willjones1122 wrote: »For those saying this is an mmo, not a tes game you're leaving out three letters: rpg. I come from a D&D background. Racial bonuses have always been a thing in fantasy rpg. You pick your race based on the character you want to play... If that means playing against type then you live with that choice, and it can make for some very interesting rp/head cannon. If your not about rp, just play the race that gives you the bonus you want. None of the races have a "disadvantage"(i.e. none of them have reduced stats/abilities based on race like you do in some rpgs including TES games) just different strengths based on racial evolution/disposition and lore.
The problem is that (whether they want to call it an MMO, or not) this is a multiplayer game, not a single player game, so it should be designed accordingly.
If they can perfectly balance racials and make them apply equally to all classes and builds, then fair enough, but they are not currently doing that.
Solo RPGs are very different from multiplayer RPGs, as you are (obviously) not competing against others.
While playing alone, you could select the "wrong" race for your chosen class/build, on purpose, in an attempt to make the game a bit harder once you know what you are doing, without harming your ability to compete.
So, even though I don't really like racials for other reasons, I have to admit that they might actually add to the flexibility of gameplay in a single player game.
You could achieve that same effect by allowing people to choose certain strengths, on an individual level, as opposed to on a racial level.
But still, the fact remains that racials are one way of allowing people to build for, or against, type when they are playing alone.
Whereas, you can't (or shouldn't) just leave balance to chance, in a multiplayer game, because most people will feel forced to optimise, in a way they wouldn't when playing alone.
Meaning racials typically remove choice and flexibility, more than they add to it, in a multiplayer game like ESO.
Assuming you are playing it as a multiplayer, as opposed to purely as a solo RPG, of course.
Which you have to assume most people are, as it is not marketed as a solo player game and there is a lot of group content.
If you are going to have different races then they need to be different. And not just in a cosmetic way. At the very extreme end, this will be reflected in a race’s suitability for particular classes and roles. And that’s a good thing.
However, for almost every player any effects race choice may have will be obliterated by actual game playing skill. So a top player will be able to make any race perform well in any class or role, while an average player will find it hard to make even the most min/maxed character perform even moderately well.
UGotBenched91 wrote: »If you are going to have different races then they need to be different. And not just in a cosmetic way. At the very extreme end, this will be reflected in a race’s suitability for particular classes and roles. And that’s a good thing.
However, for almost every player any effects race choice may have will be obliterated by actual game playing skill. So a top player will be able to make any race perform well in any class or role, while an average player will find it hard to make even the most min/maxed character perform even moderately well.
Yeah I guess this poll was poorly worded. I don’t mind racial skills but I don’t like how they are done in this game. It would be nice if each race had different stats toward Stam and Magicka that way you would see more races like Orc being Magicka and vice versa. But, I know that’s not following lore.
willjones1122 wrote: »willjones1122 wrote: »For those saying this is an mmo, not a tes game you're leaving out three letters: rpg. I come from a D&D background. Racial bonuses have always been a thing in fantasy rpg. You pick your race based on the character you want to play... If that means playing against type then you live with that choice, and it can make for some very interesting rp/head cannon. If your not about rp, just play the race that gives you the bonus you want. None of the races have a "disadvantage"(i.e. none of them have reduced stats/abilities based on race like you do in some rpgs including TES games) just different strengths based on racial evolution/disposition and lore.
The problem is that (whether they want to call it an MMO, or not) this is a multiplayer game, not a single player game, so it should be designed accordingly.
If they can perfectly balance racials and make them apply equally to all classes and builds, then fair enough, but they are not currently doing that.
Solo RPGs are very different from multiplayer RPGs, as you are (obviously) not competing against others.
While playing alone, you could select the "wrong" race for your chosen class/build, on purpose, in an attempt to make the game a bit harder once you know what you are doing, without harming your ability to compete.
So, even though I don't really like racials for other reasons, I have to admit that they might actually add to the flexibility of gameplay in a single player game.
