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

Pixiepumpkin

licenturion wrote: »

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.

Its not about agreeing or disagreeing. Your playstyle fits into the player who sees their avatar as a character inside the world, not as a means simply to navigate the game. I explained this to you multiple times now.

Not doing veteran content is what will allow you to sublcass and be happy, for those of us who do and do not want to subclass to maintain our characters identity...well ya, we are not going to fare so well based on the PTR.

Thanks for being supportiive of our plight.

Ohh and ya, most folks on the PTR who were totally for subclassing....ya, not liking it so much now that they got a taste. The rest of us already saw this coming.

Pixiepumpkin

sans-culottes wrote:

By now, the debates are well-rehearsed. Subclassing is either the great liberation from ESO’s rigid class silos or the final blow to its already threadbare identity system. Some cheer the possibilities. Others see only entropy.

But perhaps the more interesting question isn’t whether subclassing is good or bad. It’s whether subclassing is even the real issue.

Because what if subclassing feels like the cause but is really just the symptom?

What if this Frankenstein patchwork of skill lines and re-skinned passives is less an act of bold experimentation and more a desperate attempt to cover structural rot? What if the real problem is that ESO’s class system, long underdeveloped and out of step with its own lore, has finally collapsed under its own contradictions? What if subclassing is just the bandage?

You can see it in Necromancer, a class so dysfunctional in core design that subclassing only highlights its incoherence. Or in the recurring cycle of homogenization that began with hybridization and now intensifies as class distinctions are flattened even further. This isn’t creative freedom. It is design surrender.

Subclassing isn’t the monster. It is the panic response to a decade of deferred decisions, neglected systems, and ill-fitting mechanics. The question is no longer whether subclassing fits the game. The question is: does anything?

So was subclassing the monster, or was it just what ZOS stitched together to distract from what’s really on the slab?

Come up to the lab and see what’s on the slab.

@sans-culottes
In the vein of a good RPG character arc, here is a story of a slaved argonian templar named Nail-On-Head a Holy Templar wielding the power of truth and purity, who fights tooth claw and tail against a psychopathic gluttony cult who go by the moniker "Axeminz".

Nail-On-Head was educated with the finest scholars in Alinor. He developed effective communication skills so advanced that Axeminz used the daedric princes to bind Nail-On-Head with an enchanted daedric sheath to keep him from enlightening his fellow slaves about the inner workings of the machine they labored on. Most of the slaves had no mind to understand what they were up against, some even cheered for their captors with blind devotion, few if any of them understanding that Axeminz cared only for the efforts of their labor and that their lives were meaningless. Tokens and trinkets were sparingly given out, but enough to enrage slaves to fight each other, never resting their eyes on their captors, the true enemy.

Nail-On-Head though...always calm and collected, had greater plans and knew of their workings. Through all the tokens, trinkets and tales, Axeminz failing was their innate inability as a psychopathic gluttony cult to register that along with his fellow slaves, Nail-On-Head had already won. Because it was the slaves, through their labor who kept the gears grinding for Axeminz, that Axeminz had no real authority over them. All the slaves had to do was stop, and walk away. The power always rested with them, they just needed to be reminded.

Desiato

The first RPG I played was pen and paper AD&D as a child in the late 80s. I watched and played first hand as computer rpg games emerged from single player SSI games to online text-based muds which were what directly influenced Everquest, which I also played. Everquest was effectively a 3D Dikumud and so was early WoW.

The debate of classes vs pure skill point systems goes back to the pen and paper days. The advantages of structured classes at a pure gameplay level -- ignoring RP -- is that it is easier to fine-tune gameplay for defined classes and roles.

I've never personally observed a free-form progression game with any level of gameplay balance. In practice, de facto classes always emerge -- the same way gear metas evolve in ESO, except with skills.

So the major problem with subclassing, to me, is that it will effectively make the game impossible to balance and fine tune.

Pixiepumpkin

Desiato wrote: »

The first RPG I played was pen and paper AD&D as a child in the late 80s. I watched and played first hand as computer rpg games emerged from single player SSI games to online text-based muds which were what directly influenced Everquest, which I also played. Everquest was effectively a 3D Dikumud and so was early WoW.

