Rich Lambert's Comments About The Current State of Balance

tomofhyrule · September 21

Amottica wrote: »

heaven13 wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

What is interesting is that from time to time ,we have seen posts requesting more choices. Some mistakenly thought that more choice meant more builds and variety.

That opinion is that more choices meant more variety, which could not be truer and more false. There will always be the best builds because of what we call math. Nothing developers can do to change that outside of making changes that merely change what builds perform best. No one needs to run the top-performing builds unless they want to perform at the highest level. Even then, most of us are not willing to put the effort into making the most of any top-performing builds because that takes time and practice.

Welcome to life in an MMORPG.

This is neither an endorsement for nor against subclassing.

Again, it's not about there being a meta and everything else. It's about the meta being SO FAR above everything else that you're left with no choice. Back when I still did trials, I ran off-meta classes/set-ups and still performed in the top couple DDs in my group. The meta existed, and has always existed, but the difference was more negligible which allowed people some wiggle room to play outside of it. That is no longer the case.

I apologize. I should have been more specific.

Yes, crappy builds can and will happen. They have all along. Even in games with more rigid build systems, people can still create builds that very much underperform.

I recall helping a member of a casual guild I am in who was parsing and testing a new build. He was doing a fraction of the damage possible with the class he was in. I offered to connect him with the top player for his class to help him with his build. He declined, saying he was happy with what he had.

In other words, devs should not be held responsible for the choices we make that lead to poor performance of the builds we create. At some point, we need to look in the mirror. If a build is not performing as well as we would like and other players are doing better, we need to make changes to our builds to bring them closer to the damage we want.

However, there is a massive difference between "I like playing my RP flavored build" and "I want to play literally anything other than Arcbladeplar"

That's one of the problems of this argument in the first place - people are taking the nuance out of it. Obviously your heavy armor sword-and-board DPS will not do well, nobody's arguing that. But someone running a build which very comfortably could do trifectas before Subclassing should still be able to now, right?

The problem is that a pure DPS build which could do meta-level DPS in U45 is no longer able to parse as high due to individual skill line nerfs. And instead, a singular build focused around stacking the two most overloaded DPS lines is now doing 50% higher damage than that one.

DenverRalphy · September 21

Amottica wrote: »

heaven13 wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

What is interesting is that from time to time ,we have seen posts requesting more choices. Some mistakenly thought that more choice meant more builds and variety.

That opinion is that more choices meant more variety, which could not be truer and more false. There will always be the best builds because of what we call math. Nothing developers can do to change that outside of making changes that merely change what builds perform best. No one needs to run the top-performing builds unless they want to perform at the highest level. Even then, most of us are not willing to put the effort into making the most of any top-performing builds because that takes time and practice.

Welcome to life in an MMORPG.

This is neither an endorsement for nor against subclassing.

Again, it's not about there being a meta and everything else. It's about the meta being SO FAR above everything else that you're left with no choice. Back when I still did trials, I ran off-meta classes/set-ups and still performed in the top couple DDs in my group. The meta existed, and has always existed, but the difference was more negligible which allowed people some wiggle room to play outside of it. That is no longer the case.

In other words, devs should not be held responsible for the choices we make that lead to poor performance of the builds we create. At some point, we need to look in the mirror. If a build is not performing as well as we would like and other players are doing better, we need to make changes to our builds to bring them closer to the damage we want.

They absolutely should be held responsible when their actions are what overnight turned player builds from well built to a poor performance build. In this instance, players are not culpable for poor build choices. The powers that be behind the scenes who nuked perfectly fine builds for no recognizable reason are who should be held responsible.

silky_soft · September 21

April 2020: 49234

Current peak: 14186
Current lows: <6000

July 2017: 14481

We’re listening to feedback and trying to make some changes.

we're listening to players, and we have some changes in mind.

Well the recent PTS shows us that your not listening and unwilling to make changes. Another pointless external interview.

Displaced_Salad · September 21

I'm always interested in the phrases, "freedom of choice," and, "play your way," when there are clearly certain events, bosses and mechanics that encourage anything but. Lots of endeavors/dailies showcase that. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying every aspect of the game is/can be/should be for every player, but there's a bit difference in giving the freedom to build a character and actually being able to utilize them by and large.