You could achieve that same effect by allowing people to choose certain strengths, on an individual level, as opposed to on a racial level.
But still, the fact remains that racials are one way of allowing people to build for, or against, type when they are playing alone.
Whereas, you can't (or shouldn't) just leave balance to chance, in a multiplayer game, because most people will feel forced to optimise, in a way they wouldn't when playing alone.
Meaning racials typically remove choice and flexibility, more than they add to it, in a multiplayer game like ESO.
Assuming you are playing it as a multiplayer, as opposed to purely as a solo RPG, of course.
Which you have to assume most people are, as it is not marketed as a solo player game and there is a lot of group content.
I'm not seeing your point. If you're playing it for competition then you pick the race that's BiS, just like gear and skills. Your not asking for all gear and skills to be exactly the same, why ask for races? If your playing it as an rpg and not trying to push scoreboards... pick the race you want. The difference in numbers won't be a pass/fail for endgame content.
If you are going to have different races then they need to be different. And not just in a cosmetic way. At the very extreme end, this will be reflected in a race’s suitability for particular classes and roles. And that’s a good thing.
However, for almost every player any effects race choice may have will be obliterated by actual game playing skill. So a top player will be able to make any race perform well in any class or role, while an average player will find it hard to make even the most min/maxed character perform even moderately well.
willjones1122 wrote: »willjones1122 wrote: »For those saying this is an mmo, not a tes game you're leaving out three letters: rpg. I come from a D&D background. Racial bonuses have always been a thing in fantasy rpg. You pick your race based on the character you want to play... If that means playing against type then you live with that choice, and it can make for some very interesting rp/head cannon. If your not about rp, just play the race that gives you the bonus you want. None of the races have a "disadvantage"(i.e. none of them have reduced stats/abilities based on race like you do in some rpgs including TES games) just different strengths based on racial evolution/disposition and lore.
The problem is that (whether they want to call it an MMO, or not) this is a multiplayer game, not a single player game, so it should be designed accordingly.
If they can perfectly balance racials and make them apply equally to all classes and builds, then fair enough, but they are not currently doing that.
Solo RPGs are very different from multiplayer RPGs, as you are (obviously) not competing against others.
While playing alone, you could select the "wrong" race for your chosen class/build, on purpose, in an attempt to make the game a bit harder once you know what you are doing, without harming your ability to compete.
So, even though I don't really like racials for other reasons, I have to admit that they might actually add to the flexibility of gameplay in a single player game.
You could achieve that same effect by allowing people to choose certain strengths, on an individual level, as opposed to on a racial level.
But still, the fact remains that racials are one way of allowing people to build for, or against, type when they are playing alone.
Whereas, you can't (or shouldn't) just leave balance to chance, in a multiplayer game, because most people will feel forced to optimise, in a way they wouldn't when playing alone.
Meaning racials typically remove choice and flexibility, more than they add to it, in a multiplayer game like ESO.
Assuming you are playing it as a multiplayer, as opposed to purely as a solo RPG, of course.
Which you have to assume most people are, as it is not marketed as a solo player game and there is a lot of group content.
I'm not seeing your point. If you're playing it for competition then you pick the race that's BiS, just like gear and skills. Your not asking for all gear and skills to be exactly the same, why ask for races? If your playing it as an rpg and not trying to push scoreboards... pick the race you want. The difference in numbers won't be a pass/fail for endgame content.
My point is that min/maxers will always feel obliged to choose the best race/class/build combo.
That means that they are left with only one optimal "choice" per class/build.
Maybe you don't think they need to do that do that, but they think they do.
You don't need to ask for all gear and skills to be exactly the same.
As, assuming they are properly balanced (and let's not get into that can of worms, here!), people can generally choose which ones they prefer, without then having another "choice" effectively decided for them, if they want to optimise.
It's really not rocket science...
Racials reduce choice, for people who like/feel obliged to optimise and therefore, make for a more boring multiplayer game for all of us.