The debate of classes vs pure skill point systems goes back to the pen and paper days. The advantages of structured classes at a pure gameplay level -- ignoring RP -- is that it is easier to fine-tune gameplay for defined classes and roles.

I've never personally observed a free-form progression game with any level of gameplay balance. In practice, de facto classes always emerge -- the same way gear metas evolve in ESO, except with skills.

So the major problem with subclassing, to me, is that it will effectively make the game impossible to balance and fine tune.

I am from the same era. I was programming my own games in the 7th grade (no skill, but from PC magazines that had lines of code to make simple games).

I also played AD&D, and then of course moved on to PC games and MMORPGs when they became more popular.

I always questioned the gear sets in ESO, knowing full well they were near impossible to balance vs the number of classes and skill lines in game. I have often wondererd if this was done to absolve the devs from even attempting balance because as we all know balancing is a constant strain on the teams, meaning money spent.
Zenimax likes to reuse/recycle assets over and over and over. This is easily observable in game.
I can't help but ponder if subclassing was a cheap way to bring content (recycled assets) for the next year, coupled with a system that truly absolves them from balance because its going to be impossible to find every combination, its already like that without subclassing.

I worked in a design studio, all I know is that often teams get shuffled around to new/different projects once another project is near completion. I have to consider, based on my experience, that something similar is happening here due to the fact that they are working on a new IP.

I mean, the dev team at Amazon Games who work on New World self admitted that much of the team had been moved over to work on the Lord of the Rings MMORPG they are working on.

sans-culottes

Pixiepumpkin wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote:

By now, the debates are well-rehearsed. Subclassing is either the great liberation from ESO’s rigid class silos or the final blow to its already threadbare identity system. Some cheer the possibilities. Others see only entropy.

But perhaps the more interesting question isn’t whether subclassing is good or bad. It’s whether subclassing is even the real issue.

Because what if subclassing feels like the cause but is really just the symptom?

What if this Frankenstein patchwork of skill lines and re-skinned passives is less an act of bold experimentation and more a desperate attempt to cover structural rot? What if the real problem is that ESO’s class system, long underdeveloped and out of step with its own lore, has finally collapsed under its own contradictions? What if subclassing is just the bandage?

You can see it in Necromancer, a class so dysfunctional in core design that subclassing only highlights its incoherence. Or in the recurring cycle of homogenization that began with hybridization and now intensifies as class distinctions are flattened even further. This isn’t creative freedom. It is design surrender.

Subclassing isn’t the monster. It is the panic response to a decade of deferred decisions, neglected systems, and ill-fitting mechanics. The question is no longer whether subclassing fits the game. The question is: does anything?

So was subclassing the monster, or was it just what ZOS stitched together to distract from what’s really on the slab?

Come up to the lab and see what’s on the slab.

@sans-culottes
In the vein of a good RPG character arc, here is a story of a slaved argonian templar named Nail-On-Head a Holy Templar wielding the power of truth and purity, who fights tooth claw and tail against a psychopathic gluttony cult who go by the moniker "Axeminz".

Nail-On-Head was educated with the finest scholars in Alinor. He developed effective communication skills so advanced that Axeminz used the daedric princes to bind Nail-On-Head with an enchanted daedric sheath to keep him from enlightening his fellow slaves about the inner workings of the machine they labored on. Most of the slaves had no mind to understand what they were up against, some even cheered for their captors with blind devotion, few if any of them understanding that Axeminz cared only for the efforts of their labor and that their lives were meaningless. Tokens and trinkets were sparingly given out, but enough to enrage slaves to fight each other, never resting their eyes on their captors, the true enemy.

Nail-On-Head though...always calm and collected, had greater plans and knew of their workings. Through all the tokens, trinkets and tales, Axeminz failing was their innate inability as a psychopathic gluttony cult to register that along with his fellow slaves, Nail-On-Head had already won. Because it was the slaves, through their labor who kept the gears grinding for Axeminz, that Axeminz had no real authority over them. All the slaves had to do was stop, and walk away. The power always rested with them, they just needed to be reminded.

You made my day.

JemadarofCaerSalis

Pixiepumpkin wrote: »

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]

Not in all RPGs.