I was warned away from playing this game by people who played it for some time, hence the reason I haven't been playing since release, however, I've been playing for the largest part of its existence. And in that time, I've learned a few things: Pre-pandemic, pre-Microsoft, etc. there has never been a meaningful exchange of ideas and feedback. I greet each of these roadmaps, states of play and the like with a rather substantial amount of skepticism. It always seems to play out the same way. Things are going to be done the way they're done and it seems any interaction with the community, no matter how you feel about said community, is largely performative.

Reverb · September 21

I think that Rich has an inherently PvE perspective, and primarily with a single-player background, which we have seen in both his business decisions and community comments over and over through the years. As long as that is his focus, he doesn’t need to care about balance, he only needs to care about what looks and feels cool for non-competitive content.

Estin · September 21

He has the right idea but the wrong execution, just like anything combat related, especially subclassing. I don't know who to point fingers at, so I'm just going to say ZOS in general. I don't like ZOS's approach to dealing with difficult content. Instead of making it more accessible by the way of allowing players to gain knowledge in game, such as a dungeon/trial book that lists every enemy and their mechanics for your role or proper role tutorials, they take approach of implementing methods to brute force the content. Subclassing targeted two groups. The overland skyrim crowd and players aspiring to do end game content. The overland crowd doesn't care, they now have more roleplay options. The aspiring end gamers get a large damage increase for free. It's just like when oakensoul HA first came out. And just like during oakensoul's height, those players are still unable to participate or complete the content they haven been unable to for two reasons. The first is that more damage doesn't equal to experience. Those players will still fail mechanics, wipe the group, and not read when explaining mechanics. The second is the damage ceiling has gone up so high that doing moderate damage that would once be acceptable is now passed up. Subclassing had the potential to bring the best of both worlds by introducing a large selection of balanced build options as well as infinite roleplaying options. Instead, we only got the latter and possibly the worst combat balance the game has ever seen, and it's all because ZOS is intent on using excel numbers to balance the game.

Markytous · September 21

The fact that the entirety of class balance was basically a non-issue at the dev office overnight by way of subclassing but tweaking potions/food would "break the game" (by words of combat lead) has not escaped my mind as of yet. Buff weapon skills, nerf class skills into the ground. Subclassing denies the existence of classes. Remove class set restrictions. Remove "primary class" restrictions. Go full sandbox. Its just not fun anymore.

ArchMikem · September 21

Ezhh wrote: »

Yes, of course meta doesn't matter at all.

Unless:
You want to be wanted by any group that can actually clear harder content.

You like to complete as many achievements as you can.

You are any level of competitive and like to try reach big numbers.

You like to learn about game mechanics and test builds to find what gives the best results.

You like to feel efficient and powerful when playing.

You want to feel like you are keeping up with and not holding back your friends/groups who run meta setups.

You like the challenge of clearing the most difficult content.

Sure, there is always going to be a meta. The problem is when the gap gets so big.

I am so tired of PvE damage dealer being Herald of the Tomb + whatever currently supports it best. If the devs are honestly happy with this state, I'm glad I've stopped supporting via ESO+.

Any Build has been able to clear content and achievements long before subclassing, and still can after. Its not the Devs responsibility to make Trial groups accept you. I've played plenty of Trials on some subpar setups before.

Many problems we blame on the game or the Devs are problems of our own making.

Markytous · September 22

ArchMikem wrote: »

Ezhh wrote: »

Yes, of course meta doesn't matter at all.

Unless:
You want to be wanted by any group that can actually clear harder content.

You like to complete as many achievements as you can.

You are any level of competitive and like to try reach big numbers.

You like to learn about game mechanics and test builds to find what gives the best results.

You like to feel efficient and powerful when playing.

You want to feel like you are keeping up with and not holding back your friends/groups who run meta setups.

You like the challenge of clearing the most difficult content.

Sure, there is always going to be a meta. The problem is when the gap gets so big.

I am so tired of PvE damage dealer being Herald of the Tomb + whatever currently supports it best. If the devs are honestly happy with this state, I'm glad I've stopped supporting via ESO+.

