The hardware issue is resolved, and the European Xbox megaserver is now available. Thank you for your patience!
Maintenance for the week of November 17:
• [COMPLETE] ESO Store and Account System for maintenance – November 17, 6:00AM EST (11:00 UTC) - 4:00PM EST (21:00 UTC)
• Xbox: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – November 19, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
• [COMPLETE] ESO Store and Account System for maintenance – November 17, 6:00AM EST (11:00 UTC) - 4:00PM EST (21:00 UTC)
• Xbox: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – November 19, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
Subclassing Destroy player uniquness
-
LalMirchi✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭sans-culottes wrote: »
Just as one can say the the statement " bungled system" is rather hyperbolic?1 -
sans-culottes✭✭✭✭✭
✭sans-culottes wrote: »
Just as one can say the the statement " bungled system" is rather hyperbolic?
One of these things critiques a system. The other critiques people.
There’s a meaningful difference between evaluating design decisions and pathologizing those who disagree with them. Calling others “rigid” or “frozen” for expressing dissent is a rhetorical dodge. It avoids engaging with the actual argument and instead shifts focus to tone policing and armchair psychoanalysis.
P.S. If calling it a “bungled system” feels hyperbolic, then feel free to take it up with the current state of Necromancer skill lines. Blastbones, a core class mechanic, is now misfiring due to a hardcoded corpse cap, breaking the class’s foundational loop.Edited by sans-culottes on June 4, 2025 2:12PM6 -
LalMirchi✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭sans-culottes wrote: »sans-culottes wrote: »
Just as one can say the the statement " bungled system" is rather hyperbolic?
One of these things critiques a system. The other critiques people.
There’s a meaningful difference between evaluating design decisions and pathologizing those who disagree with them. Calling others “rigid” or “frozen” for expressing dissent is a rhetorical dodge. It avoids engaging with the actual argument and instead shifts focus to tone policing and armchair psychoanalysis.
P.S. If calling it a “bungled system” feels hyperbolic, then feel free to take it up with the current state of Necromancer skill lines. Blastbones, a core class mechanic, is now misfiring due to a hardcoded corpse cap, breaking the class’s foundational loop.
Statements are made by people and we are all people, we stae what we mean.
Yes I'm critical of people wanting to remain in the status quo and think that rigidity is a feebler tactique rather than fluidity. It's what used to be called common sense.
My basic thesis is that we are are now subject to a "Force Majeure" I.E. The studio has decided on a major change, how one reacts to that is rather revealing. However I still think that not adapting to changes is not very effective in the long run.0 -
sans-culottes✭✭✭✭✭
✭sans-culottes wrote: »sans-culottes wrote: »
Just as one can say the the statement " bungled system" is rather hyperbolic?
One of these things critiques a system. The other critiques people.
There’s a meaningful difference between evaluating design decisions and pathologizing those who disagree with them. Calling others “rigid” or “frozen” for expressing dissent is a rhetorical dodge. It avoids engaging with the actual argument and instead shifts focus to tone policing and armchair psychoanalysis.
P.S. If calling it a “bungled system” feels hyperbolic, then feel free to take it up with the current state of Necromancer skill lines. Blastbones, a core class mechanic, is now misfiring due to a hardcoded corpse cap, breaking the class’s foundational loop.
Statements are made by people and we are all people, we stae what we mean.
Yes I'm critical of people wanting to remain in the status quo and think that rigidity is a feebler tactique rather than fluidity. It's what used to be called common sense.
My basic thesis is that we are are now subject to a "Force Majeure" I.E. The studio has decided on a major change, how one reacts to that is rather revealing. However I still think that not adapting to changes is not very effective in the long run.
Your position seems to conflate adaptation with approval. Recognizing that a change has occurred is just realism. Insisting that all critique amounts to pathological rigidity is something else entirely.
Design decisions can be acknowledged without being endorsed. Calling the current subclass system a “Force Majeure” does not make it good. It only means it was imposed. Invoking “common sense” to pathologize dissent is not an argument. It is rhetorical handwaving.
The fact remains: a core class like Necromancer has been destabilized. Blastbones is malfunctioning. These are not matters of tone or attitude. They are functional failures. You can adapt to a broken system, but that does not mean it is not broken.6 -
ragnarok6644b14_ESO✭✭✭✭Blastbones malfunctioning isn't related to subclassing though - that's rather the point.
People are whining about things that are objectively not related to subclassing, and then blaming subclassing.
There were how many viable tank builds in endgame play? I was told: turning tide + nazaray + powerful assault.
Necro tank? Run those. Arcanist tank? Run those. NB tank? Get out (also run those on your way out). Dk tank? Run those, but make yourself comfortable.
The fact that there is one singular endgame build for tanks (afaik) is:
1) not trickling down and somehow forcing the rest into conformity (I don't actually think I have seen this build outside of endgame all that much)
2) not going to change (at worst) or will get more flexible (at best) with subclassing.
The fact that 'a best build always emerges and some category of people accept only the best' is *subclassing independent*.
And as soon as you open the door to allowing "less-than-the-best" builds, I think you will see more options with subclassing than you would have without, in terms of player decisions that can be made to customize their character.
Complaining that optimization occurs is essentially complaining that games exist. Do you think people will stop enjoying Chess just because "perfect play" is deterministically solvable by an algorithm? Or will people play it because they enjoy it at their own pace, and feel no need to follow a machine's (or another human's) instructions for perfection?2 -
Thysbe✭✭✭✭✭ragnarok6644b14_ESO wrote: »Blastbones malfunctioning isn't related to subclassing though - that's rather the point.
it is related - even stated as a comment in the patch notes - I think you have to open the previous quotes, I didn´t want to cut out all of the context - I put the relevant part in boldZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »We can confirm that there's currently a bug that allows the animation of Blastbones to play when at the pet cap (detailed in the patch notes), even though the pet will correctly be prevented from spawning. This should be fixed in Update 47.
No offense Gina, but what?
Blastbones is just unusable in PvP now, and that's intended??? That's a joke right?
Nobody said Blastbones being unusable is intended. What's intended is there is a limitation of 5 summons or corpses of summons in PvP areas, but there's a bug where the animation is still playing even if something isn't being spawned. Here's what was outlined in the notes, so nobody has to go digging:Updated the rules and behaviors for reaching the combat pet limit. Previously, reaching 10 summons or corpses of summons would outright prevent the summoning of further pets, regardless of their source or type. This was most likely experienced in cases on a Necromancer where you had a high amount of corpse generating abilities, such as Banner Bearer, Grave Grasp, and Sacrificial Bones – where once you had enough summons and corpses active, your abilities would simply stop functioning (we saw this arise in reports mostly where Blighted Blastbones would fail to activate). With subclassing in mind, we’ve had to go back to this experience and flesh it out, since it is far more likely to reach that cap – as well as introduce a new hard cap in PvP environments, where these experiences could create highly problematic gameplay experiences on lower spec hardware.- While in a PvE zone, the limitation of 10 pets will remain as is.
- While in a PvP zone, the limitation will now be 5.
Edited by Thysbe on June 4, 2025 4:06PM4 -
ragnarok6644b14_ESO✭✭✭✭ragnarok6644b14_ESO wrote: »Blastbones malfunctioning isn't related to subclassing though - that's rather the point.
it is related - even stated as a comment in the patch notes - I think you have to open the previous quotes, I didn´t want to cut out all of the context - I put the relevant part in boldZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »We can confirm that there's currently a bug that allows the animation of Blastbones to play when at the pet cap (detailed in the patch notes), even though the pet will correctly be prevented from spawning. This should be fixed in Update 47.
No offense Gina, but what?
Blastbones is just unusable in PvP now, and that's intended??? That's a joke right?
Nobody said Blastbones being unusable is intended. What's intended is there is a limitation of 5 summons or corpses of summons in PvP areas, but there's a bug where the animation is still playing even if something isn't being spawned. Here's what was outlined in the notes, so nobody has to go digging:Updated the rules and behaviors for reaching the combat pet limit. Previously, reaching 10 summons or corpses of summons would outright prevent the summoning of further pets, regardless of their source or type. This was most likely experienced in cases on a Necromancer where you had a high amount of corpse generating abilities, such as Banner Bearer, Grave Grasp, and Sacrificial Bones – where once you had enough summons and corpses active, your abilities would simply stop functioning (we saw this arise in reports mostly where Blighted Blastbones would fail to activate). With subclassing in mind, we’ve had to go back to this experience and flesh it out, since it is far more likely to reach that cap – as well as introduce a new hard cap in PvP environments, where these experiences could create highly problematic gameplay experiences on lower spec hardware.- While in a PvE zone, the limitation of 10 pets will remain as is.
- While in a PvP zone, the limitation will now be 5.
Right, they had to go back and revisit it - only to find it isn't working at all.
They just reverted the subclassing-related change and it is still broken. One believes (I certainly believed) it never really worked well at all! It would explain a lot of the NPEs that necromancers have reported over the yearsEdited by ragnarok6644b14_ESO on June 4, 2025 4:28PM0 -
majulook✭✭✭✭✭
✭A Stamina and a Magicka option for all of the Class Skill when you get the Morph change option, would be nice to have.Si vis pacem, para bellum0 -
sans-culottes✭✭✭✭✭
✭ragnarok6644b14_ESO wrote: »ragnarok6644b14_ESO wrote: »Blastbones malfunctioning isn't related to subclassing though - that's rather the point.
it is related - even stated as a comment in the patch notes - I think you have to open the previous quotes, I didn´t want to cut out all of the context - I put the relevant part in boldZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »We can confirm that there's currently a bug that allows the animation of Blastbones to play when at the pet cap (detailed in the patch notes), even though the pet will correctly be prevented from spawning. This should be fixed in Update 47.
No offense Gina, but what?
Blastbones is just unusable in PvP now, and that's intended??? That's a joke right?