Again, class CAN be an important part of a character, but not everyone feels that it is the most important part, or even that important. Even in Role playing games.

Most RPGs have classes, yes, but many of the ones I have played, outside D&D ones, that class is either loosely defined (such as the ES ones where you can still learn skills outside the defined 'class') or it is something that can be changed fairly easily.

Now, D&D has always had a much more strict sense of class, where you can't equip certain weapons if you are certain classes, or wear certain types of armor, and you can't just switch class on a whim. So, if ESO were a D&D based game I could see the issue with class being important to ESO (I can understand it being important to individuals).

But, ESO isn't a D&D based game. There are a lot of games that aren't, and again, many of those types of games have loosely defined ideas of what class is.

JemadarofCaerSalis

Also, I do consider myself an RPG player, and I do often utilize classes as a quick way to define a character's skillset.

But, my character is much more than class. I play a character that is a mage, but he isn't *just* a mage. He also is a thief when he needs to be. Currently he is embarking on a journey of assassination. Just recently he found it cathartic to bash some clockwork enemies with a mace and shield.

Currently all those are available without subclassing, even though I chose a sorcerer as my 'class' at the beginning.

Which again, supports the notion that ESO doesn't have 'pure classes' because if it did, I wouldn't be able to have thief skills on a sorceror. Nor would I be able to heal as effectively as I can. I wouldn't be able to join a fighter's guild, probably wouldn't even be able to touch anything but a staff and maybe a dagger.

What is most important to my character is not his class, but his backstory and his actions. To me, his race and looks are more important than his class.

moderatelyfatman

Pixiepumpkin wrote: »

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.

I'm going to argue the opposite: class identity (from the perspective of playstyle) is even more important to PvPers and role players.

Case in point, as a role-player you can pretty much design the build that matches your role play style and it won't matter how far from the meta you are when engaging in activities such as overland or housing (endgame PvE is a different matter). In some ways subclassing will actually help role playing e.g. you can now play your warden like a stealthy ranger archer or add fire and ice to your sorc to play the ultimate elementalist.

However, PvP is restricted to either the meta or near meta builds; otherwise you can't really play. If you look at the games such as Marvel Rivals, part of the fun is enjoying the different playstyles of each character and how they counter each other. ESO PvP used to have this aspect in the past with the classic DK Brawler vs Sorc Hit&Streak combat style where the winner was determined ultimately by who could control the space between them.
Nightblades were traditionally squishy but could Cloak and hit hard so it became a battle over who could maintain cloak. Wardens were good, all round brawlers that lacked a class execute etc.

What subclassing will do is make sure a single character can have Streak, Corrosive Armor and Cloak at the same time. Build and playstyle diversity will be pretty much gone in PvP.

Pixiepumpkin

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

Pixiepumpkin wrote: »

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]

Not in all RPGs.

Again, class CAN be an important part of a character, but not everyone feels that it is the most important part, or even that important. Even in Role playing games.

Most RPGs have classes, yes, but many of the ones I have played, outside D&D ones, that class is either loosely defined (such as the ES ones where you can still learn skills outside the defined 'class') or it is something that can be changed fairly easily.

Now, D&D has always had a much more strict sense of class, where you can't equip certain weapons if you are certain classes, or wear certain types of armor, and you can't just switch class on a whim. So, if ESO were a D&D based game I could see the issue with class being important to ESO (I can understand it being important to individuals).

But, ESO isn't a D&D based game. There are a lot of games that aren't, and again, many of those types of games have loosely defined ideas of what class is.

You are confusing the player with the game. Its a mindset.
Secondly, classes are more important in MMORPG's than single player games due to the nonverbal communication they offer to other players, most often whom are strangers and have never met IRL. Its a way to communicate to the group "This is my job, this is what I will be doing".

Subclassing annhilates this.

Pixiepumpkin

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

Also, I do consider myself an RPG player, and I do often utilize classes as a quick way to define a character's skillset.

But, my character is much more than class. I play a character that is a mage, but he isn't *just* a mage. He also is a thief when he needs to be. Currently he is embarking on a journey of assassination. Just recently he found it cathartic to bash some clockwork enemies with a mace and shield.

Currently all those are available without subclassing, even though I chose a sorcerer as my 'class' at the beginning.

