyone who is willing to train or bargain for such powers. You do not need to be a DK to use fire magic (see Destruction Magic) and being a DK automatically automatically makes you an expert fire wizard even if you decide to play a non-caster character (e.g. Stamina Morphs of Spells as Noxious Breath). So the class system in ESO is pretty much failing on two fronts, by providing a pretty restrictive framework for actual roleplay while at it the same time fails to place these classes coherently inside the world (why are all Wardens bringing Vvardenfell animals?). The redeeming quality is that the player can choose to branch out into non-class lines and customize his experience. The subclassing will be basically an extension of this. The "classes" don't go away for the people who like them. The 3-class line maximum restriction is still there (so no one can learn everything at once), and although it will be a lot of work to balance the lines individually, it is doable and in some way a good opportunity to fix the weird power budgeting of the existing classes (with the status quo basically being "maximize passives of all 3 lines or delete your character, too bad if you don't like them").

A class doesn't have to be a "job", and not even people who practice the same profession are identical. Nothing says someone couldn't have chosen a different path, and for example have spent a few years learning Warden frost magic. That players DK abilities may have suffered a bit for it (losing 1 skill line), but that it what really makes for organic character building. Viewing a preset job as the defining feature of a character is pretty much the opposite of what I consider good RPG. That really only works if these jobs/classes offer enough depth, and non-changeable 4 passives per skill line and 6 morphable abilities that change the skill ever so sligthly isn't real depth.

I think breaking up the class system is pretty much the coolest thing they could have possibly done with the game.

@Vaqual, the irony here is that in trying to justify subclassing as liberating, you’ve inadvertently outlined why ESO’s class design is already an incoherent mess.

Yes, ESO’s classes are barely rooted in TES lore. But subclassing doesn’t fix that. It exacerbates it. The solution to a thematically shallow and mechanically restrictive system isn’t to add more disjointed options. It’s to rethink the foundations. Instead, subclassing just lets players combine mismatched fragments—often bizarre ones—without actually offering the clarity or cohesion needed to support even basic archetypes.

You mention role-play, but where in this system does a player get to be a “warrior” in any meaningful sense? The old TES skill-based approach let you do that. ESO’s subclassing just hands you a mashup of thematic scraps: Ardent Flame here, Soldier of Apocrypha there. You don’t get more freedom. You get more noise.

If anything, then this feels less like character building and more like character disassembly.

AngryNecro

My necro won't lose its class identity in any way. I will mostly use the necro-NB rulers, and in all cases it will just be an improved necromancer, even if it is NB.

Pixiepumpkin

AngryNecro wrote: »

My necro won't lose its class identity in any way. I will mostly use the necro-NB rulers, and in all cases it will just be an improved necromancer, even if it is NB.

Edgy looking character!

I asked AI to give me an amalagamation of what class a night blade and a necromancer would be in an RPG setting and the answer is neither nightblade or necromancer.



Now, a ghostwalker sounds cool. If I could see you on the battlefield and recognize you as a ghostwalker, I'd be all for it. But that is not whats happening in ESO.

The identity is literally shreaded. And what is left, although can be defined, does not exist in the game. Not even in the original TES games, because even in those there was a structure to what you played.

illutian

Me over here being like: I can finally be a Demon Daedra Hunter in ESO....

Templar that studied Dragonknight and Nightblade.

Assuming it hasn't changed. I'm hoping they eventually let us swap out the 'primary skill line'. That's the main draw for FF14 for me, is that I only need one character to play all the classes; one character to do all the quests.

Another thing to consider is by decoupling Skill lines and Classes, we could see them add additional skill lines to classes. In addition to adding new classes.

JemadarofCaerSalis

Pixiepumpkin wrote: »

Vaqual wrote: »

I don't think this post makes sense tbh, or at least it isn't coming from an unbiased perspective. There is no strict link between class identity and roleplay. Classes are just a way to translate certain limitations into a game format: Time spent to acquire/hone skills in a given field of expertise, natural ability, adherence to the "physical ruleset" of the world. These limitations create a fair and challenging playground to enjoy the game in, while the classes ideally leave enough opportunity to customize a character according to the players preferences (as in: who am I playing as?).
If classes are designed poorly, players may not be able to express their characters story fully, and, if the limitations are too loose, the immersion or the game balance can suffer (as in: a player has access to all spells at all time). ESO classes are not very deeply connected to the TES world lore wise, and somewhat shoehorned in. The magic that the classes use is also not fully unique, vaguely tied to aedric and daedric sources and in principle open to anyone who is willing to train or bargain for such powers. You do not need to be a DK to use fire magic (see Destruction Magic) and being a DK automatically automatically makes you an expert fire wizard even if you decide to play a non-caster character (e.g. Stamina Morphs of Spells as Noxious Breath). So the class system in ESO is pretty much failing on two fronts, by providing a pretty restrictive framework for actual roleplay while at it the same time fails to place these classes coherently inside the world (why are all Wardens bringing Vvardenfell animals?). The redeeming quality is that the player can choose to branch out into non-class lines and customize his experience. The subclassing will be basically an extension of this. The "classes" don't go away for the people who like them. The 3-class line maximum restriction is still there (so no one can learn everything at once), and although it will be a lot of work to balance the lines individually, it is doable and in some way a good opportunity to fix the weird power budgeting of the existing classes (with the status quo basically being "maximize passives of all 3 lines or delete your character, too bad if you don't like them").