Nobody said Blastbones being unusable is intended. What's intended is there is a limitation of 5 summons or corpses of summons in PvP areas, but there's a bug where the animation is still playing even if something isn't being spawned. Here's what was outlined in the notes, so nobody has to go digging:Updated the rules and behaviors for reaching the combat pet limit. Previously, reaching 10 summons or corpses of summons would outright prevent the summoning of further pets, regardless of their source or type. This was most likely experienced in cases on a Necromancer where you had a high amount of corpse generating abilities, such as Banner Bearer, Grave Grasp, and Sacrificial Bones – where once you had enough summons and corpses active, your abilities would simply stop functioning (we saw this arise in reports mostly where Blighted Blastbones would fail to activate). With subclassing in mind, we’ve had to go back to this experience and flesh it out, since it is far more likely to reach that cap – as well as introduce a new hard cap in PvP environments, where these experiences could create highly problematic gameplay experiences on lower spec hardware.- While in a PvE zone, the limitation of 10 pets will remain as is.
- While in a PvP zone, the limitation will now be 5.
Right, they had to go back and revisit it - only to find it isn't working at all.
They just reverted the subclassing-related change and it is still broken. One believes (I certainly believed) it never really worked well at all! It would explain a lot of the NPEs that necromancers have reported over the years
So just to clarify: a subclassing-induced corpse overload prompted ZOS to revisit the entire pet cap system. In the process, they introduced a new PvP-specific hard limit and acknowledged Blastbones was one of the main skills affected. Then they rolled back part of that change, and the skill is still broken.
That doesn’t exactly scream “unrelated.”
Also worth noting: the duration of Necromancer corpses was reduced from 10 to 5 seconds. That directly affected corpse consumers. Again, this isn’t a coincidence. It’s collateral damage from systemic rewiring.
This isn’t about a longstanding bug. It’s about subclassing’s ripple effects breaking foundational class mechanics, and the studio’s own notes confirm as much.Edited by sans-culottes on June 4, 2025 5:03PM3 -
amiiegee✭✭✭✭MISTFORMBZZZ wrote: »And this is just wrong. It's primarily endgame players who invest in things like houses, all the chapters, DLCs, new classes, and so on—largely to stay competitive and keep up with endgame content.
It's hard to see how solo or non-endgame players, who don't typically engage with that content, would be the main drivers of the game's revenue.
I've noticed you've expressed this opinion in other threads too, and of course you're entitled to your view—but it's off the mark in this case.
This is actually pretty simple... end game players make up a VERY small percentage of the player base. The same goes for those who only PvP. If you don't think that the more "casual" crowd is the driving revenue for this game that's just insane to me. I bet 75% of the games population can barely hit 50-60k DPS, have a very low APM, and struggle with normal DLC content. Lots of players treat this as a solo Elder Scrolls game, and I would bet my account that housing rakes in the most revenue. Who do you think sinks stupid amounts of money into the game buying, and decorating dozens of houses? Surely isn't the score pushers or PvP mains... Even trial guilds with all the bells and whistles in their guild hall is typically a collaborative effort by many people within the guild. There are MANY guilds in this game that offer the same, and never venture into end game veteran content.
I've known so many people on this game that wouldn't last 3 minutes in veteran DLC dungeons, but they have 20+ houses fully decorated to a theme with characters to match. Many even have multiple ESO+ subscribed accounts, with max characters on each. You may not like it, I may not like it, and others may not like it, but that's ESO.
ZOS doesn't cater to end game players, they cater to those who keep the servers online, and the game profitable. This topic has been beaten to death so many times, and has been the known direction for the game for literal years. I enjoy end game myself, and wish a bit more attention was shown to it, but it is what it is; I still login to play, and still find enjoyment in the things I do in game. When that is no longer the case, there are tons of other games available to play. This game truly is "play how you want" within the constraints of the content provided. Mission achieved, ZOS.
Endgame players do all those other things too you know. Some of the best houses I've seen have been from active endgame players, it feels like a third of the members of the Mournhold based trade guild I'm in are people I raid with and I recognize another third from PvP. You have to be an endgamer and a quester and a pvper and a crafter and a thief and a fisher (and and and) to get every achievement in the game and there's a few of those people around.
Endgame players are just "players".
nothing to add here, well spoken1 -
ragnarok6644b14_ESO✭✭✭✭sans-culottes wrote: »ragnarok6644b14_ESO wrote: »ragnarok6644b14_ESO wrote: »Blastbones malfunctioning isn't related to subclassing though - that's rather the point.
it is related - even stated as a comment in the patch notes - I think you have to open the previous quotes, I didn´t want to cut out all of the context - I put the relevant part in boldZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »We can confirm that there's currently a bug that allows the animation of Blastbones to play when at the pet cap (detailed in the patch notes), even though the pet will correctly be prevented from spawning. This should be fixed in Update 47.
No offense Gina, but what?
Blastbones is just unusable in PvP now, and that's intended??? That's a joke right?
Nobody said Blastbones being unusable is intended. What's intended is there is a limitation of 5 summons or corpses of summons in PvP areas, but there's a bug where the animation is still playing even if something isn't being spawned. Here's what was outlined in the notes, so nobody has to go digging:Updated the rules and behaviors for reaching the combat pet limit. Previously, reaching 10 summons or corpses of summons would outright prevent the summoning of further pets, regardless of their source or type. This was most likely experienced in cases on a Necromancer where you had a high amount of corpse generating abilities, such as Banner Bearer, Grave Grasp, and Sacrificial Bones – where once you had enough summons and corpses active, your abilities would simply stop functioning (we saw this arise in reports mostly where Blighted Blastbones would fail to activate). With subclassing in mind, we’ve had to go back to this experience and flesh it out, since it is far more likely to reach that cap – as well as introduce a new hard cap in PvP environments, where these experiences could create highly problematic gameplay experiences on lower spec hardware.- While in a PvE zone, the limitation of 10 pets will remain as is.
- While in a PvP zone, the limitation will now be 5.
Right, they had to go back and revisit it - only to find it isn't working at all.
They just reverted the subclassing-related change and it is still broken. One believes (I certainly believed) it never really worked well at all! It would explain a lot of the NPEs that necromancers have reported over the years
So just to clarify: a subclassing-induced corpse overload prompted ZOS to revisit the entire pet cap system. In the process, they introduced a new PvP-specific hard limit and acknowledged Blastbones was one of the main skills affected. Then they rolled back part of that change, and the skill is still broken.
That doesn’t exactly scream “unrelated.”
Also worth noting: the duration of Necromancer corpses was reduced from 10 to 5 seconds. That directly affected corpse consumers. Again, this isn’t a coincidence. It’s collateral damage from systemic rewiring.
This isn’t about a longstanding bug. It’s about subclassing’s ripple effects breaking foundational class mechanics, and the studio’s own notes confirm as much.
What I saw is "a pre-existing limit of 10 was lowered to 5 for performance reasons, and things were broken at 5. We moved the limit of 5 back to 10, but things still aren't reliably working"
Which convinces me that there probably always was a problem with how Necromancer worked, but the high limit and lack of systemic notification (the pet limit notif in the corner) meant it wasn't spotted or identified; when the limit was lowered and the notif added, it became much more noticable and repeatable.
The problem may have been able to hide under the rug more easily before subclassing, but I think it was still a problem. Because I have definitely had moments where blastbones didn't cast, or cast but behaved weirdly, or whathaveyou - to the point where it became a meme among my friends ("oh you silly blastbones" was a common refrain in voice chat at the time). And I know other Necro players largely encountered similar things now and again...
...just more rarely when the cap was 10 rather than 5.2 -
fufu_from_ps4✭✭✭Not ZOS fault players will optimize the fun out of things
the diversity and flavor of the game was removed when they removed the last barrier to uniqueness.
first we lost the mag and stam split.
then every skill was given every buff and utility.
then everyone got the nb fear from fighters guild, everyone got streak with mist form, this list goes on and on
and now we removed the last barrier. ANYONE CAN BE ANYTHING. its like some sort of sick joke.
which means that people will run one of 3 builds.
which means that instead of people having choices on how to play the game differently with each class.... its been boiled down to using the best skills from the best classes. which reduces diversity.
idk why this is difficult to understand.
and then you blame US ?! i have gimped myself over and over throughout patches in order to maintain fantasy. i made it work. this is just too much. its impossible to make it work. i MUST subclass to compete and im just not going to do it, simply put. have fun running cro + den + whichever group utility skill line your group needs. thats not diverse and exciting. thats the opposite.4 -
ragnarok6644b14_ESO✭✭✭✭Man, "anyone can be anything" is a fantasy I have always wanted, hahaha. It's hard to hear that that's a problem.
Maybe there's something fundamentally distinct in what we want from our fantasy worlds?
(The rest of it is really just the usual crooning about "there is a meta and therefore no one will do anything outside the meta" which is, again, not subclassing's problem).Edited by ragnarok6644b14_ESO on June 4, 2025 6:10PM2 -
sans-culottes✭✭✭✭✭
✭ragnarok6644b14_ESO wrote: »Man, "anyone can be anything" is a fantasy I have always wanted, hahaha. It's hard to hear that that's a problem.
Maybe there's something fundamentally distinct in what we want from our fantasy worlds?
(The rest of it is really just the usual crooning about "there is a meta and therefore no one will do anything outside the meta" which is, again, not subclassing's problem).
The issue isn’t that “anyone can be anything.” It’s that when everyone can be everything, nothing means anything. Class identity isn’t about restriction. It’s about coherence. When visual, narrative, and mechanical consistency collapse, the world stops feeling like a world and starts feeling like a toybox.
You keep reducing criticism to preference—“some people don’t like freedom”—as if this were a flavor dispute. But what’s being critiqued is a systemic design shift that prioritizes flattening over distinction. And the consequences aren’t hypothetical. Just ask the Necromancer skill lines. Or what’s left of them. As you yourself noted, this patch has only deepened the class’s longstanding design failures.8 -
LalMirchi✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭sans-culottes wrote: »sans-culottes wrote: »sans-culottes wrote: »
Just as one can say the the statement " bungled system" is rather hyperbolic?
One of these things critiques a system. The other critiques people.
There’s a meaningful difference between evaluating design decisions and pathologizing those who disagree with them. Calling others “rigid” or “frozen” for expressing dissent is a rhetorical dodge. It avoids engaging with the actual argument and instead shifts focus to tone policing and armchair psychoanalysis.