As it is more interesting to see a wide variety of race/class/build combos, rather than the same ones almost all the time (especially at endgame).
UGotBenched91 wrote: »If you are going to have different races then they need to be different. And not just in a cosmetic way. At the very extreme end, this will be reflected in a race’s suitability for particular classes and roles. And that’s a good thing.
However, for almost every player any effects race choice may have will be obliterated by actual game playing skill. So a top player will be able to make any race perform well in any class or role, while an average player will find it hard to make even the most min/maxed character perform even moderately well.
Yeah I guess this poll was poorly worded. I don’t mind racial skills but I don’t like how they are done in this game. It would be nice if each race had different stats toward Stam and Magicka that way you would see more races like Orc being Magicka and vice versa. But, I know that’s not following lore.
I agree the poll is poorly worded, I would like passives IF there were done correctly. But if you compare the current passives to the ones in just skyrim there are so different.
Orcs went from a heavy armor wearing "tanky" race to being a medium armor dps race. And Nords went in the opposite direction.
Bosmers and Argonians now have the wrong resistances. And Bosmers are no longer stealthy?
It's just frustrating the racial passives are not correct as it seems so easy to get them right. I don't understand why more thought was not put into them.
UGotBenched91 wrote: »UGotBenched91 wrote: »If you are going to have different races then they need to be different. And not just in a cosmetic way. At the very extreme end, this will be reflected in a race’s suitability for particular classes and roles. And that’s a good thing.
However, for almost every player any effects race choice may have will be obliterated by actual game playing skill. So a top player will be able to make any race perform well in any class or role, while an average player will find it hard to make even the most min/maxed character perform even moderately well.
Yeah I guess this poll was poorly worded. I don’t mind racial skills but I don’t like how they are done in this game. It would be nice if each race had different stats toward Stam and Magicka that way you would see more races like Orc being Magicka and vice versa. But, I know that’s not following lore.
I agree the poll is poorly worded, I would like passives IF there were done correctly. But if you compare the current passives to the ones in just skyrim there are so different.
Orcs went from a heavy armor wearing "tanky" race to being a medium armor dps race. And Nords went in the opposite direction.
Bosmers and Argonians now have the wrong resistances. And Bosmers are no longer stealthy?
It's just frustrating the racial passives are not correct as it seems so easy to get them right. I don't understand why more thought was not put into them.
Love your polls too buddy 😘..
It does seem they were saying they like that particular racial passive.
I enjoy that the TES race has a purpose. Elves are known for their magical prowess and it is nice that is this is reflected in the game with passive that benefit Magicka ability with several Elven races. So many of us that like the race passives have reasons that are actually meaningful. Besides, the changes made last year do minimize the benefit of most of the passives making the choice less polarizing, less about being OP.
We all have our own opinions. I do suggest in this thread we be respectful of each other's opinions and not dismiss differing viewpoints on this subject.
Edit: The last paragraph is not a dig at the person I quoted. Just a general suggestion for all of us on such a subject.
If someone makes sense, I will respect their opinion, even if I disagree with it.
If they do not, I will challenge it.
As someone who irrationally challenged everything I said, throughout an entire thread of mine on tiger mounts, I don't really feel you are in a strong position to give advice re. being respectful of other people's viewpoints.
willjones1122 wrote: »willjones1122 wrote: »willjones1122 wrote: »For those saying this is an mmo, not a tes game you're leaving out three letters: rpg. I come from a D&D background. Racial bonuses have always been a thing in fantasy rpg. You pick your race based on the character you want to play... If that means playing against type then you live with that choice, and it can make for some very interesting rp/head cannon. If your not about rp, just play the race that gives you the bonus you want. None of the races have a "disadvantage"(i.e. none of them have reduced stats/abilities based on race like you do in some rpgs including TES games) just different strengths based on racial evolution/disposition and lore.
The problem is that (whether they want to call it an MMO, or not) this is a multiplayer game, not a single player game, so it should be designed accordingly.