Any Build has been able to clear content and achievements long before subclassing, and still can after. Its not the Devs responsibility to make Trial groups accept you. I've played plenty of Trials on some subpar setups before.

Many problems we blame on the game or the Devs are problems of our own making.

It is not the community's fault that the games performance has dropped significantly and the hardware refresh they did only lasted months. Exploits aren't our fault either.

Ezhh · September 22

ArchMikem wrote: »

Ezhh wrote: »

Yes, of course meta doesn't matter at all.

Unless:
You want to be wanted by any group that can actually clear harder content.

You like to complete as many achievements as you can.

You are any level of competitive and like to try reach big numbers.

You like to learn about game mechanics and test builds to find what gives the best results.

You like to feel efficient and powerful when playing.

You want to feel like you are keeping up with and not holding back your friends/groups who run meta setups.

You like the challenge of clearing the most difficult content.

Sure, there is always going to be a meta. The problem is when the gap gets so big.

I am so tired of PvE damage dealer being Herald of the Tomb + whatever currently supports it best. If the devs are honestly happy with this state, I'm glad I've stopped supporting via ESO+.

Any Build has been able to clear content and achievements long before subclassing, and still can after. Its not the Devs responsibility to make Trial groups accept you. I've played plenty of Trials on some subpar setups before.

Many problems we blame on the game or the Devs are problems of our own making.

What's the hardest level of content you've completed with these subpar builds, and was it just you or the whole group running subpar builds? I ask because unless a group is doing the trifectas from the last few years with these set ups your argument falls a bit flat. I've done plenty of vet trials on subpar builds myself, even trifectas like GH and GS. It doesn't mean much given issues of damage creep since their release and difficulty level compared to something like Unstoppable, where the difficulty ramps up massively if you run anything other than beam (if only due to the mechanics when fighting Xoryn).

But anyway, if you know a group that will let me prog OC trifecta on my non-subclassed parse sorc DD (aka my main that I really miss playing) please let me know. I'd give a lot to play her again but... insert many of the points from my original post.

Oh, and to be very clear - I don't expect the devs to make groups accept me and I have no idea where you're getting that from. I do expect them to make a combat system that I find interesting and engaging and to be able to handle the fundamentals of basic game balance if they're going to get more money out of me though.

Rohamad_Ali · September 22

Markytous wrote: »

ArchMikem wrote: »

Ezhh wrote: »

Yes, of course meta doesn't matter at all.

Unless:
You want to be wanted by any group that can actually clear harder content.

You like to complete as many achievements as you can.

You are any level of competitive and like to try reach big numbers.

You like to learn about game mechanics and test builds to find what gives the best results.

You like to feel efficient and powerful when playing.

You want to feel like you are keeping up with and not holding back your friends/groups who run meta setups.

You like the challenge of clearing the most difficult content.

Sure, there is always going to be a meta. The problem is when the gap gets so big.

I am so tired of PvE damage dealer being Herald of the Tomb + whatever currently supports it best. If the devs are honestly happy with this state, I'm glad I've stopped supporting via ESO+.

Any Build has been able to clear content and achievements long before subclassing, and still can after. Its not the Devs responsibility to make Trial groups accept you. I've played plenty of Trials on some subpar setups before.

Many problems we blame on the game or the Devs are problems of our own making.

It is not the community's fault that the games performance has dropped significantly and the hardware refresh they did only lasted months. Exploits aren't our fault either.

Bugs are not your fault. Exploiting bugs is.

moderatelyfatman · September 22

Ingenon wrote: »

In my limited experience playing multiplayer online games, each MMO game has a meta build for damage dealers. For example, the few times I have played Fallout 76 I have noticed that most people that show up for a seasonal boss fight event are using one meta build. I do not care that ESO has a meta build for damage dealers also. I have been playing ESO since Morrowind chapter, and I have seen several different meta builds for damage dealers come and go.

I understand that this approach that MMO games seem to tend to take is hard on players that want to have one character that does everything for years of play. However, ESO is like other MMO in that it allows multiple alts. I decided early on to build one alt of each starting class. So I don't get left in the dust when ESO does another balance change, and a different build becomes the one build to rule them all.

There will always be a meta so stop complaining is a common sentiment which hides the real problem ESO has compared to other MMOs.