P.S. If calling it a “bungled system” feels hyperbolic, then feel free to take it up with the current state of Necromancer skill lines. Blastbones, a core class mechanic, is now misfiring due to a hardcoded corpse cap, breaking the class’s foundational loop.
Statements are made by people and we are all people, we stae what we mean.
Yes I'm critical of people wanting to remain in the status quo and think that rigidity is a feebler tactique rather than fluidity. It's what used to be called common sense.
My basic thesis is that we are are now subject to a "Force Majeure" I.E. The studio has decided on a major change, how one reacts to that is rather revealing. However I still think that not adapting to changes is not very effective in the long run.
Your position seems to conflate adaptation with approval. Recognizing that a change has occurred is just realism. Insisting that all critique amounts to pathological rigidity is something else entirely.
Design decisions can be acknowledged without being endorsed. Calling the current subclass system a “Force Majeure” does not make it good. It only means it was imposed. Invoking “common sense” to pathologize dissent is not an argument. It is rhetorical handwaving.
The fact remains: a core class like Necromancer has been destabilized. Blastbones is malfunctioning. These are not matters of tone or attitude. They are functional failures. You can adapt to a broken system, but that does not mean it is not broken.
Once again, when faced with with a superior force such quixotic battle-positions are not tenable. The studio has made this decision and it is a fait-accompli for us players. As a mere customer I acknowledge that I have no say in this matter other my very insignificant opinion on this forum. Do you think that one's writings on this forum will significantly affect any outcomes?0 -
sans-culottes✭✭✭✭✭
✭sans-culottes wrote: »sans-culottes wrote: »sans-culottes wrote: »
Just as one can say the the statement " bungled system" is rather hyperbolic?
One of these things critiques a system. The other critiques people.
There’s a meaningful difference between evaluating design decisions and pathologizing those who disagree with them. Calling others “rigid” or “frozen” for expressing dissent is a rhetorical dodge. It avoids engaging with the actual argument and instead shifts focus to tone policing and armchair psychoanalysis.
P.S. If calling it a “bungled system” feels hyperbolic, then feel free to take it up with the current state of Necromancer skill lines. Blastbones, a core class mechanic, is now misfiring due to a hardcoded corpse cap, breaking the class’s foundational loop.
Statements are made by people and we are all people, we stae what we mean.
Yes I'm critical of people wanting to remain in the status quo and think that rigidity is a feebler tactique rather than fluidity. It's what used to be called common sense.
My basic thesis is that we are are now subject to a "Force Majeure" I.E. The studio has decided on a major change, how one reacts to that is rather revealing. However I still think that not adapting to changes is not very effective in the long run.
Your position seems to conflate adaptation with approval. Recognizing that a change has occurred is just realism. Insisting that all critique amounts to pathological rigidity is something else entirely.
Design decisions can be acknowledged without being endorsed. Calling the current subclass system a “Force Majeure” does not make it good. It only means it was imposed. Invoking “common sense” to pathologize dissent is not an argument. It is rhetorical handwaving.
The fact remains: a core class like Necromancer has been destabilized. Blastbones is malfunctioning. These are not matters of tone or attitude. They are functional failures. You can adapt to a broken system, but that does not mean it is not broken.
Once again, when faced with with a superior force such quixotic battle-positions are not tenable. The studio has made this decision and it is a fait-accompli for us players. As a mere customer I acknowledge that I have no say in this matter other my very insignificant opinion on this forum. Do you think that one's writings on this forum will significantly affect any outcomes?
A fait accompli isn’t a justification. It’s a description. No one here disputes that the studio has already imposed the system. But confusing inevitability with legitimacy is its own form of capitulation.
You ask whether critique on this forum will change anything. Perhaps not directly. But history is full of imposed systems that faced backlash, pressure, and ultimately reform. Resignation guarantees stasis. Dissent opens the door, however slightly, to change.
And that’s before we even get to the irony: if player feedback truly didn’t matter, then there would be no forum. No PTS. No community managers. The existence of these spaces assumes that player perspectives—however “insignificant”—do matter. Even yours.Edited by sans-culottes on June 4, 2025 6:27PM4 -
ragnarok6644b14_ESO✭✭✭✭sans-culottes wrote: »ragnarok6644b14_ESO wrote: »Man, "anyone can be anything" is a fantasy I have always wanted, hahaha. It's hard to hear that that's a problem.
Maybe there's something fundamentally distinct in what we want from our fantasy worlds?
(The rest of it is really just the usual crooning about "there is a meta and therefore no one will do anything outside the meta" which is, again, not subclassing's problem).
The issue isn’t that “anyone can be anything.” It’s that when everyone can be everything, nothing means anything. Class identity isn’t about restriction. It’s about coherence. When visual, narrative, and mechanical consistency collapse, the world stops feeling like a world and starts feeling like a toybox.
You keep reducing criticism to preference—“some people don’t like freedom”—as if this were a flavor dispute. But what’s being critiqued is a systemic design shift that prioritizes flattening over distinction. And the consequences aren’t hypothetical. Just ask the Necromancer skill lines. Or what’s left of them. As you yourself noted, this patch has only deepened the class’s longstanding design failures.
See, I see it as a design shift that prioritizes verisimilitude of the world (the TES world) over game mechanics.
And I celebrate that, because in my opinion, game mechanics exist to serve the world/make the world something that can be engaged with, not as something ontologically primitive.
If, in your mind, it is a narrative collapse, then we have different worlds we are modeling; narratively, most people in TES have access to most types of spells or combat styles, in principle.
I agree there is a mechanical collapse. But mechanics are in the service of world-modeling, and can be fixed. I wish it were not broken, but I am not going to say "the world should be worse-modeled" in the pursuit of mechanical purity - especially given that, again, the mechanics can be repaired/fixed, because the bugs are not a consequence of the subclassing model *a priori* but rather were already a problem that subclassing made more pronounced. They SHOULD be repaired, and I have faith that (finally) they will be.
As for visual inconsistency, I hope you never encounter (via screenshots or videos, etc.) my characters in Oblivion or Skyrim, haha. They will use purple summoning/conjuration magic, white-rainbow Alteration magic, shimmering semitransparent wards and luminous gold from Restoration, and Shock and red Damage spells from Destruction among other colors.
I just consider that to be how the TES world works; different kinds of spells manifest in the world in different colors, and characters can manifest them freely. What you see as "inconsistency" I see as "verisimilitude".
Anyone *can* be anything in TES. And there always is a meta - in Skyrim, you can be a stealth archer, or you can be worse. Yet, I have many playthroughs that aren't stealth archery, and yet were buckets of fun! So it ever is with metas.Edited by ragnarok6644b14_ESO on June 4, 2025 6:45PM2 -
Pixiepumpkin✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭ragnarok6644b14_ESO wrote: »sans-culottes wrote: »ragnarok6644b14_ESO wrote: »Man, "anyone can be anything" is a fantasy I have always wanted, hahaha. It's hard to hear that that's a problem.
Maybe there's something fundamentally distinct in what we want from our fantasy worlds?
(The rest of it is really just the usual crooning about "there is a meta and therefore no one will do anything outside the meta" which is, again, not subclassing's problem).
The issue isn’t that “anyone can be anything.” It’s that when everyone can be everything, nothing means anything. Class identity isn’t about restriction. It’s about coherence. When visual, narrative, and mechanical consistency collapse, the world stops feeling like a world and starts feeling like a toybox.
You keep reducing criticism to preference—“some people don’t like freedom”—as if this were a flavor dispute. But what’s being critiqued is a systemic design shift that prioritizes flattening over distinction. And the consequences aren’t hypothetical. Just ask the Necromancer skill lines. Or what’s left of them. As you yourself noted, this patch has only deepened the class’s longstanding design failures.
See, I see it as a design shift that prioritizes verisimilitude of the world (the TES world) over game mechanics.
And I celebrate that, because in my opinion, game mechanics exist to serve the world/make the world something that can be engaged with, not as something ontologically primitive.
If, in your mind, it is a narrative collapse, then we have different worlds we are modeling; narratively, most people in TES have access to most types of spells or combat styles, in principle.
I agree there is a mechanical collapse. But mechanics are in the service of world-modeling, and can be fixed. I wish it were not broken, but I am not going to say "the world should be worse-modeled" in the pursuit of mechanical purity - especially given that, again, the mechanics can be repaired/fixed, because the bugs are not a consequence of the subclassing model *a priori* but rather were already a problem that subclassing made more pronounced. They SHOULD be repaired, and I have faith that (finally) they will be.
As for visual inconsistency, I hope you never encounter my characters in Oblivion or Skyrim, haha. They will use purple summoning/conjuration magic, white-rainbow Alteration magic, shimmering semitransparent wards and luminous gold from Restoration, and Shock and red Damage spells from Destruction among other colors.
I just consider that to be how the TES world works; different kinds of spells manifest in the world in different colors, and characters can manifest them freely. What you see as "inconsistency" I see as "verisimilitude".
Anyone *can* be anything in TES. And there always is a meta - in Skyrim, you can be a stealth archer, or you can be worse. Yet, I have many playthroughs that aren't stealth archery, and yet were buckets of fun! So it ever is with metas.
Except that MMO's have different rules/requirments than single player games, especially regarding PVP or any kind of content where the player is to encounter another player. This is where your desire and logic fall apart when discussing ESO and its design direction because first and foremost its an MMORPG, not a single player game and there are specific requirements that must be met to facilitate a fair and balanced playspace. Sublcassing does away with this on multiple fronts.
This update, is a failure. Most of us can see this and subclassing is a sizable part of this.
"Class identity isn’t just about power or efficiency. It’s about symbolic clarity, mechanical cohesion, and a shared visual and tactical language between players." - sans-culottes3 -
LalMirchi✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭sans-culottes wrote: »sans-culottes wrote: »sans-culottes wrote: »sans-culottes wrote: »
Just as one can say the the statement " bungled system" is rather hyperbolic?
One of these things critiques a system. The other critiques people.
There’s a meaningful difference between evaluating design decisions and pathologizing those who disagree with them. Calling others “rigid” or “frozen” for expressing dissent is a rhetorical dodge. It avoids engaging with the actual argument and instead shifts focus to tone policing and armchair psychoanalysis.