If they can perfectly balance racials and make them apply equally to all classes and builds, then fair enough, but they are not currently doing that.
Solo RPGs are very different from multiplayer RPGs, as you are (obviously) not competing against others.
While playing alone, you could select the "wrong" race for your chosen class/build, on purpose, in an attempt to make the game a bit harder once you know what you are doing, without harming your ability to compete.
So, even though I don't really like racials for other reasons, I have to admit that they might actually add to the flexibility of gameplay in a single player game.
You could achieve that same effect by allowing people to choose certain strengths, on an individual level, as opposed to on a racial level.
But still, the fact remains that racials are one way of allowing people to build for, or against, type when they are playing alone.
Whereas, you can't (or shouldn't) just leave balance to chance, in a multiplayer game, because most people will feel forced to optimise, in a way they wouldn't when playing alone.
Meaning racials typically remove choice and flexibility, more than they add to it, in a multiplayer game like ESO.
Assuming you are playing it as a multiplayer, as opposed to purely as a solo RPG, of course.
Which you have to assume most people are, as it is not marketed as a solo player game and there is a lot of group content.
I'm not seeing your point. If you're playing it for competition then you pick the race that's BiS, just like gear and skills. Your not asking for all gear and skills to be exactly the same, why ask for races? If your playing it as an rpg and not trying to push scoreboards... pick the race you want. The difference in numbers won't be a pass/fail for endgame content.
My point is that min/maxers will always feel obliged to choose the best race/class/build combo.
That means that they are left with only one optimal "choice" per class/build.
Maybe you don't think they need to do that do that, but they think they do.
You don't need to ask for all gear and skills to be exactly the same.
As, assuming they are properly balanced (and let's not get into that can of worms, here!), people can generally choose which ones they prefer, without then having another "choice" effectively decided for them, if they want to optimise.
It's really not rocket science...
Racials reduce choice, for people who like/feel obliged to optimise and therefore, make for a more boring multiplayer game for all of us.
As it is more interesting to see a wide variety of race/class/build combos, rather than the same ones almost all the time (especially at endgame).
Ok let's try this a different way...
1. Remove all racial passives and everybody plays what ever race they think is pretty/interesting/whatever. So now the only diversity is appearance? The same dps builds will be the exact same at the competitive level with BiS gear/skills. The only difference is now you get to look like a cat instead of a lizard. That's not build diversity, that's a skin.
2. If we pick our passives as suggested then you get the same problem -people will pick the best passives for their build. They will be the same 3 or 4 skills for a stam build, the same 3 or 4 skills for mag build and then slap whatever skin of a race they want on the character. No diversity other than appearance.
3. Non combat racials only. This one is tricky... What's non combat? Orc movement bonus could be considered an advantage in pvp, so it'd have to go. Stealth is obviously combat related so it's gone. Ditto with stealth detection and any resistances. Can't improve alchemy/potions/poisons use. Food/drink buffs are gone. Could maybe get away with extra crafting xp, swim speed, and skill line xp since these don't directly affect combat but that's about it.
My point is: the only build diversity you are going to get are from players like myself who don't care what the meta is as long as they can complete content on a character we find interesting/fun. Because endgame competitors are going to min/max no matter what. They're looking for the best math possible. Nothing wrong with that, but that choice has consequences just like playing an orc magicka char. If we can live with our choice of having a "suboptimal" build for an interesting character shouldn't they be able to live with a "suboptimal" appearance for an optimal build?
willjones1122 wrote: »willjones1122 wrote: »willjones1122 wrote: »For those saying this is an mmo, not a tes game you're leaving out three letters: rpg. I come from a D&D background. Racial bonuses have always been a thing in fantasy rpg. You pick your race based on the character you want to play... If that means playing against type then you live with that choice, and it can make for some very interesting rp/head cannon. If your not about rp, just play the race that gives you the bonus you want. None of the races have a "disadvantage"(i.e. none of them have reduced stats/abilities based on race like you do in some rpgs including TES games) just different strengths based on racial evolution/disposition and lore.