From my experience with Guild Wars 2 (2k+ hours) and briefly with Final Fantasy 14 (200 hours), there is a meta in each class. While the classes are not perfectly balance and are not necessarily meant to be (some are more challenging than others to play), they tend to be close enough so that the highest damage dealers in actual content tend to be the best players.

This is ESO biggest problem: it only has one meta. In PvE even the best nightblade players will struggle to put out the damage numbers of a competent arcanist in most fights. This is unless the nightblade subclasses into Herald of the Tome does the green beam. This removed all but the top pureclass nightblade, necro and warden players from endgame.

PvP is even worse since there isn't really an option of 'play how you want' unless what you want is to be a mobile parsing dummy for all the other players.

moderatelyfatman · September 22

Markytous wrote: »

The fact that the entirety of class balance was basically a non-issue at the dev office overnight by way of subclassing but tweaking potions/food would "break the game" (by words of combat lead) has not escaped my mind as of yet. Buff weapon skills, nerf class skills into the ground. Subclassing denies the existence of classes. Remove class set restrictions. Remove "primary class" restrictions. Go full sandbox. Its just not fun anymore.

I suspect that the patch 35 changes were entirely for balancing damage on a spreadsheet. If everyone used Rapid Strikes no matter the class, it makes the combat devs' jobs a lot easier.

Too bad that it removes the unique playstyle of each class. The old phrase 'Not all that matters can be measured, not all that can be measured matters' is truer here than ever.

And subclassing is the final nail in the coffin for class diversity outside of role playing.

Tannus15 · September 22

I find it funny that people are blaming subclassing for the problems introduced with the arcanist class.

Top end was already dominated by arcanist before subclassing came along. At least it has exposed how stupidly over performing the arcanist class mastery on banner is. Though I’m pretty sure everyone already knew that outside the dev team.

Now at least you can bring your “nightblade” into trials and beam just like everyone else

katanagirl1 · September 22

PvE balance is not good now, as others have said previously.

PvP balance has always been bad, and as predicted by many on the forums, is much, much worse after subclassing.

I’m an average player who isn’t great at 1v1 but I can sometimes hold my own against another player. Subclassing has taken some of the best 1v1 players, who were tough to begin with, and catapulted them into godlike status. I can often be stunned into not being able to break free, while they continue to pummel me for damage and there is nothing I can do to stop it. That’s just one player. Now imagine that against a full ball group. Today an AD ball group took Bleak and we had 20/20 siege to take it back plus defenders inside the outpost both melee and siege inside and we could not kill them. After 15 minutes or so they finally overwhelmed us. This is killing Cyrodiil.

Gabriel_H · September 22

“I'm really happy with it, overall, just the amount of customisation that is now possible as a result of that is mind-blowing,” he says. “There's a ‘meta’, right? People say this is the only way you can do a thing. I love going against that, pushing the boundaries, and showing this group does it this way, and that works for them, but this works for me."

He doesn't get that the meta becomes the one with the biggest numbers for the DDs, the most buffs for the tanks, and the most spammable for the healers.

Sub-classing has turbo charged min/maxing, and at end game the result is less builds being used. That is in part player behaviour, but ZOS opened the door to it.

I hope the new all-in-one leaderboards show the base class and sub-class. (Nearly) every DD on that board will be Ardent/Herald/Aedric, tanks will be Earthern/Winter's and healers will be Green/Siphoning - that isn't build diversity it's boredom incarnate.

Gabriel_H · September 22

React wrote: »

Meta absolutely matters in any competitive content, and pretending that it doesn't is spitting in the face of your veterans. His statements might apply to casual content such as overland, normal dungeons and trials, and vet dungeons. But in terms of vet trials, HM vet content and PVP, they're just objectively wrong.

The only one you have listed that is "competitive" is PvP.

Gabriel_H · September 22

Ezhh wrote: »

You want to be wanted by any group that can actually clear harder content.

You like to complete as many achievements as you can.

You are any level of competitive and like to try reach big numbers.

You like to learn about game mechanics and test builds to find what gives the best results.

You like to feel efficient and powerful when playing.

You want to feel like you are keeping up with and not holding back your friends/groups who run meta setups.

You like the challenge of clearing the most difficult content.

