exeeter702 wrote: »

The only practical solution that would be applicable to esos class role format involve the following 3 things.

1. Prohibit multi role selection in group finder.
"But i can perform mutliple roles!" Tough ***.

2. Implement a certification system wherein before you are allowed to queue for a given role you have to complete a mini solo trial designed specifically around each of the 3 roles which unlocks the option for said role on that character per difficulty
This only solves the issue of having ill equiped players end up in a group not doong their role adequately and does nothing to stop experienced players clearing the trials and still queuing for an expedient GF pop which is what the vote kick option is for.

3. create an actual desired incentive for players to queue as less popular roles such as tank
This also requires dugneons be made to have absolute tank and healer checks but that is a whole other can of worms and a very real issue with cp and power creep.

Adding any unique role buffs is a complete dead end and would only serve to make vet dungeons even easier.

For #1, if someone passed the qualifications for #2 on both roles would it matter? I wouldn't be bothered either way, just curious.

For #2, this has been brought up multiple times with no traction. And that was just an idea for optional training scenario run by the Undaunted. Anyway, the type of limitation you mentioned is why I suggested the temporary lock-out. If multiple groups kick you specifically for being a fake, you've very likely been queuing as a fake hence the temporary role lockout as a consequence.

For #3, buff doesn't have to mean waaaay more powerful, I'm using here to mean something that makes playing a role in PvE instanced content different, as in more fun and unique. Instances should always be reviewed and if necessary rebalanced any time there are major combat changes so that would be part of the package. Essentially it would be like a PVE version of battlespirit, which could raise or lower effectiveness accordingly and even act as an antitode to nerfs that originate due to PvP tactics.

exeeter702 wrote: »

The only practical solution that would be applicable to esos class role format involve the following 3 things.

1. Prohibit multi role selection in group finder.
"But i can perform mutliple roles!" Tough ***.

2. Implement a certification system wherein before you are allowed to queue for a given role you have to complete a mini solo trial designed specifically around each of the 3 roles which unlocks the option for said role on that character per difficulty
This only solves the issue of having ill equiped players end up in a group not doong their role adequately and does nothing to stop experienced players clearing the trials and still queuing for an expedient GF pop which is what the vote kick option is for.

3. create an actual desired incentive for players to queue as less popular roles such as tank
This also requires dugneons be made to have absolute tank and healer checks but that is a whole other can of worms and a very real issue with cp and power creep.

Adding any unique role buffs is a complete dead end and would only serve to make vet dungeons even easier.

1. Already exists.
2. ZOS seems to have no interest, sadly.
3. The reward for queueing as a tank or healer is the really short queue. Unfortunately, the punishment is all too often getting really bad DDs.

#2 would be excellent, if ZOS were willing and could figure out how to do it, just as a training exercise. However, a test doesn't account for people changing their builds. A DD who wants to fake tank could easily test as a tank, then swap to their DD build and queue as a tank.

VaranisArano wrote: »

Its a different take on how to make dungeons work. However, as a tank who's mostly satisfied with the status quo, and a sometime healer who's still mostly satisfied with the status quo...

I'm not feeling the lack of variety.

Like, as a tank in group dungeons, I'm already building to stay alive, hold boss aggro, crowd control enemies, and buff the group. I'm choosing which skills I want to use to accomplish that - my MagDK does that job very differently from my MagBlade or my Stam Sorc tank.

Sure. I acknowledged some folks would be OK with the status quo, but even so, things can be better. So, for those who see some parts of tank or healer as "boring" or "inadequate", I'd expect their wish-list to drive hard into those concerns. For those who kind of like things as they are, I'd expect to see more of an enhancement or progression of what the current system already offers. So there aren't really "good" or "bad" answers to those being good sports on the "What if..." question.

VaranisArano wrote: »

That being said, the stances are an interesting idea. Unless I'm misunderstanding your suggestion of stances, instead of building to fill the role of tank how I want to fill it, I'd get unspecified "tank buffs" that strengthen me, strengthen the group, or give different options for taunts.

I guess I've got a few questions for how this would work.

1. How does this benefit someone who's prepared with an actual tank build, who already has a taunt and a rotation of CC's and buffs to use? It sounds like I'd get duplicates of what I already have or stuff that risks unbalancing the tank role in terms of crowd control rotation and speed of taunting.