Which again, supports the notion that ESO doesn't have 'pure classes' because if it did, I wouldn't be able to have thief skills on a sorceror. Nor would I be able to heal as effectively as I can. I wouldn't be able to join a fighter's guild, probably wouldn't even be able to touch anything but a staff and maybe a dagger.

What is most important to my character is not his class, but his backstory and his actions. To me, his race and looks are more important than his class.

You can be a doctor, and a thief. They are not mutually exclusive.

And ESO in fact has pure classes. Its right there in the base game when you fire it up to make a character. This is not contestable.

Pixiepumpkin

moderatelyfatman wrote: »

Pixiepumpkin wrote: »

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.

I'm going to argue the opposite: class identity (from the perspective of playstyle) is even more important to PvPers and role players.

Case in point, as a role-player you can pretty much design the build that matches your role play style and it won't matter how far from the meta you are when engaging in activities such as overland or housing (endgame PvE is a different matter). In some ways subclassing will actually help role playing e.g. you can now play your warden like a stealthy ranger archer or add fire and ice to your sorc to play the ultimate elementalist.

However, PvP is restricted to either the meta or near meta builds; otherwise you can't really play. If you look at the games such as Marvel Rivals, part of the fun is enjoying the different playstyles of each character and how they counter each other. ESO PvP used to have this aspect in the past with the classic DK Brawler vs Sorc Hit&Streak combat style where the winner was determined ultimately by who could control the space between them.
Nightblades were traditionally squishy but could Cloak and hit hard so it became a battle over who could maintain cloak. Wardens were good, all round brawlers that lacked a class execute etc.

What subclassing will do is make sure a single character can have Streak, Corrosive Armor and Cloak at the same time. Build and playstyle diversity will be pretty much gone in PvP.

None of what you said makes any sense based on my OP and player types.

PVPers who often make their characters a name as if they were an edgelord or something that has no loreish meaning behind it such as "Brodog1000", "KleanKiller", "fR0gRoCkEt", "Steve7132" etc are not people who see their character as an immersive being inside the lore of the game.

Pixiepumpkin

sans-culottes wrote: »

Pixiepumpkin wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote:

By now, the debates are well-rehearsed. Subclassing is either the great liberation from ESO’s rigid class silos or the final blow to its already threadbare identity system. Some cheer the possibilities. Others see only entropy.

But perhaps the more interesting question isn’t whether subclassing is good or bad. It’s whether subclassing is even the real issue.

Because what if subclassing feels like the cause but is really just the symptom?

What if this Frankenstein patchwork of skill lines and re-skinned passives is less an act of bold experimentation and more a desperate attempt to cover structural rot? What if the real problem is that ESO’s class system, long underdeveloped and out of step with its own lore, has finally collapsed under its own contradictions? What if subclassing is just the bandage?

You can see it in Necromancer, a class so dysfunctional in core design that subclassing only highlights its incoherence. Or in the recurring cycle of homogenization that began with hybridization and now intensifies as class distinctions are flattened even further. This isn’t creative freedom. It is design surrender.

Subclassing isn’t the monster. It is the panic response to a decade of deferred decisions, neglected systems, and ill-fitting mechanics. The question is no longer whether subclassing fits the game. The question is: does anything?

So was subclassing the monster, or was it just what ZOS stitched together to distract from what’s really on the slab?

Come up to the lab and see what’s on the slab.

@sans-culottes
In the vein of a good RPG character arc, here is a story of a slaved argonian templar named Nail-On-Head a Holy Templar wielding the power of truth and purity, who fights tooth claw and tail against a psychopathic gluttony cult who go by the moniker "Axeminz".

Nail-On-Head was educated with the finest scholars in Alinor. He developed effective communication skills so advanced that Axeminz used the daedric princes to bind Nail-On-Head with an enchanted daedric sheath to keep him from enlightening his fellow slaves about the inner workings of the machine they labored on. Most of the slaves had no mind to understand what they were up against, some even cheered for their captors with blind devotion, few if any of them understanding that Axeminz cared only for the efforts of their labor and that their lives were meaningless. Tokens and trinkets were sparingly given out, but enough to enrage slaves to fight each other, never resting their eyes on their captors, the true enemy.