I do, and I'm nowhere near meta
I do, currently on 63/73k
I am, my numbers are enough
I do, and I reach the best results - for me*
I do*
I do, and I don't hold anyone back, and I'm frequently the reason for a clear
I do, it's fun

* - The problem with the "meta" is that it's a spreadsheet calculation. It's the maximum potential - but efficiency is down to the players. That not only means understand the game mechanics (which are less and less these days and more bosses are just damage soaks) and the build, but also having a playstyle that works for the player and an experience that is engaging. If the meta is 100% potential, but the player isn't enjoying it, or doesn't like it, and are disengaged then efficiency will be less. Boredom breeds mistakes.

Now lets say a non-meta build (just an made up example) of a pure-class DK has a maximum potential of 81% but the player really enjoys it, they are fully engaged with the style and the lore and everything to do with gaming in an RPG meaning they are running at 100% efficiency.

If their efficiency on the meta is 80%. Which is the better choice?! The problem is RL's and players who wouldn't entertain the idea of a non-meta joining. They'd look at a dummy parse, that has little to do with actual combat performance, and demand the player specs the meta, without seeing how the player actually performs on their non-meta build.

WaywardArgonian · September 22

One thing I will say is that, following subclassing, organized groups in PVP differ a lot more in respective their set-ups than before. Different groups have come up with different solutions to problems, so that's one of the few positives I'm taking from this change.

Solo play still appears to be very much a case of pairing together whichever three skill lines produce the highest burst during a given patch, but that was always going to happen.

Kendaric · September 22

Gabriel_H wrote: »

“I'm really happy with it, overall, just the amount of customisation that is now possible as a result of that is mind-blowing,” he says. “There's a ‘meta’, right? People say this is the only way you can do a thing. I love going against that, pushing the boundaries, and showing this group does it this way, and that works for them, but this works for me."

He doesn't get that the meta becomes the one with the biggest numbers for the DDs, the most buffs for the tanks, and the most spammable for the healers.

Sub-classing has turbo charged min/maxing, and at end game the result is less builds being used. That is in part player behaviour, but ZOS opened the door to it.

I hope the new all-in-one leaderboards show the base class and sub-class. (Nearly) every DD on that board will be Ardent/Herald/Aedric, tanks will be Earthern/Winter's and healers will be Green/Siphoning - that isn't build diversity it's boredom incarnate.

That's true for endgame players or many group-focused players in general, but not everyone is interested in that. I'd wager the majority of ESO players doesn't really care, as long as they have fun.

Essentially ESO would need a complete redesign like FF 14 had done, there are just too many partially or half implemented features in the game that were later abandoned. Which, of course, will never happen.
The problem is that with many of the newer features, they were tacked on to a system that wasn't meant to support them without changing the underlying fundamentals.

Gabriel_H · September 22

Kendaric wrote: »

That's true for endgame players or many group-focused players in general, but not everyone is interested in that. I'd wager the majority of ESO players doesn't really care, as long as they have fun.

I don't disagree, but the issue is there is now 1 - 2 "viable and allowed" builds at end game and 234523123524635 builds for pretty much everything else.

Changing the former to 100 and the latter 224523123524635 doesn't break anything and allows for "build diversity" in end-game.

Faulgor · September 22

Tannus15 wrote: »

I find it funny that people are blaming subclassing for the problems introduced with the arcanist class.

Top end was already dominated by arcanist before subclassing came along. At least it has exposed how stupidly over performing the arcanist class mastery on banner is. Though I’m pretty sure everyone already knew that outside the dev team.

Now at least you can bring your “nightblade” into trials and beam just like everyone else

Yup. And before Arcanist, it was Oakensorcs.

There will always be a top scoring build (which isn't necessarily the prefered one taken ease of use into account). And given ESO's content design, that build will always make up the majority of any given group.

That would only change if every skill line (previously, class) brought something unique to the group composition. Which is honestly not hard to do, conceptually - but ESO only developed in the opposite direction. Why?
Because people were crying about balance all the time.