The problem is that (whether they want to call it an MMO, or not) this is a multiplayer game, not a single player game, so it should be designed accordingly.
If they can perfectly balance racials and make them apply equally to all classes and builds, then fair enough, but they are not currently doing that.
Solo RPGs are very different from multiplayer RPGs, as you are (obviously) not competing against others.
While playing alone, you could select the "wrong" race for your chosen class/build, on purpose, in an attempt to make the game a bit harder once you know what you are doing, without harming your ability to compete.
So, even though I don't really like racials for other reasons, I have to admit that they might actually add to the flexibility of gameplay in a single player game.
You could achieve that same effect by allowing people to choose certain strengths, on an individual level, as opposed to on a racial level.
But still, the fact remains that racials are one way of allowing people to build for, or against, type when they are playing alone.
Whereas, you can't (or shouldn't) just leave balance to chance, in a multiplayer game, because most people will feel forced to optimise, in a way they wouldn't when playing alone.
Meaning racials typically remove choice and flexibility, more than they add to it, in a multiplayer game like ESO.
Assuming you are playing it as a multiplayer, as opposed to purely as a solo RPG, of course.
Which you have to assume most people are, as it is not marketed as a solo player game and there is a lot of group content.
I'm not seeing your point. If you're playing it for competition then you pick the race that's BiS, just like gear and skills. Your not asking for all gear and skills to be exactly the same, why ask for races? If your playing it as an rpg and not trying to push scoreboards... pick the race you want. The difference in numbers won't be a pass/fail for endgame content.
My point is that min/maxers will always feel obliged to choose the best race/class/build combo.
That means that they are left with only one optimal "choice" per class/build.
Maybe you don't think they need to do that do that, but they think they do.
You don't need to ask for all gear and skills to be exactly the same.
As, assuming they are properly balanced (and let's not get into that can of worms, here!), people can generally choose which ones they prefer, without then having another "choice" effectively decided for them, if they want to optimise.
It's really not rocket science...
Racials reduce choice, for people who like/feel obliged to optimise and therefore, make for a more boring multiplayer game for all of us.
As it is more interesting to see a wide variety of race/class/build combos, rather than the same ones almost all the time (especially at endgame).
Ok let's try this a different way...
1. Remove all racial passives and everybody plays what ever race they think is pretty/interesting/whatever. So now the only diversity is appearance? The same dps builds will be the exact same at the competitive level with BiS gear/skills. The only difference is now you get to look like a cat instead of a lizard. That's not build diversity, that's a skin.
2. If we pick our passives as suggested then you get the same problem -people will pick the best passives for their build. They will be the same 3 or 4 skills for a stam build, the same 3 or 4 skills for mag build and then slap whatever skin of a race they want on the character. No diversity other than appearance.
3. Non combat racials only. This one is tricky... What's non combat? Orc movement bonus could be considered an advantage in pvp, so it'd have to go. Stealth is obviously combat related so it's gone. Ditto with stealth detection and any resistances. Can't improve alchemy/potions/poisons use. Food/drink buffs are gone. Could maybe get away with extra crafting xp, swim speed, and skill line xp since these don't directly affect combat but that's about it.
My point is: the only build diversity you are going to get are from players like myself who don't care what the meta is as long as they can complete content on a character we find interesting/fun. Because endgame competitors are going to min/max no matter what. They're looking for the best math possible. Nothing wrong with that, but that choice has consequences just like playing an orc magicka char. If we can live with our choice of having a "suboptimal" build for an interesting character shouldn't they be able to live with a "suboptimal" appearance for an optimal build?
I think they mean by non combat related skills, they mean skills that are not directly used in combat. In other words, by combat related they mean abilities used to either tank a boss, dps a boss, or heal.
Swim speed, stealth, run speed (which does not make a lot of sense on an orc, but whatever) etc, can technically be used in battle but they don’t directly effect mitigation, damage or heals.