Nail-On-Head though...always calm and collected, had greater plans and knew of their workings. Through all the tokens, trinkets and tales, Axeminz failing was their innate inability as a psychopathic gluttony cult to register that along with his fellow slaves, Nail-On-Head had already won. Because it was the slaves, through their labor who kept the gears grinding for Axeminz, that Axeminz had no real authority over them. All the slaves had to do was stop, and walk away. The power always rested with them, they just needed to be reminded.

You made my day.

And reading your posts make mine. I love reading your poss out load to my wife. Your writing style and colorful use of words and expressions, coupled with nail on the head commentary and subject matter is insightful and engaging.

Major_Toughness

Pixiepumpkin wrote: »

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.

Insanely egregious assumptions made about a huge population of players purely because they don't have lore friendly names is wildly toxic, and trying to downplay their value because they don't have the same priorities as you.

I don't have lore friendly names but "Jabby The Hutt" makes me edgy?

licenturion

Pixiepumpkin wrote: »

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

Also, I do consider myself an RPG player, and I do often utilize classes as a quick way to define a character's skillset.

But, my character is much more than class. I play a character that is a mage, but he isn't *just* a mage. He also is a thief when he needs to be. Currently he is embarking on a journey of assassination. Just recently he found it cathartic to bash some clockwork enemies with a mace and shield.

Currently all those are available without subclassing, even though I chose a sorcerer as my 'class' at the beginning.

Which again, supports the notion that ESO doesn't have 'pure classes' because if it did, I wouldn't be able to have thief skills on a sorceror. Nor would I be able to heal as effectively as I can. I wouldn't be able to join a fighter's guild, probably wouldn't even be able to touch anything but a staff and maybe a dagger.

What is most important to my character is not his class, but his backstory and his actions. To me, his race and looks are more important than his class.

You can be a doctor, and a thief. They are not mutually exclusive.

And ESO in fact has pure classes. Its right there in the base game when you fire it up to make a character. This is not contestable.

I get where he is coming from. For me choosing a class in a game is mostly choosing the playstyle I want as a starting point and have specific starting skills and traits while I accumulate all the others later. With most skill lines that has already been possible for a long time, but classes were, until now, off limits.

I do agree with the post of @sans-culottes (for once ). I think the issue is that ESO is a 10 year long game that they try to modernize through the years. A lot of newer games put player flexibility first. New World also doesn't have classes and you can basically be perfect in every profession and skill as well. Subclassing is not the problem, but the symptom.

Even other non MMO-games like Overwatch of Marvel Rivals, let me as a support or tank player get more kills and damage than our DPS most of the time. Otherwise almost nobody would play the role and you have gigantic matchmaking queues.

Pixiepumpkin

Major_Toughness wrote: »

Pixiepumpkin wrote: »

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.

Insanely egregious assumptions made about a huge population of players purely because they don't have lore friendly names is wildly toxic, and trying to downplay their value because they don't have the same priorities as you.

I don't have lore friendly names but "Jabby The Hutt" makes me edgy?

Its not assumptious, its observation over multiple gaming platforms through various genres of games over the course of about 26 years.

But that aside, nowhere did I slander, devalue, or suggest any negative connotations about these players, so nothing I said was "toxic", not even remotely.

That is their preferred playstyle and good for them, just like RPG/lore friendly named players prefer that playstyle and good for them.

And yes, Jabby the Hutt errors on the edgy side, much more than Eronus Cadminger or any other role play name.

Pixiepumpkin

licenturion wrote: »

Pixiepumpkin wrote: »

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

Also, I do consider myself an RPG player, and I do often utilize classes as a quick way to define a character's skillset.

But, my character is much more than class. I play a character that is a mage, but he isn't *just* a mage. He also is a thief when he needs to be. Currently he is embarking on a journey of assassination. Just recently he found it cathartic to bash some clockwork enemies with a mace and shield.

Currently all those are available without subclassing, even though I chose a sorcerer as my 'class' at the beginning.

Which again, supports the notion that ESO doesn't have 'pure classes' because if it did, I wouldn't be able to have thief skills on a sorceror. Nor would I be able to heal as effectively as I can. I wouldn't be able to join a fighter's guild, probably wouldn't even be able to touch anything but a staff and maybe a dagger.