P.S. If calling it a “bungled system” feels hyperbolic, then feel free to take it up with the current state of Necromancer skill lines. Blastbones, a core class mechanic, is now misfiring due to a hardcoded corpse cap, breaking the class’s foundational loop.
Statements are made by people and we are all people, we stae what we mean.
Yes I'm critical of people wanting to remain in the status quo and think that rigidity is a feebler tactique rather than fluidity. It's what used to be called common sense.
My basic thesis is that we are are now subject to a "Force Majeure" I.E. The studio has decided on a major change, how one reacts to that is rather revealing. However I still think that not adapting to changes is not very effective in the long run.
Your position seems to conflate adaptation with approval. Recognizing that a change has occurred is just realism. Insisting that all critique amounts to pathological rigidity is something else entirely.
Design decisions can be acknowledged without being endorsed. Calling the current subclass system a “Force Majeure” does not make it good. It only means it was imposed. Invoking “common sense” to pathologize dissent is not an argument. It is rhetorical handwaving.
The fact remains: a core class like Necromancer has been destabilized. Blastbones is malfunctioning. These are not matters of tone or attitude. They are functional failures. You can adapt to a broken system, but that does not mean it is not broken.
Once again, when faced with with a superior force such quixotic battle-positions are not tenable. The studio has made this decision and it is a fait-accompli for us players. As a mere customer I acknowledge that I have no say in this matter other my very insignificant opinion on this forum. Do you think that one's writings on this forum will significantly affect any outcomes?
A fait accompli isn’t a justification. It’s a description. No one here disputes that the studio has already imposed the system. But confusing inevitability with legitimacy is its own form of capitulation.
You ask whether critique on this forum will change anything. Perhaps not directly. But history is full of imposed systems that faced backlash, pressure, and ultimately reform. Resignation guarantees stasis. Dissent opens the door, however slightly, to change.
And that’s before we even get to the irony: if player feedback truly didn’t matter, then there would be no forum. No PTS. No community managers. The existence of these spaces assumes that player perspectives—however “insignificant”—do matter. Even yours.
I guess my point where I have said the studio is the major force and we as player have a choice : to play or not to play, has been missed. We, as customers, have no other options. Well a third option would be to complain incessantly on the the forums, good luck with that.1 -
Vulkunne✭✭✭✭✭
✭Anyone can be anything right. Ok, but should they?
Sometimes a movie is not just defined by the quality of the graphics and explosions and uh motorcycles jumping over helicopters and things like that... it's this 'tone' of the film, the 'tension' in the story between characters and the stakes of something being contested between them.
Thus, everyone can't be the morally good, everyone can't be the morally bad. There's a mixture of both with different traits, different skills, but also different backgrounds from lore, from their personal history.
And again, the problem I have with this is there's too much power being funneled around in a manner that is not entirely reflected by lore. It's the weakness, the debuffs that make the character as much as what they can do, who they are, etc. Ball groups and you know large elitist PvP Guilds have stripped much from the game. Why? Because everyone has to conform or they don't get to ride with them.
So, my point here, is you guys can talk all you want, but what's happening and will continue to happen is people are going to passively move towards Power first. This is very bad, because it's not a usual meta it's a unholy union of the best qualities between many classes without any of the debuffs or difficult choices that come with not being able to use anything but your class skill lines.
Ergo, what I'm already seeing and what is to come, is Magsorcs and DKs everywhere. No longer is Dk Leap respected as a DK's method of offense and defense, it's not a saving grace, it's just a gimmick now to be played with by literal PvP babies who don't appreciate the class. All they want is the power and so a Dk... is meaningless now. Used to be respected now Dk skills are passed around like cheap liquor in a college dorm room. I think that this subclass isn't a terrible idea, but I think its implementation is was a bad move for even more reasons that I'm not going to post here, but they will become more visible over time.
I'm thankful for the many years of PvP I had with this game, before it went to hell from ball groups, bombers and so forth. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm tired. Think I'll just sit here and watch the legions of confused players, torn somewhere between Arcanist and DK, but pretending to be Sorcs... burn the map to the ground.Edited by Vulkunne on June 4, 2025 7:20PMAll I'm doing is kneading the dough. I don't need your help right now. -Infamous Khajiti Chef3 -
ragnarok6644b14_ESO✭✭✭✭
Do you think it is impossible for subclassing to be balanced (not whether or not it *currently is*, but whether or not it *could ever be*)?Pixiepumpkin wrote: »ragnarok6644b14_ESO wrote: »sans-culottes wrote: »ragnarok6644b14_ESO wrote: »Man, "anyone can be anything" is a fantasy I have always wanted, hahaha. It's hard to hear that that's a problem.
Maybe there's something fundamentally distinct in what we want from our fantasy worlds?
(The rest of it is really just the usual crooning about "there is a meta and therefore no one will do anything outside the meta" which is, again, not subclassing's problem).
The issue isn’t that “anyone can be anything.” It’s that when everyone can be everything, nothing means anything. Class identity isn’t about restriction. It’s about coherence. When visual, narrative, and mechanical consistency collapse, the world stops feeling like a world and starts feeling like a toybox.
You keep reducing criticism to preference—“some people don’t like freedom”—as if this were a flavor dispute. But what’s being critiqued is a systemic design shift that prioritizes flattening over distinction. And the consequences aren’t hypothetical. Just ask the Necromancer skill lines. Or what’s left of them. As you yourself noted, this patch has only deepened the class’s longstanding design failures.
See, I see it as a design shift that prioritizes verisimilitude of the world (the TES world) over game mechanics.
And I celebrate that, because in my opinion, game mechanics exist to serve the world/make the world something that can be engaged with, not as something ontologically primitive.
If, in your mind, it is a narrative collapse, then we have different worlds we are modeling; narratively, most people in TES have access to most types of spells or combat styles, in principle.
I agree there is a mechanical collapse. But mechanics are in the service of world-modeling, and can be fixed. I wish it were not broken, but I am not going to say "the world should be worse-modeled" in the pursuit of mechanical purity - especially given that, again, the mechanics can be repaired/fixed, because the bugs are not a consequence of the subclassing model *a priori* but rather were already a problem that subclassing made more pronounced. They SHOULD be repaired, and I have faith that (finally) they will be.
As for visual inconsistency, I hope you never encounter my characters in Oblivion or Skyrim, haha. They will use purple summoning/conjuration magic, white-rainbow Alteration magic, shimmering semitransparent wards and luminous gold from Restoration, and Shock and red Damage spells from Destruction among other colors.
I just consider that to be how the TES world works; different kinds of spells manifest in the world in different colors, and characters can manifest them freely. What you see as "inconsistency" I see as "verisimilitude".
Anyone *can* be anything in TES. And there always is a meta - in Skyrim, you can be a stealth archer, or you can be worse. Yet, I have many playthroughs that aren't stealth archery, and yet were buckets of fun! So it ever is with metas.
Except that MMO's have different rules/requirments than single player games, especially regarding PVP or any kind of content where the player is to encounter another player. This is where your desire and logic fall apart when discussing ESO and its design direction because first and foremost its an MMORPG, not a single player game and there are specific requirements that must be met to facilitate a fair and balanced playspace. Sublcassing does away with this on multiple fronts.
This update, is a failure. Most of us can see this and subclassing is a sizable part of this.
If not, why not?
If so, then your complaint isn't about subclassing or even modeling the world or anything like that; it's about balance.
For my own part, I agree things ought to be balanced as much as possible while staying within the world. But I do not believe subclassing is somehow completely incompatible with balance. It makes balance harder, sure, and that sucks for the people that have to work hard at fixing it - but lots of people have to work hard to execute on good ideas in a lot of fields. That doesn't make the good ideas bad - it just makes executing them hard.
Coupled with my belief that balance is something inherently unattainable in the abstract (more akin to "perfection" than say, "20 dollars"), I am willing to tolerate some amount of imbalance.Edited by ragnarok6644b14_ESO on June 4, 2025 6:53PM0 -
Pixiepumpkin✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭ragnarok6644b14_ESO wrote: »
Do you think it is impossible for subclassing to be balanced (not whether or not it *currently is*, but whether or not it *could ever be*)?Pixiepumpkin wrote: »ragnarok6644b14_ESO wrote: »sans-culottes wrote: »ragnarok6644b14_ESO wrote: »Man, "anyone can be anything" is a fantasy I have always wanted, hahaha. It's hard to hear that that's a problem.
Maybe there's something fundamentally distinct in what we want from our fantasy worlds?
(The rest of it is really just the usual crooning about "there is a meta and therefore no one will do anything outside the meta" which is, again, not subclassing's problem).
The issue isn’t that “anyone can be anything.” It’s that when everyone can be everything, nothing means anything. Class identity isn’t about restriction. It’s about coherence. When visual, narrative, and mechanical consistency collapse, the world stops feeling like a world and starts feeling like a toybox.
You keep reducing criticism to preference—“some people don’t like freedom”—as if this were a flavor dispute. But what’s being critiqued is a systemic design shift that prioritizes flattening over distinction. And the consequences aren’t hypothetical. Just ask the Necromancer skill lines. Or what’s left of them. As you yourself noted, this patch has only deepened the class’s longstanding design failures.
See, I see it as a design shift that prioritizes verisimilitude of the world (the TES world) over game mechanics.
And I celebrate that, because in my opinion, game mechanics exist to serve the world/make the world something that can be engaged with, not as something ontologically primitive.
If, in your mind, it is a narrative collapse, then we have different worlds we are modeling; narratively, most people in TES have access to most types of spells or combat styles, in principle.
I agree there is a mechanical collapse. But mechanics are in the service of world-modeling, and can be fixed. I wish it were not broken, but I am not going to say "the world should be worse-modeled" in the pursuit of mechanical purity - especially given that, again, the mechanics can be repaired/fixed, because the bugs are not a consequence of the subclassing model *a priori* but rather were already a problem that subclassing made more pronounced. They SHOULD be repaired, and I have faith that (finally) they will be.
As for visual inconsistency, I hope you never encounter my characters in Oblivion or Skyrim, haha. They will use purple summoning/conjuration magic, white-rainbow Alteration magic, shimmering semitransparent wards and luminous gold from Restoration, and Shock and red Damage spells from Destruction among other colors.