2. When do we find out what buffs we get so we can prepare ahead of time? I'm not going to make my random group wait on me while I change my skills around to take advantage of light attacks taunting, for example.

Yeah, I've thought up some good, bad, and ugly ways to address some of the instanced PvE role issues like:

• nerfing PvE because of PvP imbalance
• not enough people interested in tanking
• people unhappy with being limited to sword and board or ice staff
• people mad that ice staff has to be a tank tool vs those who like it as a tank tool
• etc.

So the "What if...?" part is wide open. The only really fixed part of this thread is basically, "Characters who queue as role X will be altered in some way for the duration of the activity." (Highlighted for skimmers.) The most appropriate MMORPG term to fit that description I could think of was "stance". Now, in my mind it works like a PVE version of PVP's battlespirit effect, but based on your role. The details are what I'm asking other people for. I mean I gave some generic examples, but they were just that, generic examples.

In terms of "building for a role", yes. The better you build for it, the better off you and your party will be in my own opening version of what a stance could be. The stance might help weaker builds a bit, but if you don't have some kind of mitigation like heavy armor or spell-shield stacking, etc., then you are still going to have a hard time tanking. But that said, let's say you don't want to be limited to one-hand and shield. It would still be the premier option, but maybe the tank stance would help make other weapons viable (but not BiS) for tanking and do so without screwing up the skill line of those other weapons. In my own mind, the stance wouldn't so much over-buff an already great build for a role, it would:

• increase the options available for the role
• help players learning the role
• make the role feel more unique/expanded

But that's just part of *my* answer to the "What if...?" I posed. It's not the entire point of the thread or the only option available for consideration.

To answer #1, as I just mentioned, my initial specific examples (like increasing range or duration of crowd control) were just tossed out to give something to start with, not intended as long-thought out and balanced suggestions. Though I suppose ZOS could counter-balance that. I've found it's better to give concrete examples, even just throw-away ones off the top of my head, to get conversation started. Ever notice that people online love to tell you your example is bad and that if you really wanted to try a particular idea you should do it this other way instead? So I'm not wedded to those particular "maybes".

The stance idea doesn't have to be huge or sweeping. As mentioned, the best analogy is a PvE battlespirit. The whole point of battlespirit for PvP (as you know) was that the way some things worked were too strong or weak in Cyrodiil for the kind of outcomes desired, so a separate PvP balance was instituted so that the devs didn't have to make completely separate skill lines just for PvP-only or massive changes in the functioning of each individual active and passive skill split between PvP and PvE. Here, the idea is similar to battlespirit but role-focused.

Which means, then, your armor is still your armor. Your abilities your abilities. But consider, not just battlespirit, but set bonuses. I mean, technically, they can affect your existing abilities, yes? But they don't inherently change those abilities just alter their effectiveness. The way I would build a stance, strong tank builds wouldn't be over-buffed, as anything that would involve say, mitigation, could scale or have a cap to help weaker builds but only to a point. And that's only *if* increased mitigation were part of the tank stance rather than just leaving it armor and set bonuses as they are now. Everything is on the table at the moment for speculation, but nothing has to *stay* on the table.

To answer #2, again, this is wide open to suggestion. My own thought at the moment is that it would be fixed. Like, "Oh, I'm queuing for tank so the following will apply to this character for the duration of the activity." Just like when I go to Cyro, IC, or BGs I know the following list of X, Y, and Z will apply to my character for the duration of that activity. This also gives ZOS a way to address the complaints of "PVP ruins PVE..." if they are interested in pursuing it, though only to a certain degree before the two sides would become too divergent. In any case, again, for the purposes of this thread the actual answer is, "Whatever you want it to be" not just what I am mulling over personally.

VaranisArano wrote: »

If I were to actually look at what it would take for this to work for me, I would take a page from Warframe's Arbitrations. There, you find out what the buff or "stance" effect is ahead of time before you queue, so you can plan your build appropriately. I'd be willing to adjust my tank builds for some more variety IF I have the chance to know the current buff/effect going in. If I show up in a random dungeon with a random buff that I don't know about until I get there, forget it - I'll just carry on with my regular tank build. I don't like the idea of "I'll just show up in a random build and hope the game gives me a buff that will let me muddle through as a "tank".

In short, if ZOS ever seriously looks at this idea, I'd want to see the current buff before I queued up, that way I can actually change my build to take advantage of it.