Increase in stam, or mag, or regen during combat are directly combat related.
Fall damage reduction, while useful in some fights, is not.
When parsers figure out best dps class/race combos, they generally are standing still in front of a test dummy, so all those movement abilities are not a factor neither are resistances (which the combat team got wrong too, but again, whatever).
I think in general people want to play the race/class combo they want without “feeling” like they got penalized. If someone wants to tank on a high elf or bosmer, they should feel just as effective as any other race. Right now the passives are not doing that.
Many players are coming from standard ES games where race did not matter, here It kinda does and that does not sit well.
UGotBenched91 wrote: »Do you like having Racial Skills? Why or why not?
I’m not a big fan as I think it hinders the diversity of the game. Yes, you can play what you want but sometimes it puts you at a disadvantage. I’m running a Orc Magicka Necro and while it still works it is at an disadvantage when you look at the Min and Max.
willjones1122 wrote: »willjones1122 wrote: »willjones1122 wrote: »willjones1122 wrote: »For those saying this is an mmo, not a tes game you're leaving out three letters: rpg. I come from a D&D background. Racial bonuses have always been a thing in fantasy rpg. You pick your race based on the character you want to play... If that means playing against type then you live with that choice, and it can make for some very interesting rp/head cannon. If your not about rp, just play the race that gives you the bonus you want. None of the races have a "disadvantage"(i.e. none of them have reduced stats/abilities based on race like you do in some rpgs including TES games) just different strengths based on racial evolution/disposition and lore.
The problem is that (whether they want to call it an MMO, or not) this is a multiplayer game, not a single player game, so it should be designed accordingly.
If they can perfectly balance racials and make them apply equally to all classes and builds, then fair enough, but they are not currently doing that.
Solo RPGs are very different from multiplayer RPGs, as you are (obviously) not competing against others.
While playing alone, you could select the "wrong" race for your chosen class/build, on purpose, in an attempt to make the game a bit harder once you know what you are doing, without harming your ability to compete.
So, even though I don't really like racials for other reasons, I have to admit that they might actually add to the flexibility of gameplay in a single player game.
You could achieve that same effect by allowing people to choose certain strengths, on an individual level, as opposed to on a racial level.
But still, the fact remains that racials are one way of allowing people to build for, or against, type when they are playing alone.
Whereas, you can't (or shouldn't) just leave balance to chance, in a multiplayer game, because most people will feel forced to optimise, in a way they wouldn't when playing alone.
Meaning racials typically remove choice and flexibility, more than they add to it, in a multiplayer game like ESO.
Assuming you are playing it as a multiplayer, as opposed to purely as a solo RPG, of course.
Which you have to assume most people are, as it is not marketed as a solo player game and there is a lot of group content.
I'm not seeing your point. If you're playing it for competition then you pick the race that's BiS, just like gear and skills. Your not asking for all gear and skills to be exactly the same, why ask for races? If your playing it as an rpg and not trying to push scoreboards... pick the race you want. The difference in numbers won't be a pass/fail for endgame content.
My point is that min/maxers will always feel obliged to choose the best race/class/build combo.
That means that they are left with only one optimal "choice" per class/build.
Maybe you don't think they need to do that do that, but they think they do.
You don't need to ask for all gear and skills to be exactly the same.
As, assuming they are properly balanced (and let's not get into that can of worms, here!), people can generally choose which ones they prefer, without then having another "choice" effectively decided for them, if they want to optimise.
It's really not rocket science...
Racials reduce choice, for people who like/feel obliged to optimise and therefore, make for a more boring multiplayer game for all of us.
As it is more interesting to see a wide variety of race/class/build combos, rather than the same ones almost all the time (especially at endgame).
Ok let's try this a different way...
1. Remove all racial passives and everybody plays what ever race they think is pretty/interesting/whatever. So now the only diversity is appearance? The same dps builds will be the exact same at the competitive level with BiS gear/skills. The only difference is now you get to look like a cat instead of a lizard. That's not build diversity, that's a skin.