I just consider that to be how the TES world works; different kinds of spells manifest in the world in different colors, and characters can manifest them freely. What you see as "inconsistency" I see as "verisimilitude".
Anyone *can* be anything in TES. And there always is a meta - in Skyrim, you can be a stealth archer, or you can be worse. Yet, I have many playthroughs that aren't stealth archery, and yet were buckets of fun! So it ever is with metas.
Except that MMO's have different rules/requirments than single player games, especially regarding PVP or any kind of content where the player is to encounter another player. This is where your desire and logic fall apart when discussing ESO and its design direction because first and foremost its an MMORPG, not a single player game and there are specific requirements that must be met to facilitate a fair and balanced playspace. Sublcassing does away with this on multiple fronts.
This update, is a failure. Most of us can see this and subclassing is a sizable part of this.
If not, why not?
If so, then your complaint isn't about subclassing or even modeling the world or anything like that; it's about balance.
For my own part, I agree things ought to be balanced as much as possible while staying within the world. But I do not believe subclassing is somehow completely incompatible with balance.
Coupled with my belief that balance is something inherently unattainable in the abstract (more akin to "perfection" than say, "20 dollars"), I am willing to tolerate some amount of imbalance.
Balance goes beyond DPS/Heal outputs or Tank mitigation."Class identity isn’t just about power or efficiency. It’s about symbolic clarity, mechanical cohesion, and a shared visual and tactical language between players." - sans-culottes1 -
ragnarok6644b14_ESO✭✭✭✭Pixiepumpkin wrote: »ragnarok6644b14_ESO wrote: »
Do you think it is impossible for subclassing to be balanced (not whether or not it *currently is*, but whether or not it *could ever be*)?Pixiepumpkin wrote: »ragnarok6644b14_ESO wrote: »sans-culottes wrote: »ragnarok6644b14_ESO wrote: »Man, "anyone can be anything" is a fantasy I have always wanted, hahaha. It's hard to hear that that's a problem.
Maybe there's something fundamentally distinct in what we want from our fantasy worlds?
(The rest of it is really just the usual crooning about "there is a meta and therefore no one will do anything outside the meta" which is, again, not subclassing's problem).
The issue isn’t that “anyone can be anything.” It’s that when everyone can be everything, nothing means anything. Class identity isn’t about restriction. It’s about coherence. When visual, narrative, and mechanical consistency collapse, the world stops feeling like a world and starts feeling like a toybox.
You keep reducing criticism to preference—“some people don’t like freedom”—as if this were a flavor dispute. But what’s being critiqued is a systemic design shift that prioritizes flattening over distinction. And the consequences aren’t hypothetical. Just ask the Necromancer skill lines. Or what’s left of them. As you yourself noted, this patch has only deepened the class’s longstanding design failures.
See, I see it as a design shift that prioritizes verisimilitude of the world (the TES world) over game mechanics.
And I celebrate that, because in my opinion, game mechanics exist to serve the world/make the world something that can be engaged with, not as something ontologically primitive.
If, in your mind, it is a narrative collapse, then we have different worlds we are modeling; narratively, most people in TES have access to most types of spells or combat styles, in principle.
I agree there is a mechanical collapse. But mechanics are in the service of world-modeling, and can be fixed. I wish it were not broken, but I am not going to say "the world should be worse-modeled" in the pursuit of mechanical purity - especially given that, again, the mechanics can be repaired/fixed, because the bugs are not a consequence of the subclassing model *a priori* but rather were already a problem that subclassing made more pronounced. They SHOULD be repaired, and I have faith that (finally) they will be.
As for visual inconsistency, I hope you never encounter my characters in Oblivion or Skyrim, haha. They will use purple summoning/conjuration magic, white-rainbow Alteration magic, shimmering semitransparent wards and luminous gold from Restoration, and Shock and red Damage spells from Destruction among other colors.
I just consider that to be how the TES world works; different kinds of spells manifest in the world in different colors, and characters can manifest them freely. What you see as "inconsistency" I see as "verisimilitude".
Anyone *can* be anything in TES. And there always is a meta - in Skyrim, you can be a stealth archer, or you can be worse. Yet, I have many playthroughs that aren't stealth archery, and yet were buckets of fun! So it ever is with metas.
Except that MMO's have different rules/requirments than single player games, especially regarding PVP or any kind of content where the player is to encounter another player. This is where your desire and logic fall apart when discussing ESO and its design direction because first and foremost its an MMORPG, not a single player game and there are specific requirements that must be met to facilitate a fair and balanced playspace. Sublcassing does away with this on multiple fronts.
This update, is a failure. Most of us can see this and subclassing is a sizable part of this.
If not, why not?
If so, then your complaint isn't about subclassing or even modeling the world or anything like that; it's about balance.
For my own part, I agree things ought to be balanced as much as possible while staying within the world. But I do not believe subclassing is somehow completely incompatible with balance.
Coupled with my belief that balance is something inherently unattainable in the abstract (more akin to "perfection" than say, "20 dollars"), I am willing to tolerate some amount of imbalance.
Balance goes beyond DPS/Heal outputs or Tank mitigation.
Yes! I agree!
I also think this statement is about as related to subclassing as the phrase "Input lag is the primary cause of player frustration" or any number of other perfectly reasonable statements I agree with.Edited by ragnarok6644b14_ESO on June 4, 2025 6:58PM0 -
Pixiepumpkin✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭ragnarok6644b14_ESO wrote: »Pixiepumpkin wrote: »ragnarok6644b14_ESO wrote: »
Do you think it is impossible for subclassing to be balanced (not whether or not it *currently is*, but whether or not it *could ever be*)?Pixiepumpkin wrote: »ragnarok6644b14_ESO wrote: »sans-culottes wrote: »ragnarok6644b14_ESO wrote: »Man, "anyone can be anything" is a fantasy I have always wanted, hahaha. It's hard to hear that that's a problem.
Maybe there's something fundamentally distinct in what we want from our fantasy worlds?
(The rest of it is really just the usual crooning about "there is a meta and therefore no one will do anything outside the meta" which is, again, not subclassing's problem).
The issue isn’t that “anyone can be anything.” It’s that when everyone can be everything, nothing means anything. Class identity isn’t about restriction. It’s about coherence. When visual, narrative, and mechanical consistency collapse, the world stops feeling like a world and starts feeling like a toybox.
You keep reducing criticism to preference—“some people don’t like freedom”—as if this were a flavor dispute. But what’s being critiqued is a systemic design shift that prioritizes flattening over distinction. And the consequences aren’t hypothetical. Just ask the Necromancer skill lines. Or what’s left of them. As you yourself noted, this patch has only deepened the class’s longstanding design failures.
See, I see it as a design shift that prioritizes verisimilitude of the world (the TES world) over game mechanics.
And I celebrate that, because in my opinion, game mechanics exist to serve the world/make the world something that can be engaged with, not as something ontologically primitive.
If, in your mind, it is a narrative collapse, then we have different worlds we are modeling; narratively, most people in TES have access to most types of spells or combat styles, in principle.
I agree there is a mechanical collapse. But mechanics are in the service of world-modeling, and can be fixed. I wish it were not broken, but I am not going to say "the world should be worse-modeled" in the pursuit of mechanical purity - especially given that, again, the mechanics can be repaired/fixed, because the bugs are not a consequence of the subclassing model *a priori* but rather were already a problem that subclassing made more pronounced. They SHOULD be repaired, and I have faith that (finally) they will be.
As for visual inconsistency, I hope you never encounter my characters in Oblivion or Skyrim, haha. They will use purple summoning/conjuration magic, white-rainbow Alteration magic, shimmering semitransparent wards and luminous gold from Restoration, and Shock and red Damage spells from Destruction among other colors.
I just consider that to be how the TES world works; different kinds of spells manifest in the world in different colors, and characters can manifest them freely. What you see as "inconsistency" I see as "verisimilitude".
Anyone *can* be anything in TES. And there always is a meta - in Skyrim, you can be a stealth archer, or you can be worse. Yet, I have many playthroughs that aren't stealth archery, and yet were buckets of fun! So it ever is with metas.
Except that MMO's have different rules/requirments than single player games, especially regarding PVP or any kind of content where the player is to encounter another player. This is where your desire and logic fall apart when discussing ESO and its design direction because first and foremost its an MMORPG, not a single player game and there are specific requirements that must be met to facilitate a fair and balanced playspace. Sublcassing does away with this on multiple fronts.
This update, is a failure. Most of us can see this and subclassing is a sizable part of this.
If not, why not?
If so, then your complaint isn't about subclassing or even modeling the world or anything like that; it's about balance.
For my own part, I agree things ought to be balanced as much as possible while staying within the world. But I do not believe subclassing is somehow completely incompatible with balance.
Coupled with my belief that balance is something inherently unattainable in the abstract (more akin to "perfection" than say, "20 dollars"), I am willing to tolerate some amount of imbalance.
Balance goes beyond DPS/Heal outputs or Tank mitigation.Pixiepumpkin wrote: »ragnarok6644b14_ESO wrote: »
Do you think it is impossible for subclassing to be balanced (not whether or not it *currently is*, but whether or not it *could ever be*)?Pixiepumpkin wrote: »ragnarok6644b14_ESO wrote: »sans-culottes wrote: »ragnarok6644b14_ESO wrote: »Man, "anyone can be anything" is a fantasy I have always wanted, hahaha. It's hard to hear that that's a problem.
Maybe there's something fundamentally distinct in what we want from our fantasy worlds?
(The rest of it is really just the usual crooning about "there is a meta and therefore no one will do anything outside the meta" which is, again, not subclassing's problem).
The issue isn’t that “anyone can be anything.” It’s that when everyone can be everything, nothing means anything. Class identity isn’t about restriction. It’s about coherence. When visual, narrative, and mechanical consistency collapse, the world stops feeling like a world and starts feeling like a toybox.
You keep reducing criticism to preference—“some people don’t like freedom”—as if this were a flavor dispute. But what’s being critiqued is a systemic design shift that prioritizes flattening over distinction. And the consequences aren’t hypothetical. Just ask the Necromancer skill lines. Or what’s left of them. As you yourself noted, this patch has only deepened the class’s longstanding design failures.