A class doesn't have to be a "job", and not even people who practice the same profession are identical. Nothing says someone couldn't have chosen a different path, and for example have spent a few years learning Warden frost magic. That players DK abilities may have suffered a bit for it (losing 1 skill line), but that it what really makes for organic character building. Viewing a preset job as the defining feature of a character is pretty much the opposite of what I consider good RPG. That really only works if these jobs/classes offer enough depth, and non-changeable 4 passives per skill line and 6 morphable abilities that change the skill ever so sligthly isn't real depth.

I think breaking up the class system is pretty much the coolest thing they could have possibly done with the game.

You are not understanding anything I said. Did you even watch the video?

It is impossible to have a classless design and at the same time express your class. RPG players want to express their class. This is well documented over the 50 years RPGS have existed. Even back in table top days of Dungeons and Dragons players would dress up as their character. [snip]

[snip] They wanted to express their characters, of which class was part of it, but not necessarily the class of the character itself.

Beyond that, there have always been players who have wanted *more* and multi-classing has been a thing for quite a while.

I see this as a type of multi-classing. I can now decide to 'multi-class' out from a strict sorceror into a sorceror who also can heal better. Or I can get a bit tankier. Or I can decide to work from the shadows.

Does this exactly line up with D&D's classes and multiclassing? Of course not. ESO is not D&D, nor are ESO's classes the same as the classes of the D&D classes. D&D classes tend to give you much more freedom over what you are doing within a class than ESO's. (as in you often have access to more spells, more abilities etc...)

[edited for inappropriate content & to remove quote]

Rungar

Pixiepumpkin wrote: »

AngryNecro wrote: »

My necro won't lose its class identity in any way. I will mostly use the necro-NB rulers, and in all cases it will just be an improved necromancer, even if it is NB.

Edgy looking character!

I asked AI to give me an amalagamation of what class a night blade and a necromancer would be in an RPG setting and the answer is neither nightblade or necromancer.



Now, a ghostwalker sounds cool. If I could see you on the battlefield and recognize you as a ghostwalker, I'd be all for it. But that is not whats happening in ESO.

The identity is literally shreaded. And what is left, although can be defined, does not exist in the game. Not even in the original TES games, because even in those there was a structure to what you played.

In both Oblivion and Skyrim you could literally choose whatever you want. In oblivion the classes are just templates and you can make your own custom character. In skyrim you could combine whatever you want with its simplified format.

play the way you want was the structure and supposedly the structure of eso! ESO should never of had classes. It didnt need them. They were like an anchor where way too much time was spent trying to unsuccessfully balance them when they could of been improving content delivery. Regardless of what you choose as a class that only makes up 3 skill lines of 10+. Weapons, armors, soul, psygic order, Alliance, etc. After all these choices are made the result isnt a class but a role to play.

why should the class lines be in stone when nothing else is?

Rather than try to stop it, which wont work, why dont give ideas on how to make it better. From just what you wrote i would do the idea that combining class lines change your base aura color for all skills. So if someone was a necromancer/nightblade the skills aura could change color to reflect this. Each class has its own aura color and it wouldnt take much work to extend this to sublasses.

Pixiepumpkin

Rungar wrote: »

Rather than try to stop it, which wont work, why dont give ideas on how to make it better. From just what you wrote i would do the idea that combining class lines change your base aura color for all skills. So if someone was a necromancer/nightblade the skills aura could change color to reflect this. Each class has its own aura color and it wouldnt take much work to extend this to sublasses.

1. I am not trying to stop anything. What is done is done. Nothing I could ever say or do in 1 million lifetimes is going to get ZOS to change their position on this and I fully comprehend this to the pit of my existance. My goal in this thread was to help illustrate to those who may not understand, why class identity is important to us. I felt that the video was an excellent way to convey this information, but I can't force people to watch it before they comment.
2. I have already given a number of ideas in a number of threads. But I doubt any of them will happen. The reason being I am not convinced that subclassing was done out of a strong desire to do so, but rather it was a smart business move (recyling old content costs less to produce than making new content). This fits inline with how a lot of stuff is recycled in game. Even going back to the necromancer heal pet being a base game skin vs getting their own skin.

If subclassing resulted in creating an entire new class, I'd somewhat be for it. And what I mean by that is something with lore behind it, with a name behind it (outside of headcanon) and skills that reflected the new class.