Sure, I get what you're saying, and this is great. I started looking at the stance idea as a way to help new players/players new to roles as well as address existing player complaints and concerns, but you have come up with a very different notion. Which is awesome! That's kind of the point. What would you want?

Your answer is no better or worse than mine in terms of the spirit of this thread, and it reminds me a bit of Mythic Plus affixes in WoW, though those affect mobs not players. So basically an optional set of affects on the player that could change over for different seasons or even just between each run. Is that it?

exeeter702 wrote: »

The only practical solution that would be applicable to esos class role format involve the following 3 things.

1. Prohibit multi role selection in group finder.
"But i can perform mutliple roles!" Tough ***.

2. Implement a certification system wherein before you are allowed to queue for a given role you have to complete a mini solo trial designed specifically around each of the 3 roles which unlocks the option for said role on that character per difficulty
This only solves the issue of having ill equiped players end up in a group not doong their role adequately and does nothing to stop experienced players clearing the trials and still queuing for an expedient GF pop which is what the vote kick option is for.

3. create an actual desired incentive for players to queue as less popular roles such as tank
This also requires dugneons be made to have absolute tank and healer checks but that is a whole other can of worms and a very real issue with cp and power creep.

Adding any unique role buffs is a complete dead end and would only serve to make vet dungeons even easier.

There was a game that actually did apply #2...cant think of the name now but I do remember that you had to "try out" for the roles selected…...

VaranisArano wrote: »

tinythinker wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Its a different take on how to make dungeons work. However, as a tank who's mostly satisfied with the status quo, and a sometime healer who's still mostly satisfied with the status quo...

I'm not feeling the lack of variety.

Like, as a tank in group dungeons, I'm already building to stay alive, hold boss aggro, crowd control enemies, and buff the group. I'm choosing which skills I want to use to accomplish that - my MagDK does that job very differently from my MagBlade or my Stam Sorc tank.

Sure. I acknowledged some folks would be OK with the status quo, but even so, things can be better. So, for those who see some parts of tank or healer as "boring" or "inadequate", I'd expect their wish-list to drive hard into those concerns. For those who kind of like things as they are, I'd expect to see more of an enhancement or progression of what the current system already offers. So there aren't really "good" or "bad" answers to those being good sports on the "What if..." question.

VaranisArano wrote: »

That being said, the stances are an interesting idea. Unless I'm misunderstanding your suggestion of stances, instead of building to fill the role of tank how I want to fill it, I'd get unspecified "tank buffs" that strengthen me, strengthen the group, or give different options for taunts.

I guess I've got a few questions for how this would work.

1. How does this benefit someone who's prepared with an actual tank build, who already has a taunt and a rotation of CC's and buffs to use? It sounds like I'd get duplicates of what I already have or stuff that risks unbalancing the tank role in terms of crowd control rotation and speed of taunting.

2. When do we find out what buffs we get so we can prepare ahead of time? I'm not going to make my random group wait on me while I change my skills around to take advantage of light attacks taunting, for example.

Yeah, I've thought up some good, bad, and ugly ways to address some of the instanced PvE role issues like:

• nerfing PvE because of PvP imbalance
• not enough people interested in tanking
• people unhappy with being limited to sword and board or ice staff
• people mad that ice staff has to be a tank tool vs those who like it as a tank tool
• etc.

So the "What if...?" part is wide open. The only really fixed part of this thread is basically, "Characters who queue as role X will be altered in some way for the duration of the activity." (Highlighted for skimmers.) The most appropriate MMORPG term to fit that description I could think of was "stance". Now, in my mind it works like a PVE version of PVP's battlespirit effect, but based on your role. The details are what I'm asking other people for. I mean I gave some generic examples, but they were just that, generic examples.

In terms of "building for a role", yes. The better you build for it, the better off you and your party will be in my own opening version of what a stance could be. The stance might help weaker builds a bit, but if you don't have some kind of mitigation like heavy armor or spell-shield stacking, etc., then you are still going to have a hard time tanking. But that said, let's say you don't want to be limited to one-hand and shield. It would still be the premier option, but maybe the tank stance would help make other weapons viable (but not BiS) for tanking and do so without screwing up the skill line of those other weapons. In my own mind, the stance wouldn't so much over-buff an already great build for a role, it would:

• increase the options available for the role
• help players learning the role
• make the role feel more unique/expanded

But that's just part of *my* answer to the "What if...?" I posed. It's not the entire point of the thread or the only option available for consideration.