See, I see it as a design shift that prioritizes verisimilitude of the world (the TES world) over game mechanics.
And I celebrate that, because in my opinion, game mechanics exist to serve the world/make the world something that can be engaged with, not as something ontologically primitive.
If, in your mind, it is a narrative collapse, then we have different worlds we are modeling; narratively, most people in TES have access to most types of spells or combat styles, in principle.
I agree there is a mechanical collapse. But mechanics are in the service of world-modeling, and can be fixed. I wish it were not broken, but I am not going to say "the world should be worse-modeled" in the pursuit of mechanical purity - especially given that, again, the mechanics can be repaired/fixed, because the bugs are not a consequence of the subclassing model *a priori* but rather were already a problem that subclassing made more pronounced. They SHOULD be repaired, and I have faith that (finally) they will be.
As for visual inconsistency, I hope you never encounter my characters in Oblivion or Skyrim, haha. They will use purple summoning/conjuration magic, white-rainbow Alteration magic, shimmering semitransparent wards and luminous gold from Restoration, and Shock and red Damage spells from Destruction among other colors.
I just consider that to be how the TES world works; different kinds of spells manifest in the world in different colors, and characters can manifest them freely. What you see as "inconsistency" I see as "verisimilitude".
Anyone *can* be anything in TES. And there always is a meta - in Skyrim, you can be a stealth archer, or you can be worse. Yet, I have many playthroughs that aren't stealth archery, and yet were buckets of fun! So it ever is with metas.
Except that MMO's have different rules/requirments than single player games, especially regarding PVP or any kind of content where the player is to encounter another player. This is where your desire and logic fall apart when discussing ESO and its design direction because first and foremost its an MMORPG, not a single player game and there are specific requirements that must be met to facilitate a fair and balanced playspace. Sublcassing does away with this on multiple fronts.
This update, is a failure. Most of us can see this and subclassing is a sizable part of this.
If not, why not?
If so, then your complaint isn't about subclassing or even modeling the world or anything like that; it's about balance.
For my own part, I agree things ought to be balanced as much as possible while staying within the world. But I do not believe subclassing is somehow completely incompatible with balance.
Coupled with my belief that balance is something inherently unattainable in the abstract (more akin to "perfection" than say, "20 dollars"), I am willing to tolerate some amount of imbalance.
Balance goes beyond DPS/Heal outputs or Tank mitigation.
Yes! I agree!
I also think this statement is about as related to subclassing as the phrase "Input lag is the primary cause of player frustration" or any number of other perfectly reasonable statements I agree with.
And that is why you do not understand why subclassing is bad for the game. You think it's only about DPS combinations or whatever. You can't even see how changing the identity of a class into a non class affects the game (or whatever these frankenstine abominations are)."Class identity isn’t just about power or efficiency. It’s about symbolic clarity, mechanical cohesion, and a shared visual and tactical language between players." - sans-culottes2 -
ragnarok6644b14_ESO✭✭✭✭Pixiepumpkin wrote: »ragnarok6644b14_ESO wrote: »Pixiepumpkin wrote: »ragnarok6644b14_ESO wrote: »
Do you think it is impossible for subclassing to be balanced (not whether or not it *currently is*, but whether or not it *could ever be*)?Pixiepumpkin wrote: »ragnarok6644b14_ESO wrote: »sans-culottes wrote: »ragnarok6644b14_ESO wrote: »Man, "anyone can be anything" is a fantasy I have always wanted, hahaha. It's hard to hear that that's a problem.
Maybe there's something fundamentally distinct in what we want from our fantasy worlds?
(The rest of it is really just the usual crooning about "there is a meta and therefore no one will do anything outside the meta" which is, again, not subclassing's problem).
The issue isn’t that “anyone can be anything.” It’s that when everyone can be everything, nothing means anything. Class identity isn’t about restriction. It’s about coherence. When visual, narrative, and mechanical consistency collapse, the world stops feeling like a world and starts feeling like a toybox.
You keep reducing criticism to preference—“some people don’t like freedom”—as if this were a flavor dispute. But what’s being critiqued is a systemic design shift that prioritizes flattening over distinction. And the consequences aren’t hypothetical. Just ask the Necromancer skill lines. Or what’s left of them. As you yourself noted, this patch has only deepened the class’s longstanding design failures.
See, I see it as a design shift that prioritizes verisimilitude of the world (the TES world) over game mechanics.
And I celebrate that, because in my opinion, game mechanics exist to serve the world/make the world something that can be engaged with, not as something ontologically primitive.
If, in your mind, it is a narrative collapse, then we have different worlds we are modeling; narratively, most people in TES have access to most types of spells or combat styles, in principle.
I agree there is a mechanical collapse. But mechanics are in the service of world-modeling, and can be fixed. I wish it were not broken, but I am not going to say "the world should be worse-modeled" in the pursuit of mechanical purity - especially given that, again, the mechanics can be repaired/fixed, because the bugs are not a consequence of the subclassing model *a priori* but rather were already a problem that subclassing made more pronounced. They SHOULD be repaired, and I have faith that (finally) they will be.
As for visual inconsistency, I hope you never encounter my characters in Oblivion or Skyrim, haha. They will use purple summoning/conjuration magic, white-rainbow Alteration magic, shimmering semitransparent wards and luminous gold from Restoration, and Shock and red Damage spells from Destruction among other colors.
I just consider that to be how the TES world works; different kinds of spells manifest in the world in different colors, and characters can manifest them freely. What you see as "inconsistency" I see as "verisimilitude".
Anyone *can* be anything in TES. And there always is a meta - in Skyrim, you can be a stealth archer, or you can be worse. Yet, I have many playthroughs that aren't stealth archery, and yet were buckets of fun! So it ever is with metas.
Except that MMO's have different rules/requirments than single player games, especially regarding PVP or any kind of content where the player is to encounter another player. This is where your desire and logic fall apart when discussing ESO and its design direction because first and foremost its an MMORPG, not a single player game and there are specific requirements that must be met to facilitate a fair and balanced playspace. Sublcassing does away with this on multiple fronts.
This update, is a failure. Most of us can see this and subclassing is a sizable part of this.
If not, why not?
If so, then your complaint isn't about subclassing or even modeling the world or anything like that; it's about balance.
For my own part, I agree things ought to be balanced as much as possible while staying within the world. But I do not believe subclassing is somehow completely incompatible with balance.
Coupled with my belief that balance is something inherently unattainable in the abstract (more akin to "perfection" than say, "20 dollars"), I am willing to tolerate some amount of imbalance.
Balance goes beyond DPS/Heal outputs or Tank mitigation.Pixiepumpkin wrote: »ragnarok6644b14_ESO wrote: »
Do you think it is impossible for subclassing to be balanced (not whether or not it *currently is*, but whether or not it *could ever be*)?Pixiepumpkin wrote: »ragnarok6644b14_ESO wrote: »sans-culottes wrote: »ragnarok6644b14_ESO wrote: »Man, "anyone can be anything" is a fantasy I have always wanted, hahaha. It's hard to hear that that's a problem.
Maybe there's something fundamentally distinct in what we want from our fantasy worlds?
(The rest of it is really just the usual crooning about "there is a meta and therefore no one will do anything outside the meta" which is, again, not subclassing's problem).
The issue isn’t that “anyone can be anything.” It’s that when everyone can be everything, nothing means anything. Class identity isn’t about restriction. It’s about coherence. When visual, narrative, and mechanical consistency collapse, the world stops feeling like a world and starts feeling like a toybox.
You keep reducing criticism to preference—“some people don’t like freedom”—as if this were a flavor dispute. But what’s being critiqued is a systemic design shift that prioritizes flattening over distinction. And the consequences aren’t hypothetical. Just ask the Necromancer skill lines. Or what’s left of them. As you yourself noted, this patch has only deepened the class’s longstanding design failures.
See, I see it as a design shift that prioritizes verisimilitude of the world (the TES world) over game mechanics.
And I celebrate that, because in my opinion, game mechanics exist to serve the world/make the world something that can be engaged with, not as something ontologically primitive.
If, in your mind, it is a narrative collapse, then we have different worlds we are modeling; narratively, most people in TES have access to most types of spells or combat styles, in principle.
I agree there is a mechanical collapse. But mechanics are in the service of world-modeling, and can be fixed. I wish it were not broken, but I am not going to say "the world should be worse-modeled" in the pursuit of mechanical purity - especially given that, again, the mechanics can be repaired/fixed, because the bugs are not a consequence of the subclassing model *a priori* but rather were already a problem that subclassing made more pronounced. They SHOULD be repaired, and I have faith that (finally) they will be.
As for visual inconsistency, I hope you never encounter my characters in Oblivion or Skyrim, haha. They will use purple summoning/conjuration magic, white-rainbow Alteration magic, shimmering semitransparent wards and luminous gold from Restoration, and Shock and red Damage spells from Destruction among other colors.
I just consider that to be how the TES world works; different kinds of spells manifest in the world in different colors, and characters can manifest them freely. What you see as "inconsistency" I see as "verisimilitude".
Anyone *can* be anything in TES. And there always is a meta - in Skyrim, you can be a stealth archer, or you can be worse. Yet, I have many playthroughs that aren't stealth archery, and yet were buckets of fun! So it ever is with metas.
Except that MMO's have different rules/requirments than single player games, especially regarding PVP or any kind of content where the player is to encounter another player. This is where your desire and logic fall apart when discussing ESO and its design direction because first and foremost its an MMORPG, not a single player game and there are specific requirements that must be met to facilitate a fair and balanced playspace. Sublcassing does away with this on multiple fronts.
This update, is a failure. Most of us can see this and subclassing is a sizable part of this.
If not, why not?
If so, then your complaint isn't about subclassing or even modeling the world or anything like that; it's about balance.
For my own part, I agree things ought to be balanced as much as possible while staying within the world. But I do not believe subclassing is somehow completely incompatible with balance.
Coupled with my belief that balance is something inherently unattainable in the abstract (more akin to "perfection" than say, "20 dollars"), I am willing to tolerate some amount of imbalance.
Balance goes beyond DPS/Heal outputs or Tank mitigation.
Yes! I agree!