Pixiepumpkin

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

Pixiepumpkin wrote: »

Vaqual wrote: »

I don't think this post makes sense tbh, or at least it isn't coming from an unbiased perspective. There is no strict link between class identity and roleplay. Classes are just a way to translate certain limitations into a game format: Time spent to acquire/hone skills in a given field of expertise, natural ability, adherence to the "physical ruleset" of the world. These limitations create a fair and challenging playground to enjoy the game in, while the classes ideally leave enough opportunity to customize a character according to the players preferences (as in: who am I playing as?).
If classes are designed poorly, players may not be able to express their characters story fully, and, if the limitations are too loose, the immersion or the game balance can suffer (as in: a player has access to all spells at all time). ESO classes are not very deeply connected to the TES world lore wise, and somewhat shoehorned in. The magic that the classes use is also not fully unique, vaguely tied to aedric and daedric sources and in principle open to anyone who is willing to train or bargain for such powers. You do not need to be a DK to use fire magic (see Destruction Magic) and being a DK automatically automatically makes you an expert fire wizard even if you decide to play a non-caster character (e.g. Stamina Morphs of Spells as Noxious Breath). So the class system in ESO is pretty much failing on two fronts, by providing a pretty restrictive framework for actual roleplay while at it the same time fails to place these classes coherently inside the world (why are all Wardens bringing Vvardenfell animals?). The redeeming quality is that the player can choose to branch out into non-class lines and customize his experience. The subclassing will be basically an extension of this. The "classes" don't go away for the people who like them. The 3-class line maximum restriction is still there (so no one can learn everything at once), and although it will be a lot of work to balance the lines individually, it is doable and in some way a good opportunity to fix the weird power budgeting of the existing classes (with the status quo basically being "maximize passives of all 3 lines or delete your character, too bad if you don't like them").

A class doesn't have to be a "job", and not even people who practice the same profession are identical. Nothing says someone couldn't have chosen a different path, and for example have spent a few years learning Warden frost magic. That players DK abilities may have suffered a bit for it (losing 1 skill line), but that it what really makes for organic character building. Viewing a preset job as the defining feature of a character is pretty much the opposite of what I consider good RPG. That really only works if these jobs/classes offer enough depth, and non-changeable 4 passives per skill line and 6 morphable abilities that change the skill ever so sligthly isn't real depth.

I think breaking up the class system is pretty much the coolest thing they could have possibly done with the game.

You are not understanding anything I said. Did you even watch the video?

It is impossible to have a classless design and at the same time express your class. RPG players want to express their class. This is well documented over the 50 years RPGS have existed. Even back in table top days of Dungeons and Dragons players would dress up as their character. [snip]

[snip] They wanted to express their characters, of which class was part of it, but not necessarily the class of the character itself.

Beyond that, there have always been players who have wanted *more* and multi-classing has been a thing for quite a while.

I see this as a type of multi-classing. I can now decide to 'multi-class' out from a strict sorceror into a sorceror who also can heal better. Or I can get a bit tankier. Or I can decide to work from the shadows.

Does this exactly line up with D&D's classes and multiclassing? Of course not. ESO is not D&D, nor are ESO's classes the same as the classes of the D&D classes. D&D classes tend to give you much more freedom over what you are doing within a class than ESO's. (as in you often have access to more spells, more abilities etc...)

[snip]

And yes, in RPG's the class is part of that character identity.

[edited for inappropriate content]

Vaqual

sans-culottes wrote: »

Vaqual wrote: »

I don't think this post makes sense tbh, or at least it isn't coming from an unbiased perspective. There is no strict link between class identity and roleplay. Classes are just a way to translate certain limitations into a game format: Time spent to acquire/hone skills in a given field of expertise, natural ability, adherence to the "physical ruleset" of the world. These limitations create a fair and challenging playground to enjoy the game in, while the classes ideally leave enough opportunity to customize a character according to the players preferences (as in: who am I playing as?).
If classes are designed poorly, players may not be able to express their characters story fully, and, if the limitations are too loose, the immersion or the game balance can suffer (as in: a player has access to all spells at all time). ESO classes are not very deeply connected to the TES world lore wise, and somewhat shoehorned in. The magic that the classes use is also not fully unique, vaguely tied to aedric and daedric sources and in principle open to anyone who is willing to train or bargain for such powers. You do not need to be a DK to use fire magic (see Destruction Magic) and being a DK automatically automatically makes you an expert fire wizard even if you decide to play a non-caster character (e.g. Stamina Morphs of Spells as Noxious Breath). So the class system in ESO is pretty much failing on two fronts, by providing a pretty restrictive framework for actual roleplay while at it the same time fails to place these classes coherently inside the world (why are all Wardens bringing Vvardenfell animals?). The redeeming quality is that the player can choose to branch out into non-class lines and customize his experience. The subclassing will be basically an extension of this. The "classes" don't go away for the people who like them. The 3-class line maximum restriction is still there (so no one can learn everything at once), and although it will be a lot of work to balance the lines individually, it is doable and in some way a good opportunity to fix the weird power budgeting of the existing classes (with the status quo basically being "maximize passives of all 3 lines or delete your character, too bad if you don't like them").

A class doesn't have to be a "job", and not even people who practice the same profession are identical. Nothing says someone couldn't have chosen a different path, and for example have spent a few years learning Warden frost magic. That players DK abilities may have suffered a bit for it (losing 1 skill line), but that it what really makes for organic character building. Viewing a preset job as the defining feature of a character is pretty much the opposite of what I consider good RPG. That really only works if these jobs/classes offer enough depth, and non-changeable 4 passives per skill line and 6 morphable abilities that change the skill ever so sligthly isn't real depth.

I think breaking up the class system is pretty much the coolest thing they could have possibly done with the game.

@Vaqual, the irony here is that in trying to justify subclassing as liberating, you’ve inadvertently outlined why ESO’s class design is already an incoherent mess.