What is most important to my character is not his class, but his backstory and his actions. To me, his race and looks are more important than his class.

You can be a doctor, and a thief. They are not mutually exclusive.

And ESO in fact has pure classes. Its right there in the base game when you fire it up to make a character. This is not contestable.

I get where he is coming from. For me choosing a class in a game is mostly choosing the playstyle I want as a starting point and have specific starting skills and traits while I accumulate all the others later. With most skill lines that has already been possible for a long time, but classes were, until now, off limits.

I do agree with the post of @sans-culottes (for once ). I think the issue is that ESO is a 10 year long game that they try to modernize through the years. A lot of newer games put player flexibility first. New World also doesn't have classes and you can basically be perfect in every profession and skill as well. Subclassing is not the problem, but the symptom.

Even other non MMO-games like Overwatch of Marvel Rivals, let me as a support or tank player get more kills and damage than our DPS most of the time. Otherwise almost nobody would play the role and you have gigantic matchmaking queues.

And new world has no real PVE endgame. Its endgame is mostly PVP and the amount of non RPG names in that game is insane. Most new world players see ther avatar as a means to interact wtih the world, not a living character inside a novel.

They also have a small player base, a small dev team as they dont bring in the revenue to pay for a larger team, and this is BESIDE the fact that objectively their combat is much better than ESO's. Weapons feel like weapons, not buff bars. All "skills" used come from the weapons. There is no back bar buffing, swapping weapons swaps the toolkit.

The combat, animations, sound are significantly more visceral and impactful. And even with this, they can't maintain a playerbase.

I have mained PVP for over 20 years. Mostly in MMORPGS, so I say this not as someone with a slant towards the group, but as someone who was embeded deep within it. The fact is most PVPers do not care much for RPG aspects of games. They might like a story here or there, or some armor, but overall they are not as invested. Same group GENERALLY speaking cares little for housing, and oddly new world housing is a back burner feature that has had no updates and bugs that have persisted since launch.

Why? PVP is their focus, not PVE. And in RPG's PVE players spend more money and are generally more dedicated. PVP will often move on the second a bad patch hits, then come back when their class is buffed.

I know I am making a lot of generalizations, but on a bell curve everything I said is on point. I don't begrudge either player type for enjoying their time in game. But I am also not naive enough to think that catering to one demographic while ignoring the second, when its the second that pays the bills is going to go over well.

Terin

So, I’ve studied game design for a long time, but my opinion is hardly gospel or anything.

I think some games work well with Classes, and some games work better without them. I absolutely adore Morrowind, however I think the idea of choosing a “class” runs contrary to almost everything else about the game.

That is, it’s not so much about what is a “good” or “bad” choice, but rather, which choices synergize well and build on each other, versus which don’t.

To me, ESO has always struck me as a game that would’ve greatly benefited from the Skyrim approach, where you don’t choose a “class”, but rather you choose what you want to do as you go, and you become good at the thing you do.

The reason I think that style of design works better for ESO is that it’s a game with loads of exploration, tons of quests and stories, not to mention all of the cosmetic options you now have at your disposal.

The Class based structure serves as more of a chokepoint to all that creativity.

Games like WoW, for example, make Classes work because they’re SO narrow and specific, they really go overboard with making the class itself the entire game experience. Visuals, story, the way you experience WoW is greatly influenced and even dictated by your chosen Class.

Neither approach is “better” than the other, even we each have our own preferences. For my part, I do tend to appreciate WoW’s approach.

But I can also recognize where ESO would get a lot more benefit out of a more “build-a-bear” approach. That’s because I think it really encourages taking a deep dive into the world, investing in your character at a much deeper level, and appreciating the nuances that make up a character more.

Classes in ESO never felt particularly thematic, visually recognizable, and there was never any established lore that I could find until the Arcanist. As such, the concept of “classes” at all just seemed a little bit counterintuitive to the much more nuanced world they were creating.

Just my two cents, though!

Pixiepumpkin

Terin wrote: »

So, I’ve studied game design for a long time, but my opinion is hardly gospel or anything.

I think some games work well with Classes, and some games work better without them. I absolutely adore Morrowind, however I think the idea of choosing a “class” runs contrary to almost everything else about the game.