I also think this statement is about as related to subclassing as the phrase "Input lag is the primary cause of player frustration" or any number of other perfectly reasonable statements I agree with.
And that is why you do not understand why subclassing is bad for the game. You think it's only about DPS combinations or whatever. You can't even see how changing the identity of a class into a non class affects the game (or whatever these frankenstine abominations are).
How does me saying "I agree balance is about more than those things" indicate to you that I believe it is only about those things?
Sorry, I feel like the statement was a non-sequitur and now I feel like this one is equally nonsensical. *We are in agreement that balance transcends pure quantization*.
Do you want me to say "and therefore subclassing is bad"? Because I am missing some logical leap, and I don't really know where to go from here if you keep just plopping non-sequiturs down.0 -
xylena_lazarow✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭My Streak DK cares not for uniqueness, only for Streak. I love subclassing. Best change ever.PC/NA || Cyro/BGs || retired until Dagon brings a new dawn of PvP metas0 -
Pixiepumpkin✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭ragnarok6644b14_ESO wrote: »Pixiepumpkin wrote: »ragnarok6644b14_ESO wrote: »Pixiepumpkin wrote: »ragnarok6644b14_ESO wrote: »
Do you think it is impossible for subclassing to be balanced (not whether or not it *currently is*, but whether or not it *could ever be*)?Pixiepumpkin wrote: »ragnarok6644b14_ESO wrote: »sans-culottes wrote: »ragnarok6644b14_ESO wrote: »Man, "anyone can be anything" is a fantasy I have always wanted, hahaha. It's hard to hear that that's a problem.
Maybe there's something fundamentally distinct in what we want from our fantasy worlds?
(The rest of it is really just the usual crooning about "there is a meta and therefore no one will do anything outside the meta" which is, again, not subclassing's problem).
The issue isn’t that “anyone can be anything.” It’s that when everyone can be everything, nothing means anything. Class identity isn’t about restriction. It’s about coherence. When visual, narrative, and mechanical consistency collapse, the world stops feeling like a world and starts feeling like a toybox.
You keep reducing criticism to preference—“some people don’t like freedom”—as if this were a flavor dispute. But what’s being critiqued is a systemic design shift that prioritizes flattening over distinction. And the consequences aren’t hypothetical. Just ask the Necromancer skill lines. Or what’s left of them. As you yourself noted, this patch has only deepened the class’s longstanding design failures.
See, I see it as a design shift that prioritizes verisimilitude of the world (the TES world) over game mechanics.
And I celebrate that, because in my opinion, game mechanics exist to serve the world/make the world something that can be engaged with, not as something ontologically primitive.
If, in your mind, it is a narrative collapse, then we have different worlds we are modeling; narratively, most people in TES have access to most types of spells or combat styles, in principle.
I agree there is a mechanical collapse. But mechanics are in the service of world-modeling, and can be fixed. I wish it were not broken, but I am not going to say "the world should be worse-modeled" in the pursuit of mechanical purity - especially given that, again, the mechanics can be repaired/fixed, because the bugs are not a consequence of the subclassing model *a priori* but rather were already a problem that subclassing made more pronounced. They SHOULD be repaired, and I have faith that (finally) they will be.
As for visual inconsistency, I hope you never encounter my characters in Oblivion or Skyrim, haha. They will use purple summoning/conjuration magic, white-rainbow Alteration magic, shimmering semitransparent wards and luminous gold from Restoration, and Shock and red Damage spells from Destruction among other colors.
I just consider that to be how the TES world works; different kinds of spells manifest in the world in different colors, and characters can manifest them freely. What you see as "inconsistency" I see as "verisimilitude".
Anyone *can* be anything in TES. And there always is a meta - in Skyrim, you can be a stealth archer, or you can be worse. Yet, I have many playthroughs that aren't stealth archery, and yet were buckets of fun! So it ever is with metas.
Except that MMO's have different rules/requirments than single player games, especially regarding PVP or any kind of content where the player is to encounter another player. This is where your desire and logic fall apart when discussing ESO and its design direction because first and foremost its an MMORPG, not a single player game and there are specific requirements that must be met to facilitate a fair and balanced playspace. Sublcassing does away with this on multiple fronts.
This update, is a failure. Most of us can see this and subclassing is a sizable part of this.
If not, why not?
If so, then your complaint isn't about subclassing or even modeling the world or anything like that; it's about balance.
For my own part, I agree things ought to be balanced as much as possible while staying within the world. But I do not believe subclassing is somehow completely incompatible with balance.
Coupled with my belief that balance is something inherently unattainable in the abstract (more akin to "perfection" than say, "20 dollars"), I am willing to tolerate some amount of imbalance.
Balance goes beyond DPS/Heal outputs or Tank mitigation.Pixiepumpkin wrote: »ragnarok6644b14_ESO wrote: »
Do you think it is impossible for subclassing to be balanced (not whether or not it *currently is*, but whether or not it *could ever be*)?Pixiepumpkin wrote: »ragnarok6644b14_ESO wrote: »sans-culottes wrote: »ragnarok6644b14_ESO wrote: »Man, "anyone can be anything" is a fantasy I have always wanted, hahaha. It's hard to hear that that's a problem.
Maybe there's something fundamentally distinct in what we want from our fantasy worlds?
(The rest of it is really just the usual crooning about "there is a meta and therefore no one will do anything outside the meta" which is, again, not subclassing's problem).
The issue isn’t that “anyone can be anything.” It’s that when everyone can be everything, nothing means anything. Class identity isn’t about restriction. It’s about coherence. When visual, narrative, and mechanical consistency collapse, the world stops feeling like a world and starts feeling like a toybox.
You keep reducing criticism to preference—“some people don’t like freedom”—as if this were a flavor dispute. But what’s being critiqued is a systemic design shift that prioritizes flattening over distinction. And the consequences aren’t hypothetical. Just ask the Necromancer skill lines. Or what’s left of them. As you yourself noted, this patch has only deepened the class’s longstanding design failures.
See, I see it as a design shift that prioritizes verisimilitude of the world (the TES world) over game mechanics.
And I celebrate that, because in my opinion, game mechanics exist to serve the world/make the world something that can be engaged with, not as something ontologically primitive.
If, in your mind, it is a narrative collapse, then we have different worlds we are modeling; narratively, most people in TES have access to most types of spells or combat styles, in principle.
I agree there is a mechanical collapse. But mechanics are in the service of world-modeling, and can be fixed. I wish it were not broken, but I am not going to say "the world should be worse-modeled" in the pursuit of mechanical purity - especially given that, again, the mechanics can be repaired/fixed, because the bugs are not a consequence of the subclassing model *a priori* but rather were already a problem that subclassing made more pronounced. They SHOULD be repaired, and I have faith that (finally) they will be.
As for visual inconsistency, I hope you never encounter my characters in Oblivion or Skyrim, haha. They will use purple summoning/conjuration magic, white-rainbow Alteration magic, shimmering semitransparent wards and luminous gold from Restoration, and Shock and red Damage spells from Destruction among other colors.
I just consider that to be how the TES world works; different kinds of spells manifest in the world in different colors, and characters can manifest them freely. What you see as "inconsistency" I see as "verisimilitude".
Anyone *can* be anything in TES. And there always is a meta - in Skyrim, you can be a stealth archer, or you can be worse. Yet, I have many playthroughs that aren't stealth archery, and yet were buckets of fun! So it ever is with metas.
Except that MMO's have different rules/requirments than single player games, especially regarding PVP or any kind of content where the player is to encounter another player. This is where your desire and logic fall apart when discussing ESO and its design direction because first and foremost its an MMORPG, not a single player game and there are specific requirements that must be met to facilitate a fair and balanced playspace. Sublcassing does away with this on multiple fronts.
This update, is a failure. Most of us can see this and subclassing is a sizable part of this.
If not, why not?
If so, then your complaint isn't about subclassing or even modeling the world or anything like that; it's about balance.
For my own part, I agree things ought to be balanced as much as possible while staying within the world. But I do not believe subclassing is somehow completely incompatible with balance.
Coupled with my belief that balance is something inherently unattainable in the abstract (more akin to "perfection" than say, "20 dollars"), I am willing to tolerate some amount of imbalance.
Balance goes beyond DPS/Heal outputs or Tank mitigation.
Yes! I agree!
I also think this statement is about as related to subclassing as the phrase "Input lag is the primary cause of player frustration" or any number of other perfectly reasonable statements I agree with.
And that is why you do not understand why subclassing is bad for the game. You think it's only about DPS combinations or whatever. You can't even see how changing the identity of a class into a non class affects the game (or whatever these frankenstine abominations are).
How does me saying "I agree balance is about more than those things" indicate to you that I believe it is only about those things?
Sorry, I feel like the statement was a non-sequitur and now I feel like this one is equally nonsensical. *We are in agreement that balance transcends pure quantization*.
Do you want me to say "and therefore subclassing is bad"? Because I am missing some logical leap, and I don't really know where to go from here if you keep just plopping non-sequiturs down.
Because you asserted that the idea of "Balancing goes beyond DPS..." is not related to subclassing. There are multiple aspects of "balancing" to subclassing, the obvious DPS/HEAL/Mitigation and the less obivous aspect of how subclassing destroys the framework of how a players emotion is connected to the world. Subclassing destroys structure to the game and structure is absoutely necessary in order to paint a cohesive picture of the word and the emotions extracted from the world.
And to put it bluntly, it looks ridiculous. I cringe at every promotional piece of art I have seen depicting sublcassed abilities on characters. Its visually incoherent with the feel of the game.
"Class identity isn’t just about power or efficiency. It’s about symbolic clarity, mechanical cohesion, and a shared visual and tactical language between players." - sans-culottes1 -
Pixiepumpkin✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭xylena_lazarow wrote: »My Streak DK cares not for uniqueness, only for Streak. I love subclassing. Best change ever.