If you don't want homogenization, you have to accept that there are things, combat encounters, that your character can't handle well. How many people were crying about this or that class not having access to this or that Major buff? Not being on par with other DDs (yet being a good tank/healer)? Struggling in solo encounters? Not bringing anything to a group composition? Not having enough cleave for vet trials? Or not enough burst damage for PvP?
I know I was. But that's what you get.
We asked for everything for everyone, and now are upset that everyone has everything.

Of course ZOS could have said "Okay we hear what you are saying, but what if we are actually making builds complementary and not supplementary? It's not what you asked for, but it's what you actually want, promise!"
How many of us would have been happy with that?

Subclassing is not to blame for a design philosophy which has been part of ESO ever since they watered down the roles of each class. When Templars wanted to be DDs and Nightblades healers. In general, in the spirit of TES, I think it's a good philosophy - but even within that framework, ZOS could do more to promote complementary builds.

1. Get back to unique buffs for each skill line that don't have other sources. Think Minor Savagery/Prophecy/Brutality/Sorcery.
2. Consider more element sensitive encounters, so people need to bring Fire/Frost/Shock/Disease/etc builds.
3. Consider differentiating weapons more. They shouldn't just be stat sticks where everyone picks DW for the most damage.
4. Nuke Fatecarver.

StihlReign · September 22

No, we asked why couldn't the devs balance each class for the role of tank, DD and healer and if those classes are assigned to teams, why is team A struggling and how can we help (this is the majority of what the players contributed to PTS). ZOS chose to dramatically change skills often, rather than provide stability and balance. PTS repeatedly provided feedback skewed towards balance. The devs ignored the feedback and chose the extreme in more cases than not.

Extreme - a damage dealing unkillable heal tank. yay

SneaK · September 22

Stamicka wrote: »

What do you think?

I think he has a lackadaisical approach to something that is his livelihood and frankly doesn’t care about customer feedback.

Yes, choose to chase the mythical meta or don’t. Always been that way.

The issue now is the “meta” is so far above and beyond anything else if you’re not playing it or at least some variant of it you are absolutely gimping yourself, and in any type of competition against “meta” be it PvP, PvE leaderboards, etc, you cannot win against it. It’s more of a power gap than a meta IMO, almost like the old vet ranks. True class builds are sitting about VR4 while subclass builds are VR14s.

They don’t get it cause all they do is events and overland content, none of which require even a “build” at all.

tomofhyrule · September 22

It does really seem like the combat team’s #1 goal is “every player should be able to get into vet content,” but their method is to just make the simplest build into the most powerful, assuming that people who worked hard to get their full weaving NB to HM level will stay with that setup while others blow past its power level.

I can’t believe that Oakensoul was designed to be the “accessibility build.” If it were, it wouldn’t’ve been gated behind Antiquities; it would have been available from the get go. I feel like once they released it and people said that it was good because of their disability/situation/etc., that then they latched onto it for that purpose. However, Arcanist was definitely designed to be the low-APM-high-damage accessibility build from the start. Unfortunately, you needed to start a new character to use it… but not anymore.

I do find the “how did Subclassing change your playstyle” thread a bit telling in the specific questions they’re looking for answers from:

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

Did your ability to play and/or complete certain types of game content improve after the launch of Update 46?

If so, prior to the launch of Update 46, what was your character build?

What did you change to your character build when Update 46 launched that allowed you to play or complete content that you had trouble with before?

What game content was it?

True, they want any and all feedback. But if these are the exact questions the Combat team’s is asking verbatim, it’s telling us that

They’re fully expecting a “yes” from the first question.
They expect that players will have added something to their build via subclassing to allow them to play or complete content that they struggled with before.

By extrapolation, we can assume “the content” is vet level stuff, and they likely assume the thing players added was the main skill from their designated Accessibility Class so that any character can have that setup. The Combat Team essentially is looking for confirmation that players added Fatecarver to their favorite character and could now do vet dungeons and trials. And even reading through the thread, we see that, while yes there are players for whom that is the case, there are a lot of players who are not thinking along those lines.

I have a feeling the team was not expecting the number of players who did not like Subclassing for one reason or another, and they definitely didn’t expect players in the mid-level to stick with their parent Class builds and find their ability to do content has backslid. The team was not anticipating players being more interested in how their character looked and felt than getting through vet content, nor were they anticipating the players who were at the top end jumping on an easier build which did so much more damage (since they could already do the content) and therefore being more exclusionary in their group making.