Yes, ESO’s classes are barely rooted in TES lore. But subclassing doesn’t fix that. It exacerbates it. The solution to a thematically shallow and mechanically restrictive system isn’t to add more disjointed options. It’s to rethink the foundations. Instead, subclassing just lets players combine mismatched fragments—often bizarre ones—without actually offering the clarity or cohesion needed to support even basic archetypes.

You mention role-play, but where in this system does a player get to be a “warrior” in any meaningful sense? The old TES skill-based approach let you do that. ESO’s subclassing just hands you a mashup of thematic scraps: Ardent Flame here, Soldier of Apocrypha there. You don’t get more freedom. You get more noise.

If anything, then this feels less like character building and more like character disassembly.

This is true and I agree with a lot of those points, but what subclassing does is to assemble the pieces in different ways and that can actually lead to quite a few good an sensible combinations for my characters. I do not want to bore you with my headcanon stories, but just taking 1-2 really well fitting skills + functional passives (as opposed to inactive ones due to a lack of slotted abilities) can already make a huge difference.
The more modular and fine grained build/class system is, the easier it becomes to match a specific idea. If we can't have a large selection of fully functional toys, a crate of Lego pieces will do just fine.

Elowen_Starveil

For the record, I'm very much the first kind of person. I know many people try to play this game as an RPG, but there simply is no meaningful implementation of role playing in this game. The choices you make through the main quest are meaningless, and have to be. Everything is available to every character all the time. There are no choices that lock you out of one thing, and into another. "Role" "playing," then, just becomes whether or not you want to spend your time stealing and killing or killing bosses or decorating houses or whatever. In this context, the fundamental questions everyone is debating -- does subclassing "break" the game? -- is it too OP? -- are also similarly pointless. You can just opt out of subclassing, or choose to make that part of the internal head cannon you are "role" "playing." The subclass lines are just as much an implementation of the definition of someone's role playing as their core class lines. If people want to play the game this way, subclassing just gives them more options to choose from. I don't get it, but subclassing cannot hurt this kind of play.

Vaqual

Pixiepumpkin wrote: »

Vaqual wrote: »

I don't think this post makes sense tbh, or at least it isn't coming from an unbiased perspective. There is no strict link between class identity and roleplay. Classes are just a way to translate certain limitations into a game format: Time spent to acquire/hone skills in a given field of expertise, natural ability, adherence to the "physical ruleset" of the world. These limitations create a fair and challenging playground to enjoy the game in, while the classes ideally leave enough opportunity to customize a character according to the players preferences (as in: who am I playing as?).
If classes are designed poorly, players may not be able to express their characters story fully, and, if the limitations are too loose, the immersion or the game balance can suffer (as in: a player has access to all spells at all time). ESO classes are not very deeply connected to the TES world lore wise, and somewhat shoehorned in. The magic that the classes use is also not fully unique, vaguely tied to aedric and daedric sources and in principle open to anyone who is willing to train or bargain for such powers. You do not need to be a DK to use fire magic (see Destruction Magic) and being a DK automatically automatically makes you an expert fire wizard even if you decide to play a non-caster character (e.g. Stamina Morphs of Spells as Noxious Breath). So the class system in ESO is pretty much failing on two fronts, by providing a pretty restrictive framework for actual roleplay while at it the same time fails to place these classes coherently inside the world (why are all Wardens bringing Vvardenfell animals?). The redeeming quality is that the player can choose to branch out into non-class lines and customize his experience. The subclassing will be basically an extension of this. The "classes" don't go away for the people who like them. The 3-class line maximum restriction is still there (so no one can learn everything at once), and although it will be a lot of work to balance the lines individually, it is doable and in some way a good opportunity to fix the weird power budgeting of the existing classes (with the status quo basically being "maximize passives of all 3 lines or delete your character, too bad if you don't like them").

A class doesn't have to be a "job", and not even people who practice the same profession are identical. Nothing says someone couldn't have chosen a different path, and for example have spent a few years learning Warden frost magic. That players DK abilities may have suffered a bit for it (losing 1 skill line), but that it what really makes for organic character building. Viewing a preset job as the defining feature of a character is pretty much the opposite of what I consider good RPG. That really only works if these jobs/classes offer enough depth, and non-changeable 4 passives per skill line and 6 morphable abilities that change the skill ever so sligthly isn't real depth.

I think breaking up the class system is pretty much the coolest thing they could have possibly done with the game.

You are not understanding anything I said. Did you even watch the video?

It is impossible to have a classless design and at the same time express your class. RPG players want to express their class. This is well documented over the 50 years RPGS have existed. Even back in table top days of Dungeons and Dragons players would dress up as their character. [snip]

The way you describe it, it sounds like what you want is playing as someone elses fantasy character, made up for you beforehand by a writer or designer, instead of shaping the character yourself. You can give a character a bow and call him ranger, hunter, scout, archer, Marvin or whatever. I fail to see the positives, if someone else decides now that Marvin can not learn frost magic, because that just doesn't fit his class identity. If a game can allow me to make thematically sensible choices, then this is a big plus for me.
I am aware that some people adore specific fictional characters. This isn't something that I find interesting by itself, especially if copies of that same character are running around everywhere.
Nominally subclassing is different from D&D multiclassing, and the drawbacks and stipulations are not the same. But given the level of depth the ESO class system offers this is pretty much the most feasible and economic solution.