To answer #1, as I just mentioned, my initial specific examples (like increasing range or duration of crowd control) were just tossed out to give something to start with, not intended as long-thought out and balanced suggestions. Though I suppose ZOS could counter-balance that. I've found it's better to give concrete examples, even just throw-away ones off the top of my head, to get conversation started. Ever notice that people online love to tell you your example is bad and that if you really wanted to try a particular idea you should do it this other way instead? So I'm not wedded to those particular "maybes".

The stance idea doesn't have to be huge or sweeping. As mentioned, the best analogy is a PvE battlespirit. The whole point of battlespirit for PvP (as you know) was that the way some things worked were too strong or weak in Cyrodiil for the kind of outcomes desired, so a separate PvP balance was instituted so that the devs didn't have to make completely separate skill lines just for PvP-only or massive changes in the functioning of each individual active and passive skill split between PvP and PvE. Here, the idea is similar to battlespirit but role-focused.

Which means, then, your armor is still your armor. Your abilities your abilities. But consider, not just battlespirit, but set bonuses. I mean, technically, they can affect your existing abilities, yes? But they don't inherently change those abilities just alter their effectiveness. The way I would build a stance, strong tank builds wouldn't be over-buffed, as anything that would involve say, mitigation, could scale or have a cap to help weaker builds but only to a point. And that's only *if* increased mitigation were part of the tank stance rather than just leaving it armor and set bonuses as they are now. Everything is on the table at the moment for speculation, but nothing has to *stay* on the table.

To answer #2, again, this is wide open to suggestion. My own thought at the moment is that it would be fixed. Like, "Oh, I'm queuing for tank so the following will apply to this character for the duration of the activity." Just like when I go to Cyro, IC, or BGs I know the following list of X, Y, and Z will apply to my character for the duration of that activity. This also gives ZOS a way to address the complaints of "PVP ruins PVE..." if they are interested in pursuing it, though only to a certain degree before the two sides would become too divergent. In any case, again, for the purposes of this thread the actual answer is, "Whatever you want it to be" not just what I am mulling over personally.

VaranisArano wrote: »

If I were to actually look at what it would take for this to work for me, I would take a page from Warframe's Arbitrations. There, you find out what the buff or "stance" effect is ahead of time before you queue, so you can plan your build appropriately. I'd be willing to adjust my tank builds for some more variety IF I have the chance to know the current buff/effect going in. If I show up in a random dungeon with a random buff that I don't know about until I get there, forget it - I'll just carry on with my regular tank build. I don't like the idea of "I'll just show up in a random build and hope the game gives me a buff that will let me muddle through as a "tank".

In short, if ZOS ever seriously looks at this idea, I'd want to see the current buff before I queued up, that way I can actually change my build to take advantage of it.

Sure, I get what you're saying, and this is great. I started looking at the stance idea as a way to help new players/players new to roles as well as address existing player complaints and concerns, but you have come up with a very different notion. Which is awesome! That's kind of the point. What would you want?

Your answer is no better or worse than mine in terms of the spirit of this thread, and it reminds me a bit of Mythic Plus affixes in WoW, though those affect mobs not players. So basically an optional set of affects on the player that could change over for different seasons or even just between each run. Is that it?

Its interesting in a vague "What If?" way.

I struggle a little with the viability of the PVE Battlespirit idea. That's because:
A. Random groups already have something similar for using groupfinder, though its a minor buff and not role specific.

B. ZOS uses PVP Battlespirit rather more minimally than you might expect. Many players want ZOS to use it for more PVP situations/nerfs, and they don't. That's largely because ZOS doesnt want huge differences in skill performance in different areas of the game, so Battlespirit mostly does extra health, half damage, half heals, and some skills get lesser versions of what they do to NPCs.

So its certainly possible for ZOS to change that random group buff to fit your vision...if they are willing to commit to skills acting differently in groups than they do elsewhere in the game. Given their reluctance to use Battlespirit to implement PVP specific changes, I think that's a big IF.