There is not an easy answer here. At this point, anything ZOS does to try to address any problem will screw over a different group. Do they try to rein in the insane power creep? Then the players who are using it as an accessibility build are shoved back out. Do they buff pureclasses? Then the players who build a for-fun Subclassed build are left with trash. Do they nerf individual lines? Pureclasses slide even further into nothingness.

And let’s face it: 2025 also brought nothing new in terms of combat (for Subclassing is just making old stuff available to everyone). But that’s not sustainable - eventually they’ll want to add new Grimoires or new skill lines or new Classes. But will they want to do so with the balance in the state it is? Will they take the time they need to fix balance before adding anything new? Will the playerbase survive waiting that long? Or will they even care and just add in whatever and let the chips fall where they may?

I’ll admit it: I want a new Class more than anything else. I’m at the point with ESO where if I don’t get a new way to play a new character, there’s really not much to do here anymore - it’s not like the lazily-written stories have much replay value and Account-Wide Achievements has made it so trying to redo hard modes and trifectas on my alts doesn’t give me any dopamine hit for doing so. With a new Class, at least I’d be able to explore a bunch of different skills and build for fun and make up a backstory for a character to fit it all together. The release of Arcanist definitely kept me busy on the “new character” mode for months (pretty well the full year if you count the fact that it was revealed in January). I want that again.

But can the balance handle it?

Ezhh · September 22

Gabriel_H wrote: »

Ezhh wrote: »

You want to be wanted by any group that can actually clear harder content.

You like to complete as many achievements as you can.

You are any level of competitive and like to try reach big numbers.

You like to learn about game mechanics and test builds to find what gives the best results.

You like to feel efficient and powerful when playing.

You want to feel like you are keeping up with and not holding back your friends/groups who run meta setups.

You like the challenge of clearing the most difficult content.

I do, and I'm nowhere near meta
I do, currently on 63/73k
I am, my numbers are enough
I do, and I reach the best results - for me*
I do*
I do, and I don't hold anyone back, and I'm frequently the reason for a clear
I do, it's fun

* - The problem with the "meta" is that it's a spreadsheet calculation. It's the maximum potential - but efficiency is down to the players. That not only means understand the game mechanics (which are less and less these days and more bosses are just damage soaks) and the build, but also having a playstyle that works for the player and an experience that is engaging. If the meta is 100% potential, but the player isn't enjoying it, or doesn't like it, and are disengaged then efficiency will be less. Boredom breeds mistakes.

Now lets say a non-meta build (just an made up example) of a pure-class DK has a maximum potential of 81% but the player really enjoys it, they are fully engaged with the style and the lore and everything to do with gaming in an RPG meaning they are running at 100% efficiency.

If their efficiency on the meta is 80%. Which is the better choice?! The problem is RL's and players who wouldn't entertain the idea of a non-meta joining. They'd look at a dummy parse, that has little to do with actual combat performance, and demand the player specs the meta, without seeing how the player actually performs on their non-meta build.

To preface - I don't disagree with everything you're saying. A lot of it's correct and I let people run builds in trial groups that they personally perform well on regardless of the current meta. But I've seen the number of players who can keep up on anything other than Herald of the Tome fall massively.

Your 81% potential DK will be fine even for some trifectas, but let's allow log data for something like Unstoppable to speak for itself. The discrepancies in potential only start to become really meaningful at the top end, and while this might not apply to you, I've noticed a lot of people claiming that everything can be cleared on any build seem to think something like CR+3 or Sunspire HM qualifies as the "hardest difficulty".

So for the current patch, I can't even find a single Xoryn HM clear for a warden DD. There are 3 sorcs and 12 NBs who cleared in the role, while meanwhile the first page of Arcs has over 100 DDs doing over 100k while clearing that fight. Only 5 of the NBs and 1 of the sorcs made those numbers. Plars, DKs and Cros all show fewer than 10 clears in this range as well. This is before we factor in subclassing. Many of those non-arcs doing over 100k quite likely had Herald of the Tome as a subclassed line. (I only checked the sorc - the sorc was beaming). I also did a quick scan of Falgraven HM, since KA is much more friendly to non-beamers, and while the numbers are a bit better, it's still very much leaning toward arcs.