Pixiepumpkin wrote: »

AngryNecro wrote: »

My necro won't lose its class identity in any way. I will mostly use the necro-NB rulers, and in all cases it will just be an improved necromancer, even if it is NB.

Edgy looking character!

I asked AI to give me an amalagamation of what class a night blade and a necromancer would be in an RPG setting and the answer is neither nightblade or necromancer.



Now, a ghostwalker sounds cool. If I could see you on the battlefield and recognize you as a ghostwalker, I'd be all for it. But that is not whats happening in ESO.

The identity is literally shreaded. And what is left, although can be defined, does not exist in the game. Not even in the original TES games, because even in those there was a structure to what you played.

If you get hung up on the fact that you have to make up the class name for your mix-class yourself, then I am probaly wasting my time arguing anyway. Is putting a label on characters really what makes or breaks the RPG experience?

[edited to remove quote]

Cruxanero

This whole "one-type-fits-all" class system was always something that greatly hurt my RPG experience. My character has a whole backstory, lore-fitting name and so on, and he has had this since TES 3, more than 20 years now.* And in ESO, I could never play him the way he's meant to be, because of the strict pre-defined class system. I chose DK, because that was the closest match, but for years now I had to severely gimp my own character, since he's not allowed to use dragon abilities. He's not a dragonblood. Not at all. But he needed the fire magic skill lines from DK, so I made the bitter compromise to never use one skill line at all and another one only half. Finally this will change. For RPers that have a very clear view of their characters that doesn't fit ESOs class system, it's one of the best changes ever.

*

While you're at it, my character is still missing the face tattoo he had since Morrowind (and I had to mod in to every TES game since then). I've been trying for years to get the devs to create it and put it into the crown store with no success, so please consider giving this post some agrees/awesomes/whatever so when I bump it again it looks like people care.

TaSheen

Vaqual wrote: »

<snipped for brevity> Is putting a label on characters really what makes or breaks the RPG experience?

Depends. In my internal RP, each of my girls is her own person, with a "job" which relates in large part to her original class, and gives structure to her life in Tamriel (and ESO).

The fact that ZOS is nerfing pure classes in favor of subclasses simply doesn't fit with how I play the game (and have done so for 7+ years) so I'm out.

Elowen_Starveil

TaSheen wrote: »

Vaqual wrote: »

<snipped for brevity> Is putting a label on characters really what makes or breaks the RPG experience?

Depends. In my internal RP, each of my girls is her own person, with a "job" which relates in large part to her original class, and gives structure to her life in Tamriel (and ESO).

The fact that ZOS is nerfing pure classes in favor of subclasses simply doesn't fit with how I play the game (and have done so for 7+ years) so I'm out.

As I alluded to in my prior comment, how does subclassing mean *literally anything* in this scenario? You're not talking about game-breaking DPS (which is the *main* complaint), and you can continue to play straight-classed. How does this affect how you play the game at all? Honest question! How does this impact your head canon in the slightest?

Erickson9610

Pixiepumpkin wrote: »

Now, a ghostwalker sounds cool. If I could see you on the battlefield and recognize you as a ghostwalker, I'd be all for it. But that is not whats happening in ESO.

Does it matter what you recognize other people as? Do we need to look at other people and appreciate how they fall into an archetype? I certainly don't care what other characters claim to be.

Pixiepumpkin

Vaqual wrote: »

Pixiepumpkin wrote: »

Vaqual wrote: »

I don't think this post makes sense tbh, or at least it isn't coming from an unbiased perspective. There is no strict link between class identity and roleplay. Classes are just a way to translate certain limitations into a game format: Time spent to acquire/hone skills in a given field of expertise, natural ability, adherence to the "physical ruleset" of the world. These limitations create a fair and challenging playground to enjoy the game in, while the classes ideally leave enough opportunity to customize a character according to the players preferences (as in: who am I playing as?).
If classes are designed poorly, players may not be able to express their characters story fully, and, if the limitations are too loose, the immersion or the game balance can suffer (as in: a player has access to all spells at all time). ESO classes are not very deeply connected to the TES world lore wise, and somewhat shoehorned in. The magic that the classes use is also not fully unique, vaguely tied to aedric and daedric sources and in principle open to anyone who is willing to train or bargain for such powers. You do not need to be a DK to use fire magic (see Destruction Magic) and being a DK automatically automatically makes you an expert fire wizard even if you decide to play a non-caster character (e.g. Stamina Morphs of Spells as Noxious Breath). So the class system in ESO is pretty much failing on two fronts, by providing a pretty restrictive framework for actual roleplay while at it the same time fails to place these classes coherently inside the world (why are all Wardens bringing Vvardenfell animals?). The redeeming quality is that the player can choose to branch out into non-class lines and customize his experience. The subclassing will be basically an extension of this. The "classes" don't go away for the people who like them. The 3-class line maximum restriction is still there (so no one can learn everything at once), and although it will be a lot of work to balance the lines individually, it is doable and in some way a good opportunity to fix the weird power budgeting of the existing classes (with the status quo basically being "maximize passives of all 3 lines or delete your character, too bad if you don't like them").