If streak worked as streak, but with a flame burst forward, flame trail and a cloud of smoke left behind, sure....but a lighting streak on a fire guy looks dumb. It's visually out of place."Class identity isn’t just about power or efficiency. It’s about symbolic clarity, mechanical cohesion, and a shared visual and tactical language between players." - sans-culottes1 -
ragnarok6644b14_ESO✭✭✭✭
Ah I thought you were talking about balance as being the "ease" with which a player can explain/achieve/replicate a certain DPS/Tank/Heal number, which is definitely unrelated.Pixiepumpkin wrote: »ragnarok6644b14_ESO wrote: »Pixiepumpkin wrote: »ragnarok6644b14_ESO wrote: »Pixiepumpkin wrote: »ragnarok6644b14_ESO wrote: »
Do you think it is impossible for subclassing to be balanced (not whether or not it *currently is*, but whether or not it *could ever be*)?Pixiepumpkin wrote: »ragnarok6644b14_ESO wrote: »sans-culottes wrote: »ragnarok6644b14_ESO wrote: »Man, "anyone can be anything" is a fantasy I have always wanted, hahaha. It's hard to hear that that's a problem.
Maybe there's something fundamentally distinct in what we want from our fantasy worlds?
(The rest of it is really just the usual crooning about "there is a meta and therefore no one will do anything outside the meta" which is, again, not subclassing's problem).
The issue isn’t that “anyone can be anything.” It’s that when everyone can be everything, nothing means anything. Class identity isn’t about restriction. It’s about coherence. When visual, narrative, and mechanical consistency collapse, the world stops feeling like a world and starts feeling like a toybox.
You keep reducing criticism to preference—“some people don’t like freedom”—as if this were a flavor dispute. But what’s being critiqued is a systemic design shift that prioritizes flattening over distinction. And the consequences aren’t hypothetical. Just ask the Necromancer skill lines. Or what’s left of them. As you yourself noted, this patch has only deepened the class’s longstanding design failures.
See, I see it as a design shift that prioritizes verisimilitude of the world (the TES world) over game mechanics.
And I celebrate that, because in my opinion, game mechanics exist to serve the world/make the world something that can be engaged with, not as something ontologically primitive.
If, in your mind, it is a narrative collapse, then we have different worlds we are modeling; narratively, most people in TES have access to most types of spells or combat styles, in principle.
I agree there is a mechanical collapse. But mechanics are in the service of world-modeling, and can be fixed. I wish it were not broken, but I am not going to say "the world should be worse-modeled" in the pursuit of mechanical purity - especially given that, again, the mechanics can be repaired/fixed, because the bugs are not a consequence of the subclassing model *a priori* but rather were already a problem that subclassing made more pronounced. They SHOULD be repaired, and I have faith that (finally) they will be.
As for visual inconsistency, I hope you never encounter my characters in Oblivion or Skyrim, haha. They will use purple summoning/conjuration magic, white-rainbow Alteration magic, shimmering semitransparent wards and luminous gold from Restoration, and Shock and red Damage spells from Destruction among other colors.
I just consider that to be how the TES world works; different kinds of spells manifest in the world in different colors, and characters can manifest them freely. What you see as "inconsistency" I see as "verisimilitude".
Anyone *can* be anything in TES. And there always is a meta - in Skyrim, you can be a stealth archer, or you can be worse. Yet, I have many playthroughs that aren't stealth archery, and yet were buckets of fun! So it ever is with metas.
Except that MMO's have different rules/requirments than single player games, especially regarding PVP or any kind of content where the player is to encounter another player. This is where your desire and logic fall apart when discussing ESO and its design direction because first and foremost its an MMORPG, not a single player game and there are specific requirements that must be met to facilitate a fair and balanced playspace. Sublcassing does away with this on multiple fronts.
This update, is a failure. Most of us can see this and subclassing is a sizable part of this.
If not, why not?
If so, then your complaint isn't about subclassing or even modeling the world or anything like that; it's about balance.
For my own part, I agree things ought to be balanced as much as possible while staying within the world. But I do not believe subclassing is somehow completely incompatible with balance.
Coupled with my belief that balance is something inherently unattainable in the abstract (more akin to "perfection" than say, "20 dollars"), I am willing to tolerate some amount of imbalance.
Balance goes beyond DPS/Heal outputs or Tank mitigation.Pixiepumpkin wrote: »ragnarok6644b14_ESO wrote: »
Do you think it is impossible for subclassing to be balanced (not whether or not it *currently is*, but whether or not it *could ever be*)?Pixiepumpkin wrote: »ragnarok6644b14_ESO wrote: »sans-culottes wrote: »ragnarok6644b14_ESO wrote: »Man, "anyone can be anything" is a fantasy I have always wanted, hahaha. It's hard to hear that that's a problem.
Maybe there's something fundamentally distinct in what we want from our fantasy worlds?
(The rest of it is really just the usual crooning about "there is a meta and therefore no one will do anything outside the meta" which is, again, not subclassing's problem).
The issue isn’t that “anyone can be anything.” It’s that when everyone can be everything, nothing means anything. Class identity isn’t about restriction. It’s about coherence. When visual, narrative, and mechanical consistency collapse, the world stops feeling like a world and starts feeling like a toybox.
You keep reducing criticism to preference—“some people don’t like freedom”—as if this were a flavor dispute. But what’s being critiqued is a systemic design shift that prioritizes flattening over distinction. And the consequences aren’t hypothetical. Just ask the Necromancer skill lines. Or what’s left of them. As you yourself noted, this patch has only deepened the class’s longstanding design failures.
See, I see it as a design shift that prioritizes verisimilitude of the world (the TES world) over game mechanics.
And I celebrate that, because in my opinion, game mechanics exist to serve the world/make the world something that can be engaged with, not as something ontologically primitive.
If, in your mind, it is a narrative collapse, then we have different worlds we are modeling; narratively, most people in TES have access to most types of spells or combat styles, in principle.
I agree there is a mechanical collapse. But mechanics are in the service of world-modeling, and can be fixed. I wish it were not broken, but I am not going to say "the world should be worse-modeled" in the pursuit of mechanical purity - especially given that, again, the mechanics can be repaired/fixed, because the bugs are not a consequence of the subclassing model *a priori* but rather were already a problem that subclassing made more pronounced. They SHOULD be repaired, and I have faith that (finally) they will be.
As for visual inconsistency, I hope you never encounter my characters in Oblivion or Skyrim, haha. They will use purple summoning/conjuration magic, white-rainbow Alteration magic, shimmering semitransparent wards and luminous gold from Restoration, and Shock and red Damage spells from Destruction among other colors.
I just consider that to be how the TES world works; different kinds of spells manifest in the world in different colors, and characters can manifest them freely. What you see as "inconsistency" I see as "verisimilitude".
Anyone *can* be anything in TES. And there always is a meta - in Skyrim, you can be a stealth archer, or you can be worse. Yet, I have many playthroughs that aren't stealth archery, and yet were buckets of fun! So it ever is with metas.
Except that MMO's have different rules/requirments than single player games, especially regarding PVP or any kind of content where the player is to encounter another player. This is where your desire and logic fall apart when discussing ESO and its design direction because first and foremost its an MMORPG, not a single player game and there are specific requirements that must be met to facilitate a fair and balanced playspace. Sublcassing does away with this on multiple fronts.
This update, is a failure. Most of us can see this and subclassing is a sizable part of this.
If not, why not?
If so, then your complaint isn't about subclassing or even modeling the world or anything like that; it's about balance.
For my own part, I agree things ought to be balanced as much as possible while staying within the world. But I do not believe subclassing is somehow completely incompatible with balance.
Coupled with my belief that balance is something inherently unattainable in the abstract (more akin to "perfection" than say, "20 dollars"), I am willing to tolerate some amount of imbalance.
Balance goes beyond DPS/Heal outputs or Tank mitigation.
Yes! I agree!
I also think this statement is about as related to subclassing as the phrase "Input lag is the primary cause of player frustration" or any number of other perfectly reasonable statements I agree with.
And that is why you do not understand why subclassing is bad for the game. You think it's only about DPS combinations or whatever. You can't even see how changing the identity of a class into a non class affects the game (or whatever these frankenstine abominations are).
How does me saying "I agree balance is about more than those things" indicate to you that I believe it is only about those things?
Sorry, I feel like the statement was a non-sequitur and now I feel like this one is equally nonsensical. *We are in agreement that balance transcends pure quantization*.
Do you want me to say "and therefore subclassing is bad"? Because I am missing some logical leap, and I don't really know where to go from here if you keep just plopping non-sequiturs down.
Because you asserted that the idea of "Balancing goes beyond DPS..." is not related to subclassing. There are multiple aspects of "balancing" to subclassing, the obvious DPS/HEAL/Mitigation and the less obivous aspect of how subclassing destroys the framework of how a players emotion is connected to the world. Subclassing destroys structure to the game and structure is absoutely necessary in order to paint a cohesive picture of the word and the emotions extracted from the world.
That said, and on the topic of unrelated things, I wouldn't put "the player's emotion being connected to the world" or their ability to see a "cohesive picture of the world" as a balance issue, nor as something inherently different between multiplayer and singleplayer games.
Why is my emotional connection and understanding of the TES world hinging on the "multiplayerness" of the game?
Essentially, what you are saying is "because TESO is multiplayer, restrictive classes are required for emotional engagement and cohesion, but since Skyrim and Oblivion are single player, non-restrictive classes are sufficient for emotional engagement and cohesion."
Once again, I fear I fail to understand - can you ELI5 me why multiplayer games require restrictive classes to achieve emotional engagement and cohesion while single player games do not?Pixiepumpkin wrote: »And to put it bluntly, it looks ridiculous. I cringe at every promotional piece of art I have seen depicting sublcassed abilities on characters. Its visually incoherent with the feel of the game.
I don't know what to tell you. My oblivion remastered character is constantly covered by a purple sheen from Mysticism's Spell Absorption, while casting Damage Health and Shock spells that are bright red and blue lightning - or she casts an on-touch Absorb Health/Absorb Magicka spell that siphons orange-gold and light blue streaks from them in a tether (if I stay close enough).
It's how the series always has been, and I always found it really cool that illusion magic and conjuration magic could be used by the same character despite being obviously different Magicka employments.
I think that it's really cool that a character can fire a purple-pink wave of Detect Life magic to see through walls, so they can then use a green shimmer to fade into the background with a Chameleon spell before readying their massive frost AoE.Edited by ragnarok6644b14_ESO on June 4, 2025 7:32PM0