That is, it’s not so much about what is a “good” or “bad” choice, but rather, which choices synergize well and build on each other, versus which don’t.

To me, ESO has always struck me as a game that would’ve greatly benefited from the Skyrim approach, where you don’t choose a “class”, but rather you choose what you want to do as you go, and you become good at the thing you do.

The reason I think that style of design works better for ESO is that it’s a game with loads of exploration, tons of quests and stories, not to mention all of the cosmetic options you now have at your disposal.

The Class based structure serves as more of a chokepoint to all that creativity.

Games like WoW, for example, make Classes work because they’re SO narrow and specific, they really go overboard with making the class itself the entire game experience. Visuals, story, the way you experience WoW is greatly influenced and even dictated by your chosen Class.

Neither approach is “better” than the other, even we each have our own preferences. For my part, I do tend to appreciate WoW’s approach.

But I can also recognize where ESO would get a lot more benefit out of a more “build-a-bear” approach. That’s because I think it really encourages taking a deep dive into the world, investing in your character at a much deeper level, and appreciating the nuances that make up a character more.

Classes in ESO never felt particularly thematic, visually recognizable, and there was never any established lore that I could find until the Arcanist. As such, the concept of “classes” at all just seemed a little bit counterintuitive to the much more nuanced world they were creating.

Just my two cents, though!

Fair points. I have also studied game design for the better part of 30 years. I am also a designer by trade (and college educated in art/design).

The primary difference is that ESO is a multiplayer online game. Checks and balances must me maintained so that player agency is met (which contrary to what many believe is not carte blanch for "do anything they want") especially regarding other players (no player should have god mode over another/force another player to do anything, etc).

Classes, and more specifically roles serve as tools to help nonverbally communicate to other players what their job will be in multiplayer content.

Tanks need to be easy to read, same for healers and DPS. This is how the group knows without typing out, or being in comms what each player will be doing.

This is in part why "Fake tanks" are an issue, because you read one thing and get another, causing chaos in the run.

This is just one aspect of why classes are necessary in an mmorpg. Balance must exist to ensure its balanced for other players.

None of these are issues in single player games.

Pa1in

Pixiepumpkin wrote: »

Fair points. I have also studied game design for the better part of 30 years. I am also a designer by trade (and college educated in art/design).

The primary difference is that ESO is a multiplayer online game. Checks and balances must me maintained so that player agency is met (which contrary to what many believe is not carte blanch for "do anything they want") especially regarding other players (no player should have god mode over another/force another player to do anything, etc).

Classes, and more specifically roles serve as tools to help nonverbally communicate to other players what their job will be in multiplayer content.

Tanks need to be easy to read, same for healers and DPS. This is how the group knows without typing out, or being in comms what each player will be doing.

This is in part why "Fake tanks" are an issue, because you read one thing and get another, causing chaos in the run.

This is just one aspect of why classes are necessary in an mmorpg. Balance must exist to ensure its balanced for other players.

None of these are issues in single player games.

I don't think that's the problem of classes right here, since it's the case of what role a player will perform, be it DPS, tank or healer. And since any class can technically perform any role, classes being the indicator of what the player can do simply won't work. And what if anyone decides to equip all skills that are not coming from their class be it weapon, guild or world skills. How then can you tell someone's class just by looking at them other than a small icon next to their name?

The class identity was already really weak in eso to begin with, except some one or two books on each class and IA motifs that came years after the game was launched there was not much each class can differ from each other, and why defending the "class purity" seems a bit nonsensical to me.

Going back to the original point too, I just don't think that sticking to pure classes is that beneficial from a roleplay perspective. I'd even say it's really limiting. For example if i create a new character with a backstory that they are a young sorcerer in training who picks up nightblade infused thievery to get funds for tuition, then i should have access to both sorcrerer and nightblade skills. And something like that would be much more limited without subclassing.

Also a lot of subclassing discussion I saw (the non-game balance part anyway) comes from how people see ESO: as either MMORPG set in the elder scrolls universe or a TES game with MMO elements. And given how devs mentioned in a recent podcast how they really wanted to give people their "skyrim with friends" the game will rather move closer to the second version.