A class doesn't have to be a "job", and not even people who practice the same profession are identical. Nothing says someone couldn't have chosen a different path, and for example have spent a few years learning Warden frost magic. That players DK abilities may have suffered a bit for it (losing 1 skill line), but that it what really makes for organic character building. Viewing a preset job as the defining feature of a character is pretty much the opposite of what I consider good RPG. That really only works if these jobs/classes offer enough depth, and non-changeable 4 passives per skill line and 6 morphable abilities that change the skill ever so sligthly isn't real depth.

I think breaking up the class system is pretty much the coolest thing they could have possibly done with the game.

You are not understanding anything I said. Did you even watch the video?

It is impossible to have a classless design and at the same time express your class. RPG players want to express their class. This is well documented over the 50 years RPGS have existed. Even back in table top days of Dungeons and Dragons players would dress up as their character. [snip]

The way you describe it, it sounds like what you want is playing as someone elses fantasy character, made up for you beforehand by a writer or designer, instead of shaping the character yourself. You can give a character a bow and call him ranger, hunter, scout, archer, Marvin or whatever. I fail to see the positives, if someone else decides now that Marvin can not learn frost magic, because that just doesn't fit his class identity. If a game can allow me to make thematically sensible choices, then this is a big plus for me.
I am aware that some people adore specific fictional characters. This isn't something that I find interesting by itself, especially if copies of that same character are running around everywhere.
Nominally subclassing is different from D&D multiclassing, and the drawbacks and stipulations are not the same. But given the level of depth the ESO class system offers this is pretty much the most feasible and economic solution.

Pixiepumpkin wrote: »

AngryNecro wrote: »

My necro won't lose its class identity in any way. I will mostly use the necro-NB rulers, and in all cases it will just be an improved necromancer, even if it is NB.

Edgy looking character!

I asked AI to give me an amalagamation of what class a night blade and a necromancer would be in an RPG setting and the answer is neither nightblade or necromancer.



Now, a ghostwalker sounds cool. If I could see you on the battlefield and recognize you as a ghostwalker, I'd be all for it. But that is not whats happening in ESO.

The identity is literally shreaded. And what is left, although can be defined, does not exist in the game. Not even in the original TES games, because even in those there was a structure to what you played.

If you get hung up on the fact that you have to make up the class name for your mix-class yourself, then I am probaly wasting my time arguing anyway. Is putting a label on characters really what makes or breaks the RPG experience?

You missed the point again.
watch the video, it should make sense to you then.

[edited to remove quote]

Pixiepumpkin

Erickson9610 wrote: »

Pixiepumpkin wrote: »

Now, a ghostwalker sounds cool. If I could see you on the battlefield and recognize you as a ghostwalker, I'd be all for it. But that is not whats happening in ESO.

Does it matter what you recognize other people as? Do we need to look at other people and appreciate how they fall into an archetype? I certainly don't care what other characters claim to be.

PVP. I should not have to explain this further.

Erickson9610

Pixiepumpkin wrote: »

Erickson9610 wrote: »

Pixiepumpkin wrote: »

Now, a ghostwalker sounds cool. If I could see you on the battlefield and recognize you as a ghostwalker, I'd be all for it. But that is not whats happening in ESO.

Does it matter what you recognize other people as? Do we need to look at other people and appreciate how they fall into an archetype? I certainly don't care what other characters claim to be.

PVP. I should not have to explain this further.

Instead of remembering 7 classes, people will now have to remember 21 individual skill lines and how combinations of 3 might interact with one another. That's not a problem.

Pixiepumpkin

Erickson9610 wrote: »

Pixiepumpkin wrote: »

Erickson9610 wrote: »

Pixiepumpkin wrote: »

Now, a ghostwalker sounds cool. If I could see you on the battlefield and recognize you as a ghostwalker, I'd be all for it. But that is not whats happening in ESO.

Does it matter what you recognize other people as? Do we need to look at other people and appreciate how they fall into an archetype? I certainly don't care what other characters claim to be.

PVP. I should not have to explain this further.

Instead of remembering 7 classes, people will now have to remember 21 individual skill lines and how combinations of 3 might interact with one another. That's not a problem.

But you cant read what class they are now to formulate your defensive strategy (this happens in milliseconds). Playing against different clases requires different approaches. This is no longer possible with sub classing.

Regardless, that is not what this thread is about. Stay on topic.

Erickson9610

Pixiepumpkin wrote: »

Erickson9610 wrote: »

Pixiepumpkin wrote: »

Erickson9610 wrote: »

Pixiepumpkin wrote: »

Now, a ghostwalker sounds cool. If I could see you on the battlefield and recognize you as a ghostwalker, I'd be all for it. But that is not whats happening in ESO.

Does it matter what you recognize other people as? Do we need to look at other people and appreciate how they fall into an archetype? I certainly don't care what other characters claim to be.

PVP. I should not have to explain this further.

Instead of remembering 7 classes, people will now have to remember 21 individual skill lines and how combinations of 3 might interact with one another. That's not a problem.

But you cant read what class they are now to formulate your defensive strategy (this happens in milliseconds). Playing against different clases requires different approaches. This is no longer possible with sub classing.