Well, I'm using that term (Battlespirit) because it's the closest thing currently in the game. I don't want to imply a PVE stance would be a mirror image or clone of the actual PVP Battlespirit. The upside of the comparison is that it gets people *closer* to what I'm trying to say, the downside is that if taken too strongly it can overshoot the mark. Same with trying to throw out concrete examples, which can facilitate discussion but also introduce an undesired/biased understanding of what was intended. That's why I also tossed in gear set bonuses. Not to suggest this is equivalent to my thoughts on a stance either, but to indicate the scope and scale I would think might be acceptable for altering ability performance (i.e. duration; range; cost; secondary effect on targets, caster, or allies; etc.).

To reiterate I'm not suggesting major changes to the performance of abilities, and indeed, altering ability performance is only one possible mode for a stance effect. It's certainly going to be in the mix for any hypothetical discussion, but I agree with you and IDK that if role stances were to lead to parallel development or balancing of abilities it would get into an area that ZOS has tried to avoid. Still, for that mode, I think having it be consistent and role-specific as well as generic (rather thing singling out particular, individual abilities) would limit the movement toward such a two-track system. I think where the biggest danger lies is whether stances could be used to give some separation for some role-specific nerfs between PVP and PVE, but I would be remiss to not at least mention that potential use for stances given how many complaints are received on the issue.

Yet even if any and all altering of ability performance options were completely taken off the table (e.g., "healing spells have a chance to..."), rather than just those options that might lead to a PvP vs PVE schism, that still leaves room for other aspects of stances. To name a few:

• any buff or debuff currently in the game
• new buffs or debuffs added to the game in the future, whether exclusive to or non-exclusive to stances
• behavior or performance of weapons (such as prior example of letting other weapons taunt in some way)
• alteration of visual or sound effects of characters or of player actions
• toggled option for role-specific tips to help players learn as they are playing live in a group setting

The first two could be implemented in a number of ways, such as your character's proximity to other players or enemies, etc. Almost like a mini-game. Or it could just be, "You get this buff." I don't want to take up a lot of space going through the possibilities for each, though. In fact, by even giving that small list it kind of further cements the thread as "tiny's vision = the idea of role stances when queuing for PVE instance groups", which then limits other people's contributions, such as your idea inspired by Warframe.

idk wrote: »

tinythinker wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

tinythinker wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Its a different take on how to make dungeons work. However, as a tank who's mostly satisfied with the status quo, and a sometime healer who's still mostly satisfied with the status quo...

I'm not feeling the lack of variety.

Like, as a tank in group dungeons, I'm already building to stay alive, hold boss aggro, crowd control enemies, and buff the group. I'm choosing which skills I want to use to accomplish that - my MagDK does that job very differently from my MagBlade or my Stam Sorc tank.

Sure. I acknowledged some folks would be OK with the status quo, but even so, things can be better. So, for those who see some parts of tank or healer as "boring" or "inadequate", I'd expect their wish-list to drive hard into those concerns. For those who kind of like things as they are, I'd expect to see more of an enhancement or progression of what the current system already offers. So there aren't really "good" or "bad" answers to those being good sports on the "What if..." question.

VaranisArano wrote: »

That being said, the stances are an interesting idea. Unless I'm misunderstanding your suggestion of stances, instead of building to fill the role of tank how I want to fill it, I'd get unspecified "tank buffs" that strengthen me, strengthen the group, or give different options for taunts.

I guess I've got a few questions for how this would work.

1. How does this benefit someone who's prepared with an actual tank build, who already has a taunt and a rotation of CC's and buffs to use? It sounds like I'd get duplicates of what I already have or stuff that risks unbalancing the tank role in terms of crowd control rotation and speed of taunting.

2. When do we find out what buffs we get so we can prepare ahead of time? I'm not going to make my random group wait on me while I change my skills around to take advantage of light attacks taunting, for example.

Yeah, I've thought up some good, bad, and ugly ways to address some of the instanced PvE role issues like:

• nerfing PvE because of PvP imbalance
• not enough people interested in tanking
• people unhappy with being limited to sword and board or ice staff
• people mad that ice staff has to be a tank tool vs those who like it as a tank tool
• etc.

So the "What if...?" part is wide open. The only really fixed part of this thread is basically, "Characters who queue as role X will be altered in some way for the duration of the activity." (Highlighted for skimmers.) The most appropriate MMORPG term to fit that description I could think of was "stance". Now, in my mind it works like a PVE version of PVP's battlespirit effect, but based on your role. The details are what I'm asking other people for. I mean I gave some generic examples, but they were just that, generic examples.