There will be players who personally perform better on non-beam builds than beam builds (I'm one of them), but out of those players it seems only a very small subset can keep up with their groups, unless the group is casual to mid-level at highest, or they are disproportionally more skilled as a player than their group. There are a couple of exceptions, but the biggest is Rune Blade builds and again they are Herald of the Tome.

Does this really add up to healthy gamebalance?

I know gamebalance isn't easy and that something will always pull ahead of everything else, but it should be possible to get to a state where the gap isn't so big and more people can play the classes/playstyles they genuinely enjoy at the level they want to play. I know of a lot of people who would be hugely reassured if the devs seemed to care about this more.

Joy_Division · September 22

The problem with Lambert's off-meta philosophy is that it only works in single player games. When I play Skyrim, I can roll an elven two-handed mage and complete the Thief's guild questline because there aren't human opponents to punish me for running an inefficient build.

For all those who say they run an off-meta build and never had a major issue with groupmates, that's because you aren't hearing what we say after you log out of Discord. We look through the logs, we see your setup, and we see how poorly your numbers are. Every PVP and PvE guild I have been in does this, even those that consider themselves not "sweaty." We don't like wiping to the same boss over and over, and we most certainly do not like wiping to a rival PVP guild and have to hear their condescending whispers.

ESO's balance has rarely been in a good state becuase of ZOS's lackadaisical approach to combat, combined with the devs overall lack of awareness of how the game is played at the highest level. I still remember in the class rep meetings talking about lack of bar space and sustain for Sorcerers, Zos asked us why dont pvp sorcs just not use major resolve or PvE sorcs just use Dark Exchange to solve their sustain woes. They didnt seem to genuinely understand that running around Cyrodiil without major resolve was suicidal for anything but a gank build, and serious PvE players will not slot a skill that lowers their DPS.

Ratzkifal · September 22

Just another quote to add to the long list of tone-deaf comments made by ZOS.
These statements completely ignore PvP's existence, painting yet again a picture that ZOS doesn't care at all and intentionally ignores PvP. The developers have stated that they don't like hearing this, but they need to stop making statements like this, which give us that impression.
You might not care about the meta, but in PvP, the meta cares about you - you being weaker and easier to kill.

And let's not forget that any attempt at balancing the post-subclassing state of combat will inevitably result in nerfs for the class purists. So much for "play the way you want".
Play the way you want, except if you want to be competitive, then **** you.

Pixiepumpkin · September 22

Numbers don't lie and right now ESO is not in a good spot.

I can't speak for anyone but myself and my wife, but we both quit the game about 1 month (if that) after subclassing came out.

Both of us feel, and this is not something we discussed beforehand that would influence the other, but we both felt, on our own accord that the issue with subclassing was how it made our alts feel, meaning, pointless, homogonized.

Both of us spent money on homes, outfits, weapons, mounts, pets, every cosmetic imaginable JUST to flesh out our alts. I have 19, she has 20.

Now that our alts lost their uniqueness, we just don't see the point in playing and we haven't. We miss the game, talk about it at times, but the second we start talking about subclassing, we are both immediately turned off.

I'd argue that subclassing has been a net-negative. Sure, its brought some to the game, some back to the game...but how many have quit, possibly for good?

CP5 · September 22

One thing I wanted to bring up that is important here, even if people are fine with the current balance. As a side story, a few years back when my friends dragged me into Destiny 2 there was a meta that was nerfed after being active for some time. One of the stats in that game, with stats ranging from 0-100, gave players 40% reduced incoming damage with that stat maxed. Anyone who took content seriously maximized that stat, and anyone else would just take more damage than expected. If Bungie wanted to add hard content, whose health do they balance it around, people who take 40% reduced damage, or those who don't? If you balance around camp A, you make that stat mandatory, and if you balance around group B, group A faces no challenge.

Looking back at the current state of ESO, how will ZOS have to design content to keep it engaging? More cleave, more damage sponges, more situations where if you aren't running an optimal build you'll face more and more obtuse obstacles. If ZOS wants new content to continue to be engaging, they need to design it around the abilities the players have, and the hard content will be designed around the peak of what players can do, over time anything less will erode away.