Regardless, that is not what this thread is about. Stay on topic.

Alright, but I wasn't the one to bring up PvP.

Pixiepumpkin wrote: »

This is the kind of stuff we want to integrate into our video game entertainment lives. Subclassing goes in the opposite direction as it blurs what a class is in ESO. That bluring is not just about what we desire to express with our RPG characters, but also what we see in other players characters.

It doesn't matter what other player characters look or act like. They can justify using spells from different schools of magic via Subclassing because that's the way they've designed their character to be. Their identity is something that they come up with, so it's none of our business. They don't have their identity handed to them.

Juju_beans

I might experiment on a new alt with subclassing.
But I'm keeping my others pure.
I'm a non competitive casual player so meta, BIS and DPS numbers don't matter to me.

Deimus

I don't go heavy into rp, but when I make a character I have an idea of who they are, their motivations, and values.

The character I'm most attached to is my Necromancer, and I think subclassing can further flesh out that class fantasy. Siphoning for a Blood mage/Vampire Necromancer, Winter's Embrace for an Ice mage or Death Knight archetype, or Storm Calling for a Frankenstein/Stitcher based Necromancer.

My worries are that while these rp playstyles will still be a valid option for overland/pve content the powerscaling will widen the gap to the point where if we want to be competitive in PvP or high end PvE we have to forgo all of this creativity for a mix-match of optimal abilities and passives from 3-5 skill lines that might not have cohesion with our characters.

The current class system has never really been balanced but the current gap isn't at the point where you can't get decent performance on any class with practice and skill. If our characters don't feel like our characters even if they're performing well I can see that killing a lot of desire to play. So it really comes down to how much work is ZOS going to put in to keep subclassing balanced after the system comes out? We've seen how their approach to class balance has been over the lifespan of this game. Balance is only going to become harder and require much more work, and they can't just say skill line A is op so use that as an excuse not to change things since skill line A might not fit in with how other people want to play their characters.

Pixiepumpkin

Erickson9610 wrote: »

Pixiepumpkin wrote: »

Erickson9610 wrote: »

Pixiepumpkin wrote: »

Erickson9610 wrote: »

Pixiepumpkin wrote: »

Now, a ghostwalker sounds cool. If I could see you on the battlefield and recognize you as a ghostwalker, I'd be all for it. But that is not whats happening in ESO.

Does it matter what you recognize other people as? Do we need to look at other people and appreciate how they fall into an archetype? I certainly don't care what other characters claim to be.

PVP. I should not have to explain this further.

Instead of remembering 7 classes, people will now have to remember 21 individual skill lines and how combinations of 3 might interact with one another. That's not a problem.

But you cant read what class they are now to formulate your defensive strategy (this happens in milliseconds). Playing against different clases requires different approaches. This is no longer possible with sub classing.

Regardless, that is not what this thread is about. Stay on topic.

Alright, but I wasn't the one to bring up PvP.

Pixiepumpkin wrote: »

This is the kind of stuff we want to integrate into our video game entertainment lives. Subclassing goes in the opposite direction as it blurs what a class is in ESO. That bluring is not just about what we desire to express with our RPG characters, but also what we see in other players characters.

It doesn't matter what other player characters look or act like. They can justify using spells from different schools of magic via Subclassing because that's the way they've designed their character to be. Their identity is something that they come up with, so it's none of our business. They don't have their identity handed to them.

Because you asked and I gave an answer.

licenturion

Interesting post.

But there is also a third kind of player that is missing from your list. (This is my playstyle and also some other people I know)

You also have people who are very committed to the character they create and love to play and go from absolute zero to magnificent hero and want to master everything. My hero also has a house and outfits.

I play ESO (and other games) like some massive checklist and I am satisfied and happy when I have everything (even if I don't use everything). I want to have a full sticker book, I have all skill lines maxed out and all the skills themselves maxed out. I have all the companions maxed out and all their keepsakes. I have cleared all delves, dungeons, map markers and I am working on the final 50 quests in the game. I am also steadily moving towards max CP. So for players like me subclassing is a godsend. It means my hero can master heaps of new skills and can try out new things again. It will give me a lot satisfaction.

I play most of my games like this and this playstyle is possible in most modern games. When I play games like Starfield I usually end up deeply unsatisfied because after 130 hours I have cleared every quest and faction and interacted with every game system but only end up with 20 percent of the skill tree unlocked. Then I start modding or lose interest because I don't want to create an alt and lose everything I worked for. The devs from ESO said this in their video: this feature is for people like me, people who don't want alts but like to experience and have everything on 1 character. (this was almost said literally said in the video)

The good thing is that from a roleplaying standpoint, subclassing is optional. If your character doesn't want to learn a new profession, they don't have to. Just like you characters don't have to play every quest or have every crafting skill maxed out if you don't want that. Subclassing is just like that. You or your character doesn't have the power to dictate how others play and build their characters.

Pixiepumpkin

licenturion wrote: »

Interesting post.

But there is also a third kind of player that is missing from your list. (This is my playstyle and also some other people I know)

You also have people who are very committed to the character they create and love to play and go from absolute zero to magnificent hero and want to master everything. My hero also has a house and outfits.