In terms of "building for a role", yes. The better you build for it, the better off you and your party will be in my own opening version of what a stance could be. The stance might help weaker builds a bit, but if you don't have some kind of mitigation like heavy armor or spell-shield stacking, etc., then you are still going to have a hard time tanking. But that said, let's say you don't want to be limited to one-hand and shield. It would still be the premier option, but maybe the tank stance would help make other weapons viable (but not BiS) for tanking and do so without screwing up the skill line of those other weapons. In my own mind, the stance wouldn't so much over-buff an already great build for a role, it would:

• increase the options available for the role
• help players learning the role
• make the role feel more unique/expanded

But that's just part of *my* answer to the "What if...?" I posed. It's not the entire point of the thread or the only option available for consideration.

To answer #1, as I just mentioned, my initial specific examples (like increasing range or duration of crowd control) were just tossed out to give something to start with, not intended as long-thought out and balanced suggestions. Though I suppose ZOS could counter-balance that. I've found it's better to give concrete examples, even just throw-away ones off the top of my head, to get conversation started. Ever notice that people online love to tell you your example is bad and that if you really wanted to try a particular idea you should do it this other way instead? So I'm not wedded to those particular "maybes".

The stance idea doesn't have to be huge or sweeping. As mentioned, the best analogy is a PvE battlespirit. The whole point of battlespirit for PvP (as you know) was that the way some things worked were too strong or weak in Cyrodiil for the kind of outcomes desired, so a separate PvP balance was instituted so that the devs didn't have to make completely separate skill lines just for PvP-only or massive changes in the functioning of each individual active and passive skill split between PvP and PvE. Here, the idea is similar to battlespirit but role-focused.

Which means, then, your armor is still your armor. Your abilities your abilities. But consider, not just battlespirit, but set bonuses. I mean, technically, they can affect your existing abilities, yes? But they don't inherently change those abilities just alter their effectiveness. The way I would build a stance, strong tank builds wouldn't be over-buffed, as anything that would involve say, mitigation, could scale or have a cap to help weaker builds but only to a point. And that's only *if* increased mitigation were part of the tank stance rather than just leaving it armor and set bonuses as they are now. Everything is on the table at the moment for speculation, but nothing has to *stay* on the table.

To answer #2, again, this is wide open to suggestion. My own thought at the moment is that it would be fixed. Like, "Oh, I'm queuing for tank so the following will apply to this character for the duration of the activity." Just like when I go to Cyro, IC, or BGs I know the following list of X, Y, and Z will apply to my character for the duration of that activity. This also gives ZOS a way to address the complaints of "PVP ruins PVE..." if they are interested in pursuing it, though only to a certain degree before the two sides would become too divergent. In any case, again, for the purposes of this thread the actual answer is, "Whatever you want it to be" not just what I am mulling over personally.

VaranisArano wrote: »

If I were to actually look at what it would take for this to work for me, I would take a page from Warframe's Arbitrations. There, you find out what the buff or "stance" effect is ahead of time before you queue, so you can plan your build appropriately. I'd be willing to adjust my tank builds for some more variety IF I have the chance to know the current buff/effect going in. If I show up in a random dungeon with a random buff that I don't know about until I get there, forget it - I'll just carry on with my regular tank build. I don't like the idea of "I'll just show up in a random build and hope the game gives me a buff that will let me muddle through as a "tank".

In short, if ZOS ever seriously looks at this idea, I'd want to see the current buff before I queued up, that way I can actually change my build to take advantage of it.

Sure, I get what you're saying, and this is great. I started looking at the stance idea as a way to help new players/players new to roles as well as address existing player complaints and concerns, but you have come up with a very different notion. Which is awesome! That's kind of the point. What would you want?

Your answer is no better or worse than mine in terms of the spirit of this thread, and it reminds me a bit of Mythic Plus affixes in WoW, though those affect mobs not players. So basically an optional set of affects on the player that could change over for different seasons or even just between each run. Is that it?

Its interesting in a vague "What If?" way.

I struggle a little with the viability of the PVE Battlespirit idea. That's because:
A. Random groups already have something similar for using groupfinder, though its a minor buff and not role specific.

B. ZOS uses PVP Battlespirit rather more minimally than you might expect. Many players want ZOS to use it for more PVP situations/nerfs, and they don't. That's largely because ZOS doesnt want huge differences in skill performance in different areas of the game, so Battlespirit mostly does extra health, half damage, half heals, and some skills get lesser versions of what they do to NPCs.