2. If we pick our passives as suggested then you get the same problem -people will pick the best passives for their build. They will be the same 3 or 4 skills for a stam build, the same 3 or 4 skills for mag build and then slap whatever skin of a race they want on the character. No diversity other than appearance.
3. Non combat racials only. This one is tricky... What's non combat? Orc movement bonus could be considered an advantage in pvp, so it'd have to go. Stealth is obviously combat related so it's gone. Ditto with stealth detection and any resistances. Can't improve alchemy/potions/poisons use. Food/drink buffs are gone. Could maybe get away with extra crafting xp, swim speed, and skill line xp since these don't directly affect combat but that's about it.
My point is: the only build diversity you are going to get are from players like myself who don't care what the meta is as long as they can complete content on a character we find interesting/fun. Because endgame competitors are going to min/max no matter what. They're looking for the best math possible. Nothing wrong with that, but that choice has consequences just like playing an orc magicka char. If we can live with our choice of having a "suboptimal" build for an interesting character shouldn't they be able to live with a "suboptimal" appearance for an optimal build?
I think they mean by non combat related skills, they mean skills that are not directly used in combat. In other words, by combat related they mean abilities used to either tank a boss, dps a boss, or heal.
Swim speed, stealth, run speed (which does not make a lot of sense on an orc, but whatever) etc, can technically be used in battle but they don’t directly effect mitigation, damage or heals.
Increase in stam, or mag, or regen during combat are directly combat related.
Fall damage reduction, while useful in some fights, is not.
When parsers figure out best dps class/race combos, they generally are standing still in front of a test dummy, so all those movement abilities are not a factor neither are resistances (which the combat team got wrong too, but again, whatever).
I think in general people want to play the race/class combo they want without “feeling” like they got penalized. If someone wants to tank on a high elf or bosmer, they should feel just as effective as any other race. Right now the passives are not doing that.
Many players are coming from standard ES games where race did not matter, here It kinda does and that does not sit well.
I understand but respectfully disagree.
For movement based racials they are directly related to combat in PVP. we are talking competitive endgame so it's ALL competitive endgame or none.
Plus if the only racial that could affect pve scoreboards is speed all other things being equal (which it does, because if you can get to the mobs faster you can down them faster and thus improve your time) i guarantee that would be the new meta.
Also "feeling" penalized isn't the same as being penalized. They are bonuses. Heck Elves in d&d (for example) got a bonus dex but took a hit to their constitution. That's a penalty. Thus you are actually being penalized.
You can be an effective tank/dps/healer as a bosmer (or whatever race). Effective doesn't have to mean top of the charts. You want to be the best at tanking in a video game?
Then play super meta tank, crunch numbers, then buy a skin if you don't want tusks. But removal/homogenization of racial passives doesn't encourage build diversity and saying that it does is a complete fallacy. It's not a build if it doesn't have an effect on the game. My non combat pet is not a part of my build, my race should be.
My point still stands: min/maxers are going to min/max no matter what the meta is. Your only chance for build diversity (which is what tiger was saying they wanted) comes from players who don't chase the meta but can still clear content.
Oh and ps. Race absolutely mattered in TES games. Bonuses and active skills made the game harder/easier and race (and class) could actually affect outcomes of certain dialogues and quests.
willjones1122 wrote: »willjones1122 wrote: »willjones1122 wrote: »For those saying this is an mmo, not a tes game you're leaving out three letters: rpg. I come from a D&D background. Racial bonuses have always been a thing in fantasy rpg. You pick your race based on the character you want to play... If that means playing against type then you live with that choice, and it can make for some very interesting rp/head cannon. If your not about rp, just play the race that gives you the bonus you want. None of the races have a "disadvantage"(i.e. none of them have reduced stats/abilities based on race like you do in some rpgs including TES games) just different strengths based on racial evolution/disposition and lore.
The problem is that (whether they want to call it an MMO, or not) this is a multiplayer game, not a single player game, so it should be designed accordingly.