I play ESO (and other games) like some massive checklist and I am satisfied and happy when I have everything (even if I don't use everything). I want to have a full sticker book, I have all skill lines maxed out and all the skills themselves maxed out. I have all the companions maxed out and all their keepsakes. I have cleared all delves, dungeons, map markers and I am working on the final 50 quests in the game. I am also steadily moving towards max CP. So for players like me subclassing is a godsend. It means my hero can master heaps of new skills and can try out new things again. It will give me a lot satisfaction.

I play most of my games like this and this playstyle is possible in most modern games. When I play games like Starfield I usually end up deeply unsatisfied because after 130 hours I have cleared every quest and faction and interacted with every game system but only end up with 20 percent of the skill tree unlocked. Then I start modding or lose interest because I don't want to create an alt and lose everything I worked for. The devs from ESO said this in their video: this feature is for people like me, people who don't want alts but like to experience and have everything on 1 character. (this was almost said literally said in the video)

The good thing is that from a roleplaying standpoint, subclassing is optional. If your character doesn't want to learn a new profession, they don't have to. Just like you characters don't have to play every quest or have every crafting skill maxed out if you don't want that. Subclassing is just like that. You or your character doesn't have the power to dictate how others play and build their characters.

I disagree with your entire post.

Your playstyle will fit into 1 of the two categories I listed, it's not a third type. The focus here is what the avatar means to people as in its either a UI element to intetact with the game (most PVP types are like this) or one who sees their character as a living breathing being inside the universe (most RPG players fit here). You can be a completionist on either type.

Secondly. It remains to be seen if subclassing is optional or not. Based on the very very very very very very very well documented mentality dating to Everquest I (well over 25 years ago) that raids expect their damage dealers to put out the "bid deeps" and based on the current PTS that is showing that "pure" classes are at a severe disadvantatge regarding damage output, its a safe bet to say at the moment that subclassing will NOT be optional if one intends to raid or even do a vet dungeon without being harassed/given grief for their "poor" damage output (even if their damage meets or exceeds the content requirment).

licenturion

Pixiepumpkin wrote: »

licenturion wrote: »

Interesting post.

But there is also a third kind of player that is missing from your list. (This is my playstyle and also some other people I know)

You also have people who are very committed to the character they create and love to play and go from absolute zero to magnificent hero and want to master everything. My hero also has a house and outfits.

I play ESO (and other games) like some massive checklist and I am satisfied and happy when I have everything (even if I don't use everything). I want to have a full sticker book, I have all skill lines maxed out and all the skills themselves maxed out. I have all the companions maxed out and all their keepsakes. I have cleared all delves, dungeons, map markers and I am working on the final 50 quests in the game. I am also steadily moving towards max CP. So for players like me subclassing is a godsend. It means my hero can master heaps of new skills and can try out new things again. It will give me a lot satisfaction.

I play most of my games like this and this playstyle is possible in most modern games. When I play games like Starfield I usually end up deeply unsatisfied because after 130 hours I have cleared every quest and faction and interacted with every game system but only end up with 20 percent of the skill tree unlocked. Then I start modding or lose interest because I don't want to create an alt and lose everything I worked for. The devs from ESO said this in their video: this feature is for people like me, people who don't want alts but like to experience and have everything on 1 character. (this was almost said literally said in the video)

The good thing is that from a roleplaying standpoint, subclassing is optional. If your character doesn't want to learn a new profession, they don't have to. Just like you characters don't have to play every quest or have every crafting skill maxed out if you don't want that. Subclassing is just like that. You or your character doesn't have the power to dictate how others play and build their characters.

I disagree with your entire post.

Your playstyle will fit into 1 of the two categories I listed, it's not a third type. The focus here is what the avatar means to people as in its either a UI element to intetact with the game (most PVP types are like this) or one who sees their character as a living breathing being inside the universe (most RPG players fit here). You can be a completionist on either type.

Secondly. It remains to be seen if subclassing is optional or not. Based on the very very very very very very very well documented mentality dating to Everquest I (well over 25 years ago) that raids expect their damage dealers to put out the "bid deeps" and based on the current PTS that is showing that "pure" classes are at a severe disadvantatge regarding damage output, its a safe bet to say at the moment that subclassing will NOT be optional if one intends to raid or even do a vet dungeon without being harassed/given grief for their "poor" damage output (even if their damage meets or exceeds the content requirment).

Well lets agree to disagree then because I don't feel like it don't fit into your 2 archetypes at all. I do have a connection with my avatar. I took me days to find a good name back in the day. I have a whole house dedicated to his personality. I have several outfit slots regarding the playstyle I am currently doing and switch mounts and companions that are dressed alike that fit with what I am doing. Yet my hero is a true hero that wants to master everything, collects everything before he (and I) are happy. I don't like to be put in predefined box with limits. Incidentally ZOS loves this type of player cause when new content and systems come out, we are the first one to buy stuff.

I usually don't do veteran content because I am not interested in that at all. It is the same content just harder with the same sets, just perfected. I always put my single player games on normal or story mode too. I play a lot games, just casually. And I am not alone in this these days. Lots of people play games to chill.

Anyway no point in further arguing about it. We both have our views. The system is coming within 2 weeks, no matter what, so I am happy regardless.