So its certainly possible for ZOS to change that random group buff to fit your vision...if they are willing to commit to skills acting differently in groups than they do elsewhere in the game. Given their reluctance to use Battlespirit to implement PVP specific changes, I think that's a big IF.

To reiterate I'm not suggesting major changes to the performance of abilities, and indeed,

Actually you are. You are suggesting the skills perform differently based on "stance". You are suggesting skills be programed to work 3 different ways. Per base skill plus their morphs that is a potential increase skills per class from 45 to 135. Per weapon it would go from 15 to 45 skills Zos now needs to manage.

I've clarified more than enough already.

"Altering ability performance" has a wide range of potential implications and applications. You are focusing on a few to make your reply. Do you consider a new set that has the effect "there is a 10% chance for a healing spell to also give a small buff to the target" to be a major change to the performing of abilities? Or perhaps "area of effect abilities have duration increased by 2 seconds" to be a major change to the performance of abilities? These are examples of things that could be added per stance, they alter ability performance, but I don't consider them a case of "skills programmed to work three different ways" that require "a complete work of the game". Can there be things added under stances that would have absolutely that effect on combat design and development? Yes, of course. So raising that is fair and appreciated.

For example, I said one way stances could be used would be to temper the schism between the PVE and PVP crowd, yet I specifically acknowledge that this would be hard to pull off without veering into a parallel development system. Still, I mentioned it because technically it *is* a way stances could be used, regardless of whether ZOS would implement it. And some people have asked for it. So in a speculative thread about what players might want to see it needs to be included. It's fair game in a what-if thought experiment. Yet I've also mentioned other modes for stance effects that have nothing at all to do with affecting abilities beyond generic buffs, and even some modes for stances that don't do anything to any kind of ability at all.

Beyond that, I've made it clear this thread isn't just about my ideas; that the thread is about anyone's preferences for what could be added under the heading of "temporary effect while queued for a particular role", which is extraordinarily broad. It's a "What if..." thread for speculation, which some people actually find fun just to explore possibilities. And even though such discussions start one place they may go somewhere else. Like when someone mentioned a system from Warframe.

I already addressed all of this, and things like why I referenced Battlespirit, the limitations of analogies, etc., but I dunno, maybe you skipped that part? Or maybe you are just cherry picking or really worked up over a particular implication for stances like a possible major split in PVE vs. PVP development? If that is your only concern, and it is a valid concern, you've mentioned it three times now so consider your feedback officially acknowledged by the person who wrote the original post

BTW, completely off topic, but I've noticed you are also on the "Asking ZOS about the framework/taxonomy/over-aching scheme for class development and balance" bandwagon. Given the staffing shakeup, I would understand if the answer was "that's under development", but I think ZOS telling us they have or are creating such a vision for classes & combat (or even why they think making one is a bad idea) would be a great gesture. I can see it both ways - some degree of standardization and restriction is necessary, but too much can hurt creativity. But my gut tells me we won't be hearing much about any "big picture" for a while.

RebornV3x wrote: »

This thread is all over the place I don't even know where to begin

Don't worry about it. I tried to list some possibilities people might be interested in as discussion starters, but those are irrelevant. They are just there to open things up, but sometimes people get hung up on the potential examples rather than theme.

The entire point is this: If it were the case that a player received some type of effect (any at all) for queuing for a particular role in a PVE activity, what would you like it to be?

That's it. That's the thread. People are encouraged to answer the question with whatever they prefer. You can ignore everything else

I'd like for people to get some actual in game tutorials on light attack weaving, bar swap canceling, and everything else that makes the combat in this game fun.

If I'm 4 dps-ing nCoA I to help my Mom and my Grandma get some BSW I don't want to get saddled with weird Battle Spirit style changes I don't get to swap out of. I don't want the only other option to be manually entering mostly because I'm lazy trash.
On vDLC dungeons usually the first boss is a good check for "Can the PUG complete this as currently made". Even if the PUGs had done the dungeon before that doesn't mean they weren't carried a little bit and you can get 3-4 people in that situation. It's kinder to everyone to kindly explain that the group as is probably can't do the content and leaving. No need to be a jerk and you never know what people are dealing with even if you think they should just "git gud". Neither is struggling fruitlessly fun if those PUGs could get carried by a different PUG. Nothing wrong with a lil bit of carrying.