If they can perfectly balance racials and make them apply equally to all classes and builds, then fair enough, but they are not currently doing that.
Solo RPGs are very different from multiplayer RPGs, as you are (obviously) not competing against others.
While playing alone, you could select the "wrong" race for your chosen class/build, on purpose, in an attempt to make the game a bit harder once you know what you are doing, without harming your ability to compete.
So, even though I don't really like racials for other reasons, I have to admit that they might actually add to the flexibility of gameplay in a single player game.
You could achieve that same effect by allowing people to choose certain strengths, on an individual level, as opposed to on a racial level.
But still, the fact remains that racials are one way of allowing people to build for, or against, type when they are playing alone.
Whereas, you can't (or shouldn't) just leave balance to chance, in a multiplayer game, because most people will feel forced to optimise, in a way they wouldn't when playing alone.
Meaning racials typically remove choice and flexibility, more than they add to it, in a multiplayer game like ESO.
Assuming you are playing it as a multiplayer, as opposed to purely as a solo RPG, of course.
Which you have to assume most people are, as it is not marketed as a solo player game and there is a lot of group content.
I'm not seeing your point. If you're playing it for competition then you pick the race that's BiS, just like gear and skills. Your not asking for all gear and skills to be exactly the same, why ask for races? If your playing it as an rpg and not trying to push scoreboards... pick the race you want. The difference in numbers won't be a pass/fail for endgame content.
My point is that min/maxers will always feel obliged to choose the best race/class/build combo.
That means that they are left with only one optimal "choice" per class/build.
Maybe you don't think they need to do that do that, but they think they do.
You don't need to ask for all gear and skills to be exactly the same.
As, assuming they are properly balanced (and let's not get into that can of worms, here!), people can generally choose which ones they prefer, without then having another "choice" effectively decided for them, if they want to optimise.
It's really not rocket science...
Racials reduce choice, for people who like/feel obliged to optimise and therefore, make for a more boring multiplayer game for all of us.
As it is more interesting to see a wide variety of race/class/build combos, rather than the same ones almost all the time (especially at endgame).
Ok let's try this a different way...
1. Remove all racial passives and everybody plays what ever race they think is pretty/interesting/whatever. So now the only diversity is appearance? The same dps builds will be the exact same at the competitive level with BiS gear/skills. The only difference is now you get to look like a cat instead of a lizard. That's not build diversity, that's a skin.
2. If we pick our passives as suggested then you get the same problem -people will pick the best passives for their build. They will be the same 3 or 4 skills for a stam build, the same 3 or 4 skills for mag build and then slap whatever skin of a race they want on the character. No diversity other than appearance.
3. Non combat racials only. This one is tricky... What's non combat? Orc movement bonus could be considered an advantage in pvp, so it'd have to go. Stealth is obviously combat related so it's gone. Ditto with stealth detection and any resistances. Can't improve alchemy/potions/poisons use. Food/drink buffs are gone. Could maybe get away with extra crafting xp, swim speed, and skill line xp since these don't directly affect combat but that's about it.
My point is: the only build diversity you are going to get are from players like myself who don't care what the meta is as long as they can complete content on a character we find interesting/fun. Because endgame competitors are going to min/max no matter what. They're looking for the best math possible. Nothing wrong with that, but that choice has consequences just like playing an orc magicka char. If we can live with our choice of having a "suboptimal" build for an interesting character shouldn't they be able to live with a "suboptimal" appearance for an optimal build?
Racial passives are a part of ESO history, I don't mind them.
But historicaly, they were made to reflect the race's historical strength and weaknesses, not to hinder gameplay. And well, they were actually pretty decent.
Here, we have "Bosmers are great guards, they can spot hiding thinghs that don't even exist in PvE" instead of their normal stealth, Argonians everywhere in the world telling you how good they are at resisting poison while not having any poison resistance whatsoever, and Altmer mages regenerating stamina.
If we are to have such completely botched racial passives, might as well not have any.