StarOfElyon wrote: »Subclassing is not something that I asked for.
PDarkBHood wrote: »
Also, you have a choice of using or not using subclassing!!! Enjoy!
This is the whole point, you do not have to build the "excessive multiclass powerboost" character at all. Go with what you like and do not use subclassing to have 'fun'. The classes are being balanced (hopefully). Don't let FOMO rule subclassing or any other system. What else am I missing, I really want to know. As right now all the arguments against subclassing make little sense or have little justification for stopping subclassing.SaintJohnHM wrote: »The excessive multiclass powerboost will also make dungeon HMs and trifectas even more trivial than the powerboost from arc did, less fun.
PDarkBHood wrote: »This is the whole point, you do not have to build the "excessive multiclass powerboost" character at all. Go with what you like and do not use subclassing to have 'fun'. The classes are being balanced (hopefully). Don't let FOMO rule subclassing or any other system. What else am I missing, I really want to know. As right now all the arguments against subclassing make little sense or have little justification for stopping subclassing.SaintJohnHM wrote: »The excessive multiclass powerboost will also make dungeon HMs and trifectas even more trivial than the powerboost from arc did, less fun.
PDarkBHood wrote: »This is the whole point, you do not have to build the "excessive multiclass powerboost" character at all. Go with what you like and do not use subclassing to have 'fun'. The classes are being balanced (hopefully). Don't let FOMO rule subclassing or any other system. What else am I missing, I really want to know. As right now all the arguments against subclassing make little sense or have little justification for stopping subclassing.SaintJohnHM wrote: »The excessive multiclass powerboost will also make dungeon HMs and trifectas even more trivial than the powerboost from arc did, less fun.
PDarkBHood wrote: »
I think it is a great idea and I am looking forward to subclassing. So much, in fact, that I want more Armory slots to store all the different combinations of subclassing I plan or doing.
SaintJohnHM wrote: »PDarkBHood wrote: »This is the whole point, you do not have to build the "excessive multiclass powerboost" character at all. Go with what you like and do not use subclassing to have 'fun'. The classes are being balanced (hopefully). Don't let FOMO rule subclassing or any other system. What else am I missing, I really want to know. As right now all the arguments against subclassing make little sense or have little justification for stopping subclassing.SaintJohnHM wrote: »The excessive multiclass powerboost will also make dungeon HMs and trifectas even more trivial than the powerboost from arc did, less fun.
It's more fun to just be able to quickly put together a group of builds of what people usually play rather than try to get together a group of folks who are committed to playing with nerfed pure classes. They don't have to stop multiclassing, they just have to put some more thought into it or else it's going to be a much less fun game for many of us.
How is changing Beam from a DoT to Direct damage a sledgehammer to the skill?
How is changing Beam from a DoT to Direct damage a sledgehammer to the skill?
cuddles_with_wroble wrote: »If you think than any raid leader is letting you into vet HM or trifecta content on a pure class your on copium. The numbers are not close, it’s not a choice, the pure classes are garbage and you cannot bring them to hard content unless you just don’t respect your teammates. Your dealing 40 - 50% less damage and everyone would have to change sets to compensate for you not hitting the Crit or pen caps
cuddles_with_wroble wrote: »If you think than any raid leader is letting you into vet HM or trifecta content on a pure class your on copium. The numbers are not close, it’s not a choice, the pure classes are garbage and you cannot bring them to hard content unless you just don’t respect your teammates. Your dealing 40 - 50% less damage and everyone would have to change sets to compensate for you not hitting the Crit or pen caps
Vonnegut2506 wrote: »cuddles_with_wroble wrote: »If you think than any raid leader is letting you into vet HM or trifecta content on a pure class your on copium. The numbers are not close, it’s not a choice, the pure classes are garbage and you cannot bring them to hard content unless you just don’t respect your teammates. Your dealing 40 - 50% less damage and everyone would have to change sets to compensate for you not hitting the Crit or pen caps
So no pure classes have been able to do vet HM or trifectas up to this point? Which monumental class nerfs on the PTS will prevent those pure classes from continuing to do so after Update 46?
So if the majority of players in ESO, by roughly 80%, are mostly solo players who don't participate in Endgame, then why should ZOS change the game to cater to 10-15% of players... actually even less because not all of Endgame players worry about min/maxing.
For years and years solo players have had to watch THEIR skills get nerfed because of PvP and Endgame players and the min/maxers... and now solo players finally have something to cheer about with subclassing. Finally ZOS adds something to the game to appease the overwhelming majority of players, and subclassing is the only reason I'm returning to ESO.
So if the majority of players in ESO, by roughly 80%, are mostly solo players who don't participate in Endgame, then why should ZOS change the game to cater to 10-15% of players... actually even less because not all of Endgame players worry about min/maxing.
For years and years solo players have had to watch THEIR skills get nerfed because of PvP and Endgame players and the min/maxers... and now solo players finally have something to cheer about with subclassing. Finally ZOS adds something to the game to appease the overwhelming majority of players, and subclassing is the only reason I'm returning to ESO.
So if the majority of players in ESO, by roughly 80%, are mostly solo players who don't participate in Endgame, then why should ZOS change the game to cater to 10-15% of players... actually even less because not all of Endgame players worry about min/maxing.
For years and years solo players have had to watch THEIR skills get nerfed because of PvP and Endgame players and the min/maxers... and now solo players finally have something to cheer about with subclassing. Finally ZOS adds something to the game to appease the overwhelming majority of players, and subclassing is the only reason I'm returning to ESO.
How is changing Beam from a DoT to Direct damage a sledgehammer to the skill?
sans-culottes wrote: »So if the majority of players in ESO, by roughly 80%, are mostly solo players who don't participate in Endgame, then why should ZOS change the game to cater to 10-15% of players... actually even less because not all of Endgame players worry about min/maxing.
For years and years solo players have had to watch THEIR skills get nerfed because of PvP and Endgame players and the min/maxers... and now solo players finally have something to cheer about with subclassing. Finally ZOS adds something to the game to appease the overwhelming majority of players, and subclassing is the only reason I'm returning to ESO.
Where exactly are you getting this “80% solo player” figure? Because unless you have access to internal ZOS telemetry, it sounds more like an invented stat meant to shut down disagreement than a meaningful datapoint.
Even if we accepted the premise that most players primarily solo (which is plausible), subclassing doesn’t meaningfully enhance the solo experience beyond superficial novelty. What it does do is shift performance baselines across all content, solo and group alike. That affects everyone—not just the “min-maxers” you’ve decided to scapegoat.
Appealing to “the majority” as justification only works if you can demonstrate that the change in question actually serves that majority well. Subclassing, as implemented, introduces unnecessary complexity, destabilizes identity-based builds, and accelerates power creep, all while offering minimal functional benefit to solo players who already have access to flexible, viable builds.
In short: claiming this was done for solo players doesn’t make it true.
sans-culottes wrote: »Where exactly are you getting this “80% solo player” figure? Because unless you have access to internal ZOS telemetry, it sounds more like an invented stat meant to shut down disagreement than a meaningful datapoint.